Geekbench Your Computer! - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

FanIn80 · 03-25-2010, 09:40 PM

All you did was add more RAM storage. That wouldn't have a significant impact on this test, unless you didn't have enough RAM to run the test in the first place.

Also, I notice it's not reporting the model info for your processor. I wonder if some of you guys who are missing cores are installing your proper chipset drivers for your motherboard? Assuming, of course, that those drivers would have anything to do with proper processor detection...

Edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

Yeah even my report says only two cores, and I know for a fact that all four work fine.

Guess we can scratch the "improper chipset driver" suggestion then.

photon · 03-25-2010, 09:49 PM

Yeah probably, though it's been a while since I've updated. I think their database just is messed up.

Hack&Lube · 03-25-2010, 09:58 PM

I just noticed my 4 cores are reported as 2 by this test (4 threads though)

The test is broken.

I submit we run 3DMark06 or Vantage instead :P Let's see those dual Xeons beat a home gaming PC.

FanIn80 · 03-25-2010, 10:01 PM

Yeah... actually, I was going to ask if anyone had some better tests to run. I forgot to add that to my initial post though. Someone else had mentioned some earlier tests too and I was wondering which ones they were running.

Anyway, are there some better (free) benchmarks we can run? Keep in mind that most people won't want to install something that's going to add a bunch of background processes etc. That's one of the reasons I like Geekbench. It just does what you want it to do and closes when you tell it to.

Edit: Holy crap. 500MB download for 3D Mark?

Hack&Lube · 03-25-2010, 10:26 PM

3DMark06 is free but quite large and is probably the one that most people could run.

3DMark Vantage is only for DirectX 10 and up and the same for Unigen's benchmarks.

There's SiSoft Sandra but I don't know if there is a free version of that.

I mostly only know actual "big" benchmarking tools and not small free ones like geekbench. Most 3D benchmarking programs are quite big because they basically have all the resources of full games.

BlackArcher101 · 03-25-2010, 10:48 PM

Ya, I confirm my duo cores works as 2. I monitor it on my sidebar all the time and it's always getting a thorough workout. If the geekbench test is flawed, this may explain my low test result then.

Hack&Lube · 03-25-2010, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Ya, I confirm my duo cores works as 2. I monitor it on my sidebar all the time and it's always getting a thorough workout. If the geekbench test is flawed, this may explain my low test result then.

I don't think the test results are flawed, the number of cores reported is just a text value and meaningless. It uses all your threads properly.

BlackArcher101 · 03-25-2010, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I don't think the test results are flawed, the number of cores reported is just a text value and meaningless. It uses all your threads properly.

Well then, I demand a recount!!!

This isn't helping my desire to upgrade.

SebC · 03-25-2010, 11:21 PM

Would hyperthreading give you a better score? My instinct is that it wouldn't, but I don't know much about it.

FlamingInfinity · 03-26-2010, 01:01 AM

Desktop (I was surprised)

Vulcan · 03-26-2010, 02:55 AM

I got 873 on this old Dell. Is that the worst yet?

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/232230

Hack&Lube · 03-26-2010, 03:33 AM

Intel i5s and i7s with fast ram will trounce this old test. You guys have lots of memory bandwidth.

My memory is 1066 but this test is showing it as 800 for some reason.

MonsieurFish · 03-26-2010, 07:02 AM

1255

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/232269

It's my desktop.

Laptop:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/232287

sclitheroe · 03-26-2010, 08:12 AM

Are the people reporting multiple cores missing truly running quad-core machines, or are you using a dual core machine with hyperthreading, which reports 4 cores to Windows, but only has two cores?

Burninator · 03-26-2010, 08:18 AM

I think mine is a quad core. This is the description.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Quad Core Processor LGA775 Kentsfield 2.40GHZ 1066FSB 8MB

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=29765

You Need a Thneed · 03-26-2010, 10:04 AM

2519 on my work computer.

Phaneuf3 · 03-26-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I got 873 on this old Dell. Is that the worst yet?

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/232230

Nope, my main computer (posted a while back) scored a 642. I think that's the worst so far... but I haven't run this on my laptop yet so we'll see if I can beat it.

Vulcan · 03-26-2010, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Nope, my main computer (posted a while back) scored a 642. I think that's the worst so far... but I haven't run this on my laptop yet so we'll see if I can beat it.

Darn, well it's a good enough backup to my main computer which got 2906 while missing a core.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/232322

Hack&Lube · 03-26-2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

I think mine is a quad core. This is the description.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Quad Core Processor LGA775 Kentsfield 2.40GHZ 1066FSB 8MB

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=29765

I have the exacy same processor as you. It also reports only 2 cores. I am running my Q6600 @ 3.60 GHz instead of 2.40 GHz though

QuadCityImages · 03-26-2010, 03:47 PM

Its clear that for whatever reason this test does not accurately report the number of cores.