santy001 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Very new to this so need to find out what that means Only been doing this since Friday evening! Read up on it then an decided to give it a go. My system was OCed at time of build to 3.4 (bought it Jan 2009) but I went into the bios and set it back to stock a few months back because it kept freezing. I then replaced the thermal compound, replaced a few fans and gave it a deep clean. I decided now its all stable again to OC it back up. I read a few articles online and played a little then tried it yesterday and got to 3.6, then 3.8 today. I downloaded a few programs to test stability and some to OC the graphics card too. I optimised that this morning. There is A LOT I still have to learn but I am not sure how to know if I can get to a higher clock speed. I have an old one of these http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Asetek-Low-Cost-Liquid-Cooling-LCLC/388 and it does a decent job. EDIT: If it is the "Revision" section in CPUZ then its C0, sorry for not knowing mate Yea, the revision section for mine says D0, unfortunately the C0 doesn't have quite as much potential with overclocking as the D0. The whole reasons of why and how I don't know, generally the C0 is limited to 3.6 - 3.8ghz in its OC's the D0 has been pushed as high as 5ghz by some. Just the way it breaks down because of something in the chip design/manufacture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
remmah Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I gave this a go and got CPU: Intel Core I7 2600k CPU Frequency: 4428 MHz RAM: 8gb DDR3 824 MHz OS: Win 7 64bit22 Time: 3:47:999 Air cooled Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarathustra82 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Here we go: CPU: Intel Core I7 3930K CPU Frequency: 4290 MHz RAM: 32gb DDR3 1600 MHz OS: Win 7 64bit Time: 4:12 Corsair H100 WaterCooling Kit Apparently, It's a matter of Highest CPU Frequency. It doesn't matter if it's dual/quad/hexa core CPU. It would be really good if SI could make the application use as many cores as possible efficiently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafino Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Here we go:CPU: Intel Core I7 3930K CPU Frequency: 4290 MHz RAM: 32gb DDR3 1600 MHz OS: Win 7 64bit Time: 4:12 Corsair H100 WaterCooling Kit Apparently, It's a matter of Highest CPU Frequency. It doesn't matter if it's dual/quad/hexa core CPU. It would be really good if SI could make the application use as many cores as possible efficiently. I think this is the case aswell, my 2.3Ghz returned 11.5 minutes :/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Generally the C0 is limited to 3.6 - 3.8ghz in its OC's the D0 has been pushed as high as 5ghz by some. Just the way it breaks down because of something in the chip design/manufacture. Well I am happy to have 3.8 running very stable and at decent temps, ie 70C and below. I guess it means I can leave it there and use it as I have no need to have a CPU at above 3.8 for day to day gaming. Mine is such an old i7, having ordered it only a month or two after it was 1st available. I will leave it where it is and maybe one day in the future I will buy a new CPU and clock high for fun... and probably a new PSU as it might strain it a bit! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 This has got me thinking, many other games have benchmarking tools or tests that report back FPS, SI could easily make something, collect the data and use it to make some improvements or give the user feedback on speed... nothing like seeing how the average PC handles it, not the ones used in the offices. Maybe even have the ability to rank it as an incentive to get people to send the data in! I think SI can actually even get some info just from this thread, its real world data like this that can make a big difference! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 I gave this a go and gotCPU: Intel Core I7 2600k CPU Frequency: 4428 MHz RAM: 8gb DDR3 824 MHz OS: Win 7 64bit22 Time: 3:47:999 Air cooled Could you please re-run the test. Your result is extremely good for that frequency, perhaps hyperthreading plays important role. FM is on Intel's list of games that benefit from HT. Also, what is your RAM frequency, as 824 MHz is too low for DDR3? 1648 maybe? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 First AMD Bulldozer results are in (thanks to kull from benchmark.rs): CPU: AMD FX-8150 CPU Frequency: 4515 MHz RAM: 8gb DDR3 2000 MHz OS: Win 7 64bit Time: 5 min 2 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 First AMD Bulldozer results are in (thanks to kull from benchmark.rs):CPU: AMD FX-8150 CPU Frequency: 4515 MHz RAM: 8gb DDR3 2000 MHz OS: Win 7 64bit Time: 5 min 2 sec I am surprised how similar that is to my aging i7 @ 3.8 which got 5 min 07 sec with slower ram! Dont forget to add my new one in post 46 and all the others, we are collecting some really good data! I cannot OC my i7 920 (C0) any further... WONT shell out for a new CPU just for this... HONEST! PS anyone got any pics of their rigs? We could do a neat little modders contest! Mine is a mess with cabling but still looks cool with the lights an all, prob needs another thread in the OTF or summat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 CPU: Intel i7 920CPU Frequency: 3600 MHz RAM: 6GB 1600 MHz OS: Win 7 64-bit Time: 5 min 25 sec A rather strange set of numbers for me, I even ran the test 3 times & only had a 2 second variance. CPU: Intel i7 920 CPU Frequency: 3800 MHz RAM: 6GB 1333 MHz OS: Win 7 64-bit Time: 4 min 32 sec Either I have missed a step on the test run or by luck more than design I have eek'd out even more performance from my rig than I anticipated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robzilla Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 We have a winner!!! (the slowest is the winner right?) CPU: Dual CPU Intel Xeon CPU Frequency: 3600MHz RAM: 4GB 800 MHz OS: Win 7 64-bit Time: 14 min 03 sec Bit disappointed with that to be honest, I know the RAM is slow (PC3200) and the 800MHz FSB is a bottleneck but there's 2 x Intel Xeons running at 3.6GHz each with HT, so 4 logical processors at 3.6GHz is (in theory at least) 14.4GHz! (OK I know it doesn't work quite like that!) On top of that, two 10k rpm SCSI hard drives set up in a mirrored array, hard drives don't come much faster than that.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 A rather strange set of numbers for me, I even ran the test 3 times & only had a 2 second variance.CPU: Intel i7 920 CPU Frequency: 3800 MHz RAM: 6GB 1333 MHz OS: Win 7 64-bit Time: 4 min 32 sec Either I have missed a step on the test run or by luck more than design I have eek'd out even more performance from my rig than I anticipated. Only 30 odd seconds faster than my best time with the same CPU speed. Mine is a very old creaky i7 so maybe yours is a more recent version, I also have turbo boost off as mine is a C0 version, not a D0 which could handle turbo boost on at that clock. The other surprising times are the two i7 930s clocking in similar times, someone obviously knows how to get more out of a CPU than just its clock speed! The only difference between the 920 and the 930 is a slightly different stock clock. I guess I must be the person doing something wrong if i7 930 and other 920 users are beating me by half a minute with the same clock speeds, then again I have only been OCing since Friday so I am very new to it all! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I hadn't noticed the other 920/930 results, these little beggars never cease to amaze me, so much bang for so little buck. After more than 2 years I'd have expected my system to be ready for some minor upgrades but other than my gxf not being able to run BF3 on max detail I can probably go another year without considering any hardware upgrades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Mine is very nearly 3 years old so maybe thats why im 30 seconds behind, unless you got any other ideas! I am also at 3800 Mhz and RAM is 1600 but time is only 5 mins 07 seconds! If you have any suggestions they are more than welcome! All I have done is tweaked the base clock up, tweaked the voltages a tad and tested its stable for a few hours and that was it I know total OC newb Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 I have seen this thread linked to quite a bit recently, well done OP for your great idea! It was also good not to put names to speeds, this isnt a competition... honest it wasnt for me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Svenc Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Here we go:Apparently, It's a matter of Highest CPU Frequency. It doesn't matter if it's dual/quad/hexa core CPU. It would be really good if SI could make the application use as many cores as possible efficiently. Untrue. I don't know how this save is set up, but unlike the majority of video games out there, the full detail match sim of FM grabs any core and thread it can. As for everything else though, probably not so much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pR!M8 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 CPU Frequency: 3825 MHz RAM: 4GB 900 MHz OS: Win 7 64-bit Time: 5 min 56 sec The higher frequency from my overclock definitely makes a difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Yup, clock speed does make a difference against similar processors where RAM does not seem to for similar processors. I think the OP will come along soon as there are up to 8 scores since my one which has not been listed, my i7 920 @ 3.8 doing it in jus over 5 mins. A 200Mhz clock increase took nearly half a minute off my score! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 Results updated. I would really like to see some more 2600K results. They should perform very well, thanks to hyperthreading, but second placed 3930K also has HT, with even more threads, and is still behind by almost half minute, because of slower clock? More 2600K and 3930K results should clarify this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 The 3930K result seems too slow, I suspect that the test file has not used its strengths &/or that rig has a major bottleneck which is stunting the CPU's performance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 The 3930K result seems too slow, I suspect that the test file has not used its strengths &/or that rig has a major bottleneck which is stunting the CPU's performance. Can I ask what i7 you have Barside? Mine is the old C0 stepping, I have been puzzling for ages trying to work out why your time is 30 seconds faster than mine where we basically have the same CPU. PM if you think you might know whats going on as I would love to try and get more out my system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie~ Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 CPU : AMD Phenom II x4 840 CPU frequency : 3.2ghz Memory : 4gig 1600mhz OS : Win7 64bit Time : 7mins 50secs About expected for low end cpu. Nice thread idea OP btw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmpillow Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 CPU: Intel Core i3 2100 CPU Frequency: 3100 MHz RAM: 4GB 1333 MHz OS: Win 7 64-bit Time: 5 min 37 sec Pretty pleased with that considering I have a budget build. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 nice one, fmpillow, it does highlight how much better the new generation i3/5/7s are as my i7 920, one of the very first ones I must add, only bettered that by half a minute! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
comadrin Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Thank you for a good tread, helped me to decide what computer i did buy. Config 1 CPU: Intel core 2 duo E8500 CPU Frequency: 3800 MHz RAM: 8GB OS: Vista Time: 6 min 15 sec Config 2 Laptop CPU: Intel core i7-2670qm 2200 MHz CPU Frequency: 2200 MHz @ 2900 MHz RAM: 4GB OS: Win 7 Home Premium Time: 5 min 45 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexyfoot Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Just a small correction. On the 480M entry the RAM is 1333MHz, not 1067, don't know why I wrote the opposite, lol. 2670QM in 5:45 - who said laptops will never match desktops? It seems laptops roughly catch-up a just couple of years after desktops reach a certain level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
treble_yell_:-) Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 CPU:Intel Core i5 2500k CPU Frequency: OC'd to 4400 MHz RAM: 4GB 800 MHz OS: Win 7 64bit Time: 4m 40s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davehanson Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Does anyone have the save game still, would love to give this a go, but meagupload isn't open for business anymore! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 Reuploaded: http://www.filesonic.com/file/wXZyWnQ/SPEED_TEST.rar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davehanson Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Reuploaded:http://www.filesonic.com/file/wXZyWnQ/SPEED_TEST.rar Can't download from there without a premium account, won't allow it for UK users: You may have reached this page due to a known problem with some UK ISPs. You may contact your ISP for support.An alternative is to buy a FileSonic Premium account. Click here to join now. (ref: cpc1-bigg3-2-0-cust242.9-2.cable.virginmedia.com)If the problem persists, clear your cookies and try again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 What about these: http://www.wupload.com/file/2649529507/SPEED_TEST.rar http://www.uploadstation.com/file/ezyy4bm/SPEED_TEST.rar Fileserve: SPEED TEST.rar File size: 87.13 MB ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davehanson Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Yeah, that's cool. Fileserve worked for me, thanks. Will be back with a few results! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davehanson Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 CPU: Intel i7 930 CPU Frequency: 3700MHz RAM: 6GB 1600 MHz OS: Win 7 64bit Time: 4m 42s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 CPU: Intel i7 930CPU Frequency: 3700MHz RAM: 6GB 1600 MHz OS: Win 7 64bit Time: 4m 42s Pretty impressive time there! outperforms others similar and supposedly slightly superior. I guess there is more to the time than just processor type and clock speed. There must be an effect of other components in the system. Maybe the motherboard is having an effect? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davehanson Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 CPU: Intel i7 3960X CPU Frequency: 4400MHz RAM: 16GB 1600 MHz OS: Win 7 64bit Time: 3m 19s This isn't my PC, but just wanted to see exactly what £3k could do! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davehanson Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Pretty impressive time there! outperforms others similar and supposedly slightly superior. I guess there is more to the time than just processor type and clock speed. There must be an effect of other components in the system. Maybe the motherboard is having an effect? It is a quick system, slightly over-voltaged RAM, and 2x SSD's. I wouldn't have thought the MB is an effect, unless other people are using really cheap ones, which is unlikely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 CPU: Intel i7 3960XCPU Frequency: 4400MHz RAM: 16GB 1600 MHz OS: Win 7 64bit Time: 3m 19s This isn't my PC, but just wanted to see exactly what £3k could do! Sounds like a sweet system, any pics? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davehanson Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Sorry mate, not my PC. Will get him to take some and post them up for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eblees Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Got a new system CPU: Intel i7 2600k CPU Frequency: 4430MHz RAM: 16GB 1600 MHz OS: Win 7 64bit Time: 3m 27s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slawbawn Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Has anyone had a chance to test AMD Black Edition - AMD FX 3.6 GHz Quad Core Processor? Will be in my new PC along with 8GB of 1600MHz RAM when I get around to building it and I'm interested to know what FM speeds will be like Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
porthillshrew Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Has anyone had a chance to test AMD Black Edition - AMD FX 3.6 GHz Quad Core Processor? Will be in my new PC along with 8GB of 1600MHz RAM when I get around to building it and I'm interested to know what FM speeds will be like Should be able to possibly tomorrow when I get mine built. This is what is going into it: click here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosod Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 None of the links seems to work anymore. Can someone reupload the save? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosod Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Got a working download link from yugo23: http://depositfiles.com/files/52vl64k8h CPU: Intel i7 2600k CPU Frequency: 4500 MHz RAM: 16 GB 800 MHz OS: Win 7 64bit Time: 3 min 58 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
penza Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Mac in theory should be 10 times better than PC wouldn't it? with an SSD drive even more so Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Mac in theory should be 10 times better than PC wouldn't it? with an SSD drive even more so Nope. That is all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Table updated with all remaining results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I now want a 3000 series i7. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forzamr_b Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9950 processorCPU Frequency: 2.83 GHz RAM: 4GB 800 MHz OS: Win 7 64 bit Time: 7 min 09 sec Played in window mode, ran it in the background for a while, whilst I browsed the net. I've noticed detial level is set to default. Maybe setting it to maximum would be better for benchmarking? Awesome thread by the way! Recently upgraded my PC. Here's my new specs and test results: CPU: Intel i7-3770 CPU Frequency: 3.4 GHz RAM: 8GB 1600 MHz OS: Win 7 64 bit Time: 4 min 40 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 4m 40s? This test is starting to demonstrate a fatal flaw by not having fixtures processed in full detail as that's 8s slower than my 920 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted June 14, 2012 Author Share Posted June 14, 2012 Whether it's a flaw or not is debatable. Default setting in FM is that even the league where you're managing is not set to full detail. I believe many people never even change these settings. i7 3770 is also 400 MHz slower. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.