CPUMark99 - how do you compare

[Eliminator]

i got 512 with my Q6600 @ 3.6ghz

[methimpikehoses]

495: Q6600 @ 3.52

[centvalny]

AMD PII X4 940 with Windows 7

4 cpumarks ran simultaneously to 100% load at 4 cores...

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/2441/screenshot010pw8.jpg

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/4223/screenshot009zb3.jpg

[centvalny]

its not a good way to measure performance of current cpu's because this benchmark only uses one thread so the score isnt quite accurate :rolleyes:Run 2 or 4 cpumarks (depend on cpu) at the same instance.

[fuelrod]

That's a lot higher than I expected for a Phenom II. Is that overclock you got more the exception or the rule?

AMD PII X4 940 with Windows 7

4 cpumarks ran simultaneously to 100% load at 4 cores...

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/2441/screenshot010pw8.jpg

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/4223/screenshot009zb3.jpg

[centvalny]

That's a lot higher than I expected for a Phenom II. Is that overclock you got more the exception or the rule?Its possible with single stage cooling @ -30C on cpu.

[moorfang]

running 4 at the same time, one says it's not responding while it in fact is working
http://f.imagehost.org/t/0787/4gpcm99x4-1.jpg (http://f.imagehost.org/view/0787/4gpcm99x4-1)

results
http://g.imagehost.org/t/0725/4gpcm99x4-2.jpg (http://g.imagehost.org/view/0725/4gpcm99x4-2)

running 8
http://g.imagehost.org/t/0044/4gpcm99x8-1.jpg (http://g.imagehost.org/view/0044/4gpcm99x8-1)

results
http://g.imagehost.org/t/0667/4gpcm99x8-2.jpg (http://g.imagehost.org/view/0667/4gpcm99x8-2)

[centvalny]

Nice run with I7 there moorfang:beer:

[Gregor976]

Single thread bench I know, but:

http://home.roadrunner.com/~lwarner3/images/Avatar_Pics/CPUmark%2099-%202500K%20@4Ghz.jpg

That's two images together because I couldn't get print screen to capture when it was running for some reason.

[Blacklash]

I get 616 with my old first rev i7 920. OC is in my sig.

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8290/cpumark.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/508/cpumark.jpg/)

[ViN86]

It's not completely irrelevant to perform this test. It is interesting to see how CPU's have improved in terms of efficiency on a single thread basis. Parallel performance comparisons to older CPU's aren't really relevant.

[fuelrod]

OFFICIALLY UPDATED LIST

Thanks to everyone who has submitted to this post; it been interesting watching all the scores come in over the years. I decided to update the list with system scores I have collected since the original post. For those who say the benchmark is invalid on today's processors, I can tell you several years back I started running the multi-threaded CPU benchmark Cinebench after I run the CPUmark99 test. For the most part the CPU's maintain there same rankings. Keep them coming ....

[mullet]

i7-2600k stock 3.4

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=43003&stc=1&d=1309757432

[mullet]

i7-2600k @ 4.4

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=43004&stc=1&d=1309757897

[AdamK47]

980X @ 4.4GHz

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=43064&stc=1&d=1310832482

Edit: Uploaded directly to nvnews.

[mullet]

sure sure. LOL

[AdamK47]

Que?

[mullet]

i kid

[AdamK47]

FYI... CPUMark99 doesn't just test the CPU. It's dependant on memory and cache as well.

[zer0]

IVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://i.imgur.com/OQvMd.jpg

[mullet]

wow nice Zer0

[Roadhog]

4.5ghz
http://i.imgur.com/mG17W.jpg

[zer0]

wow nice Zer0

thanks mullet :afro:

[JaxMacFL]

2600K 4.8GHz

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/6483/mark99.png
By jaxmacfl (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jaxmacfl) at 2011-07-19