Dolphin, the GameCube and Wii emulator - Forums

i have some bench if someone wants to look


Superpi super_pi_mod-1.5



Winrar 4.01


Winrar 4.20


Wprime wprime209


3dmark06


3dmark11


3dmark vantage con ppu off


7zip 9.22beta



Cinebench CINEBENCH_11.529


Passmark7 petst_x64

(06-20-2012, 07:36 AM)sixor Wrote: [ -> ]i have some bench if someone wants to look


Superpi super_pi_mod-1.5



Winrar 4.01


Winrar 4.20


Wprime wprime209


3dmark06


3dmark11


3dmark vantage con ppu off


7zip 9.22beta



Cinebench CINEBENCH_11.529


Passmark7 petst_x64

Ok I will admit they do look nice, I will not say anything more.

I use it in tons of stuff and its fast I ran everything except dolphin in full speed and its the SMG2 that doesnt run in full.

@xenowildfire next time don't quote all those pics >.>

(06-20-2012, 07:59 AM)ExtremeDude2 Wrote: [ -> ]@xenowildfire next time don't quote all those pics >.>

My bad, I will remember that next time.

more test, using the same gpu, 965be@3917 vs my ivy

(06-20-2012, 09:52 AM)sixor Wrote: [ -> ]more test, using the same gpu, 965be@3917 vs my ivy

One thing I generally dislike about benchmarks is that some of them tend not to indicate which results are better (it's not just yours sixor, I see them all over the net, though far less in magazines). I just see numbers on a chart, some are lower, some are higher. I'm not familiar with the vast range of benchmark tests, so I can't tell which ones indicate better performance, even with the % dif. If you could somehow highlight which ones are better, than would be more helpful (though I guess the Intel results are supposed to be generally better).

Quote:No it wasn't.

It was. Maybe i'm wrong and it was 1.4GHz P4 but still OCed Coppermine-128 was faster. And one thing i'm really sure - top PIII Tualatin simply raped any Willamette P4 in most real life tasks.

Could we please stop posting synthetic benchmarks as if they actually mean something? There are plenty of review sites out their filled with benchmarks done using more practical applications.

Quote:It was. Maybe i'm wrong and it was 1.4GHz P4 but still OCed Coppermine-128 was faster. And one thing i'm really sure - top PIII Tualatin simply raped any Willamette P4 in most real life tasks.

1. You're comparing a heavily OC cpu against another cpu at stock clocks, that's not exactly fair
2. It would have had to have been a tualatin chip, not coppermine
3. You would have to compare it against a 1.4 or 1.5GHz PIV, against a 1.7GHz model it would still not have stood a chance
4. Even a 1GHz celeron tualatin would only win or break even in certain types of applications

I don't know where this idea that coppermine/tualatin chips were much faster than willamette chips but it simply isn't true (at least not without huge OC near the limits of the chips potential for OCing).
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/benchmark-marathon,590-13.html

Despite everyone saying that willamette was a step backwards it was a step forwards, at least in the short term. It was just a much smaller step forwards than people were expecting and taught many people the lesson that clock rate isn't everything. Its poor reputation mainly came from how crappy it was compared to the competition from AMD at the time. Plus it turned out to be a REALLY bad long term decision for obvious reasons.

Obvious reasons?
What, it was slow and ineffiecient?
Core 2 duo came out of it so that's a win, right?