*Official* Smiles Benchmark Ranking Thread!

Perkomate

Perkomate

Active Member
I'm going to have to give this a go. Going for a shot at second-fastest Intel.
-edit-
wierd, it's saying that I'm taking 27 seconds. I'll try disabling speedstep.
 
Last edited:
Virssagòn

Virssagòn

VIP Member
Perkomate said:
I'm going to have to give this a go. Going for a shot at second-fastest Intel.
-edit-
wierd, it's saying that I'm taking 27 seconds. I'll try disabling speedstep.
Click to expand...

you need to run the 64bit version!
you got nice ram!
speedstep doesn't do anything, had it on when I tested.
Make sure you got a 64bit system
 
Virssagòn

Virssagòn

VIP Member
difference between temps from prime 95(torture test, max heating) and the smiles benchmark that will release in a day!
(voltages were the same, all cores used and cpu usages under 30% at the 2 tests.)

tempscomparison.jpg
 
ScottALot

ScottALot

Active Member
No overclock, stock i7-930. Very consistent benchmark as it was close to your stock i7-920. I'll get this overclocked again later... too hot, damnit.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    12.2 KB · Views: 40
FuryRosewood

FuryRosewood

Active Member
that doesnt make sense...i just ran it and it did a 5.4 on a phenom ii quad, a i7 should mop the floor with a Phenom ii quad
 
FuryRosewood

FuryRosewood

Active Member
even dual threaded, it shouldnt matter, though the i7 920s clock is a little low...i guess thats whats going on, i still know a w3550 mops the floor with my 955 at 3.6ghz with his being at 3.06ghz.
 
Okedokey

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
S3AnD3 said:
Nice wallpaper. Although you probably should've cropped it so it was only the diaglog box you could see.
Click to expand...

Everyone has basically complimented it. If mods consider it a breach ill take it down immediately, but to be honest, there would be very few people on this server that would find it objectionable. You cant see anything more than a beach volleyball player at the Olympics ;) Its also funny that each of you have re-posted the pic via quote ;) lol


To the OP:

If its only dual threaded, then make a version that runs 4 instances at once. Surely one of you clever folk can make that happen?? :) Also make it run the workloads constantly for 30 seconds. This is both more representative and statistically comparable. As it stands the benchmark is a wild guess.

On the positive, I think it is really impressive that such young people are so clever!
 
Last edited:
Okedokey

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
Also can we update the leaderboard please?

Bigfellla 3.79 seconds.

Btw good job lads, nice collaboration! (i lol'd at the copyright). :)
 
jonnyp11

jonnyp11

New Member
S3AnD3 said:
Here's mine.
Untitled-3.png

It's an Acer Aspire 5740.

Intel Core i5 2.26 GHz I think.

4GB of RAM.
Click to expand...

you ran the 32-bit version, run the 64 for a sub 10 sec time.

and bigfella, i think they said they're releasing the updated, better on tomorrow.
 
Okedokey

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
Something is wrong with the benchmark or your computer if it takes 10 times as long for an i5 to do it than an i7 or phenom.

This benchmark is invalid until it runs for 30 secs on at least 4 cores.
 
Okedokey

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
jonnyp11 said:
you ran the 32-bit version, run the 64 for a sub 10 sec time.

and bigfella, i think they said they're releasing the updated, better on tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Posted at the same time ;)

Yeah ok, cool, thats good !! Respect to the developers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top