Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Quad core benching like a dual

Reply
Thread Tools

Quad core benching like a dual

 
 
Power Obsessed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2008
The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as
performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.

The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing
that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance
results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
outside the norm.

I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
benchmark has me concerned.

Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
--
Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Carlos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2008
Hi,
What benchmarking program you are running?

You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie Russel,
"The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/arc...e-fallacy.aspx

Carlos

"Power Obsessed" wrote:

> The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as
> performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.
>
> The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing
> that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance
> results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
> outside the norm.
>
> I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
> benchmark has me concerned.
>
> Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
> --
> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Power Obsessed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2008
Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my CPU
were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was 1660
now its 850.
--
Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


"Carlos" wrote:

> Hi,
> What benchmarking program you are running?
>
> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie Russel,
> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/arc...e-fallacy.aspx
>
> Carlos
>
> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
>
> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as
> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.
> >
> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing
> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance
> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
> > outside the norm.
> >
> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
> > benchmark has me concerned.
> >
> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
> > --
> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

 
Reply With Quote
 
Carlos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2008
Hi,
I would then start asking myself what changes in hardware and/or software
ocurred since the last known "good" benchmark.
Carlos

"Power Obsessed" wrote:

> Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my CPU
> were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was 1660
> now its 850.
> --
> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
>
>
> "Carlos" wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > What benchmarking program you are running?
> >
> > You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie Russel,
> > "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
> > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/arc...e-fallacy.aspx
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> > "Power Obsessed" wrote:
> >
> > > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as
> > > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.
> > >
> > > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing
> > > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance
> > > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
> > > outside the norm.
> > >
> > > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
> > > benchmark has me concerned.
> > >
> > > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
> > > --
> > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
> > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
> > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

 
Reply With Quote
 
Power Obsessed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2008
Yeah thats what I'm racking my brain about. I did update the bios but, since
then reflashed it to the old version. (due to these benchmark results). Other
than that nothing comes to mind.
--
Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


"Carlos" wrote:

> Hi,
> I would then start asking myself what changes in hardware and/or software
> ocurred since the last known "good" benchmark.
> Carlos
>
> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
>
> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my CPU
> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was 1660
> > now its 850.
> > --
> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
> >
> >
> > "Carlos" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > What benchmarking program you are running?
> > >
> > > You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie Russel,
> > > "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
> > > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/arc...e-fallacy.aspx
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > > "Power Obsessed" wrote:
> > >
> > > > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as
> > > > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.
> > > >
> > > > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing
> > > > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance
> > > > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
> > > > outside the norm.
> > > >
> > > > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
> > > > benchmark has me concerned.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
> > > > --
> > > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
> > > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
> > > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2008
You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all
programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors got
over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are
great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making the
overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't have
to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies article.

"Power Obsessed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my
> CPU
> were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was
> 1660
> now its 850.
> --
> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
>
>
> "Carlos" wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> What benchmarking program you are running?
>>
>> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
>> Russel,
>> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/arc...e-fallacy.aspx
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
>>
>> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far
>> > as
>> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being
>> > utilized.
>> >
>> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The
>> > thing
>> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
>> > performance
>> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
>> > outside the norm.
>> >
>> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
>> > benchmark has me concerned.
>> >
>> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
>> > --
>> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
>> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
>> > Nvidia
>> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


 
Reply With Quote
 
Power Obsessed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2008
Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still
doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results
from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.
(passmark). Single core and dual.
The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the
processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
--
Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


"John Barnes" wrote:

> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all
> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors got
> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are
> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making the
> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't have
> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies article.
>
> "Power Obsessed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my
> > CPU
> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was
> > 1660
> > now its 850.
> > --
> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
> >
> >
> > "Carlos" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> What benchmarking program you are running?
> >>
> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
> >> Russel,
> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/arc...e-fallacy.aspx
> >>
> >> Carlos
> >>
> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
> >>
> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far
> >> > as
> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being
> >> > utilized.
> >> >
> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The
> >> > thing
> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
> >> > performance
> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
> >> > outside the norm.
> >> >
> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
> >> > benchmark has me concerned.
> >> >
> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
> >> > --
> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
> >> > Nvidia
> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2008
If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the
author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have seen
is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device
buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.

"Power Obsessed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still
> doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results
> from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.
> (passmark). Single core and dual.
> The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the
> processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
> --
> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
>
>
> "John Barnes" wrote:
>
>> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all
>> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors
>> got
>> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are
>> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making
>> the
>> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't
>> have
>> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies
>> article.
>>
>> "Power Obsessed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my
>> > CPU
>> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was
>> > 1660
>> > now its 850.
>> > --
>> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
>> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
>> > Nvidia
>> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
>> >
>> >
>> > "Carlos" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >> What benchmarking program you are running?
>> >>
>> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
>> >> Russel,
>> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
>> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/arc...e-fallacy.aspx
>> >>
>> >> Carlos
>> >>
>> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as
>> >> > far
>> >> > as
>> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being
>> >> > utilized.
>> >> >
>> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The
>> >> > thing
>> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
>> >> > performance
>> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,
>> >> > thats
>> >> > outside the norm.
>> >> >
>> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with
>> >> > the
>> >> > benchmark has me concerned.
>> >> >
>> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
>> >> > --
>> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,
>> >> > 4gb
>> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
>> >> > Nvidia
>> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>>
>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Power Obsessed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2008
I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The bottom
line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is using
four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.
So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is it
worked VERY good and now it doesn't.

Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.
--
Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the
> author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have seen
> is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device
> buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.
>
> "Power Obsessed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still
> > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results
> > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.
> > (passmark). Single core and dual.
> > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the
> > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
> > --
> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
> >
> >
> > "John Barnes" wrote:
> >
> >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all
> >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors
> >> got
> >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are
> >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making
> >> the
> >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't
> >> have
> >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies
> >> article.
> >>
> >> "Power Obsessed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my
> >> > CPU
> >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was
> >> > 1660
> >> > now its 850.
> >> > --
> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
> >> > Nvidia
> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Carlos" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?
> >> >>
> >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
> >> >> Russel,
> >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/arc...e-fallacy.aspx
> >> >>
> >> >> Carlos
> >> >>
> >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as
> >> >> > far
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being
> >> >> > utilized.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The
> >> >> > thing
> >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
> >> >> > performance
> >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,
> >> >> > thats
> >> >> > outside the norm.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,
> >> >> > 4gb
> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
> >> >> > Nvidia
> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
> >>
> >>

>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dennis Pack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2008
Power Obsessed:
If you're using 4x1GB sticks of ram, try clocking the ram at 667mhz
or removing the stick from the 4th slot. Have a great day.

--
Dennis Pack
XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64 SP1
WHS, Office Professional Plus 2007
"Power Obsessed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The
>bottom
> line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is
> using
> four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.
> So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is
> it
> worked VERY good and now it doesn't.
>
> Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.
> --
> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
>
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>
>> If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the
>> author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have
>> seen
>> is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device
>> buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.
>>
>> "Power Obsessed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That
>> > still
>> > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the
>> > results
>> > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.
>> > (passmark). Single core and dual.
>> > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of
>> > the
>> > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
>> > --
>> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
>> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
>> > Nvidia
>> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
>> >
>> >
>> > "John Barnes" wrote:
>> >
>> >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost
>> >> all
>> >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors
>> >> got
>> >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores
>> >> are
>> >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making
>> >> the
>> >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't
>> >> have
>> >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies
>> >> article.
>> >>
>> >> "Power Obsessed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for
>> >> > my
>> >> > CPU
>> >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system
>> >> > was
>> >> > 1660
>> >> > now its 850.
>> >> > --
>> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,
>> >> > 4gb
>> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
>> >> > Nvidia
>> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Carlos" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
>> >> >> Russel,
>> >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
>> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/arc...e-fallacy.aspx
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Carlos
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as
>> >> >> > far
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE
>> >> >> > being
>> >> >> > utilized.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software.
>> >> >> > The
>> >> >> > thing
>> >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
>> >> >> > performance
>> >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,
>> >> >> > thats
>> >> >> > outside the norm.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1
>> >> >> > heatsink,
>> >> >> > 4gb
>> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor
>> >> >> > X,
>> >> >> > Nvidia
>> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
>> >>
>> >>

>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AMD Bets on Tri-Core Chips as Quad-Core Market Lags Nighthawk NZ Computing 18 11-10-2007 06:59 AM
Nice wee article on overclocking an Intel Quad core V a dual core... thingy NZ Computing 0 11-09-2007 02:42 AM
2 Dual Core 3Ghz Xeon or 2 Quad Core 2.33Ghz Xeon? Adrian Windows 64bit 5 03-19-2007 07:40 PM
When to pick quad core and when to pick dual core thingy NZ Computing 6 11-21-2006 07:08 AM
AMD quad-core - even 16-core!! GraB NZ Computing 2 06-16-2005 11:38 PM



Advertisments