[JDHill]

...I'm just waiting to build a dual-Woodcrest 3.0GHz...should be...umm...quick.

[sandykoufax]

Yes, JD. I'm very curios to intel's woodcrest and conroe too.

but nobody has opteron 285?

[michaelplogue]

Dual Opteron 248 @ 2.2 Ghz, 6 GB RAM (got 8 in the slots, but for some reason two aren't showing up), XP-64

Time: 2:08:13
Benchmark: 33.45

(Those little Intel Core Duo's are kicking my Opterons' ass!)

[sam7]

Nobody here with a new Mac running on a core duo?

I'd love to the difference to the PC System.

Thanks

[Pietro Spampatti]

DB updated

P.

[ivox3]

It would appear that johan and Mirko are running very similar machines, ......with only a noticeable difference in ram, ..... 4GB.

The time difference is a mere 6.5m.

So what's the conclusion here, .....that the supposed resource hungry V1 doesn't use/require the large memory access.



_____________________________________________________
or maybe there's an operating system difference 32 vs. 64 ?


I'll tell you one thing, ......some of you guys have some pretty damn nice machines !

[andrebaros]

Another machine

Xeon 2.8 GHz, 3 GB Ram, 5h22m42s, benchmark 13.30

[ricardo]

Benchmarks again....

I have posted two tests with the same machine. One standard clock and some OC on the other. Ondefault settings the machine has a benchmark 34.xx and fits the bmXtime curve. When overclocked it keeps it's benchmark around 34 but jumps ahead of machines with benchmark 38.xx in time to complete. What gives?

Ricardo

[garyswindell]

On 1.0 my time was 1h5m to get to SL12.0
I ran the test again today on 1.1 and the time was 2h33m to SL12.0

Machine is a Dual Opteron 275 2GB RAM.

Seems like a bad thing...not sure...

[tom]

All right, let's clear this up once again: 1.1 is faster than 1.0 and there's no trick here.

I suggest you to stop comparing SL and benchmark numbers between versions because they may easily mislead you as shown below.

This is rendered for 6 min with each version and downsized for demonstration.

[ivox3]

I think I'm more concerned with that hideous pattern noise being gone !

I can't believe I'm saying it ......but, it's good to have good old fashion maxwell noise back.

[glassbathroom]

I guess we are going to need a new Speed Test comparison table for 1.1, as the SL figures is not comparable.

Any volunteers?

[beppeg]

But the differences of the cpu are the same
Anyway we can launch another one
Maybe we can wait for the new Intel cpu for starting the SpeedTest v1.1

[andrebaros]

Installed Maxwell 1.0 to test a new computer... so that it can be compared to all the results we already have.

New Dell Precision 490

Intel Xeon Core Duo 5160 3Ghz (Woodcrest, 2 cores)
4 GB RAM
S.L.: 12.00
Time: 1h24m56s
Benchmark: 50.53

[adamwade]

andrebaros,

I am wondering if Apple's new Macpro (shown Yesterday) with Dual Woodcrest (4 cores) would be about double the speed of your test?

I am trying to decide if I should spec a new Macpro like this or a Dell 490 like yours, but with 4 cores.

Although I must get the 2.66 GHz chips instead of the 3.0 for budget reasons with my company.

I like the sound of the Mac since I can run it either OS with Bootcamp.

ANy thoughts?