[-Adrian]

Benchwell 1.7

I know i know, shame on me. So much stuff went haywire, like a dozen major catastrophes, i don't even want to mention it.

So here the changes since 1.6:

• New database structure.
  Easier for me to update with new OSs/CPUs etc.
  More future proof (Intel Larabee, Nvidia Tesla etc.)
• Virtual cores respected now (concerned Core i7/Xeon).
• Removed Lifesearch and returned to a tree-like selection mode in the entry form.
  I got many emails from users who didn't know how to find their CPU. Now they have a full list like before.
• Separated System (PC/Mac) from CPUs.
• Revamped CPU list with about 550 models, including year and codename to prevent confusions.
• Added Type and Clockspeed to Memory column.
  I suspect recent advances in technology will make memory speed increasingly important to performance.
  Please contact me via pm or email if you want to update your present entry.

Note that the sort column feature is also contained within the URL, so you can share a custom list with others.
I also added a rows phrase, if you want to limit the results.

This link for example shows the list sorted by clockspeed, descending (high to low), 25 first entries only:

Code: Select all

http://www.benchwell.com/index.php?sort_by=clock&dir=desc&rows=25

I'm planning to include nice tooltips when you hover over the cores / info columns, and while it works great, it halts the page for 5-10 seconds because of the sheer amount of entries. I'm experimenting with a work-around at the moment, but i didn't want to let you wait any longer for the site. So that's why reading user comments is disabled at the moment. It'll return, so feel free to "comment"

Future plans

• Tooltips showing more detailed CPU info / user info.
• Highlight columns individually (also contained in URL) so you can share it with others, pointing out your entry.
• Various filters, like only- Mac, non-overlocked, entries of this month, stuff like that.
• Collapse CPUs to single row with averaged performance, exposing its contents on click.

Enjoy, let me know if there are any bugs

edit: holy typos 0_o

[beatriz]

Thank you for this iniatitive

[deadalvs]

finally those strange results disappeared that scared other users away...

thanks for that page, man.

[sandykoufax]

Oops, where is my koufax xeon?

OK. finally.

I'll test and upload my result.

[tom]

Adrian, thanks for the website, the design is really looking good as well.
Some notes:
- It's not indicated which list (32 or 64) is being shown.
- Windows icons are the same (32 and 64), tooltip indicates but harder to see.

[tom]

Foster's result doesn't seem realistic. Check benchmark and time, is this possible?

[-Adrian]

Thanks guys!

Tom: i agree with both. Vista has its own logo, but i'll see that i cramp in a "64" somewhere in those 24x24 pixels . Foster's result seems off, also odd that it's a straight 2h. If it turns out to be a nonsensical entry, i wonder why he posted at all. Luckily nothing a few clicks couldn't purge.

[Novaz_nz]

Downloaded the new scene, and will be rolling it out on all the machines I can get access to

For Cinebench, what does the score refer to? I'm guessing the CPUx Render result?

[grupo4]

Fosters Results are definitivly off

[-Adrian]

64bit Windows has an own icon now, gotta love ProFront

For Cinebench, what does the score refer to? I'm guessing the CPUx Render result?

Yes, though i must say that i haven't run it since years and only added the column on request.

Fosters Results are definitivly off

Yup, purged.

Please take your time with the entries, i found a couple manually entered items that where available in the dropdown list. All new Macs should be covered, and if you have a PC use CPU-Z if you aren't certain. An entry where one can't identify the processor used, is meaningless.

[numerobis]

great site Adrian! thanks!

bejack Apple MacPro Octa Intel Xeon X5365 2x4cores 3.00 9 58m 26s 449.14

...is this bad result related to the osx version? It's very slow compared to the other octocore results :

SmellyPenguin Intel Xeon X5355 2x4cores 2.66 16 33m 35s 781.57

...the times are very high for a "quick" benchmark (~90min for a 3ghz core2duo). wouldn't it be better to lower the requirements a little bit to make the benchmark more usable?

and a general question for nl: wouldn't it be possible to add a benchmark tool in studio that generates a file with the results and system specs which can be uploaded to a site where the results are added automatically to the list? to avoid mistakes and misusage.

[nachob]

In my opinion that 8 core xeon in osx didn't run the test well. If you compare that with 3dworks test, he is getting almost the same render time and benchmark and 3dworks machine is a 4 core xeon.

nachob

[bjorn.syse]

Damn. I have a problem:

I started rendering, did for a couple of hours or so, and then stopped for a resume the day after.

The problem is, I can Only see the rendertime of the latter session. Is there a way to see the combined rendertime for a certain .mxi? same with benchmark which was double as high in the latter rendersession.

Will I have to redo this in one go?

cheers,

- Björn

[-Adrian]

I had to edit 3dworks' entry, he manually added a "Dual-Core Xeon" which applies to pretty much any Xeon in the database. Since he ran OSX, i blindly changed it to a MacPro 2.66 hoping that's what he has.

I agree with nachob, bejack's entry is the one that's off. Maxwell scales near linear so the 33m of SmellyPenguin seems realistic. Also, can you equip a Mac with 9.0GB ram?

...the times are very high for a "quick" benchmark (~90min for a 3ghz core2duo). wouldn't it be better to lower the requirements a little bit to make the benchmark more usable?

Who said it was a quick benchmark?
I really wanted to make sure that current octa-cores (did't have one at my disposal) and the soon to come 45nm chips don't finish this in 5 minutes, there could be some overhead involved when the scene voxelizes and threads are launched. If everyone agrees, i can lower the target SL and we start over of course.

[superbad]

Also, can you equip a Mac with 9.0GB ram?

Yes.