Black Hole V2

Untitled-129.png


I would try to run at 4.9, but I don't want to blow something up. Its like 120*F in here and its running danger hot as is.
 
On mine, the multi keeps all 8 cores at 100%. Seems to be fine.

The single thread, one core jumps between 70 and 100%. Three other cores run between 3 and 10%, then randomly one of the other three will jump up to 70 to 100% then just drop back off to between 3 and 10%. Seems the single threaded one need alittle work.
 
noticed it too. They still have not figured out how to lock it to one core. It would perform much better if they could lock cores, or have it ported to C++ so that they could lock the core usage.
 
wolfeking said:
noticed it too. They still have not figured out how to lock it to one core. It would perform much better if they could lock cores, or have it ported to C++ so that they could lock the core usage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the single threaded one should use one core. If its using more then one and at that using another three at different % rates. Cant really be called a single threaded.
 
true. Even back when they had the 4 thread and 8thread version it would jump cores like that and performed much better when you locked the processor to 4 threads. But I agree, it is not using one thread so it can not be called single threaded.
 
Yeah the other 4 threaded one on mine used 6 cores. 4 of them like this one hit 70 to 100% and the other 2 was around 30 to 60 %.

Edit
Might be best just to have a full multi threaded one. If it runs all cores 100%, it would be a better way of knowing the true differences between architectures no matter how many cores you have. If you have a single threaded benchmark and it uses more then one core. You cant really tell if the difference between architectures is real or not.
 
Last edited:
During the first test, at the end, the cores were jumping all over the place. And on the 2nd test, my 2nd core was at 100%, and other cores jumping around. About halfway through, it switched to the 3rd core 100%, with no other activity on the other cores.

dqvk5.png
 
i5 2500K @ 4.3GHz

tumblr_m93j68Hdrh1rr8jsmo1_1280.png


Smile, if you can send me over the Visual Studio files again, can I please correct some of your English?
 
I think this one needs some work. I got almost double what claptonman got clocked 100mhz less with just 2 more cores/8120 clocked 100mhz slower vs. 6100. Plus I dont see how spirit 2500 beat wolfeking 2600.
 
StrangleHold said:
I think this one needs some work. I got almost double what claptonman got clocked 100mhz less with just 2 more cores/8120 clocked 100mhz slower vs. 6100. Plus I dont see how spirit 2500 beat wolfeking 2600.
Click to expand...

I've beaten a 3930K now too, and the 3930K was overclocked.

Going to run it again and see how I do. Seems odd my 2500K is beating a 2600K and especially a 3930K!
 
Seems a bit more believable, but I ran it once and got like 630 points but that was whilst playing music and doing other stuff, so I left the computer and ran it again and got this.

BlackHolev2.png


4.3GHz by the way, I leave SpeedStep on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top