CPU Benchmark Program - Please Run and Post Results!

[1000101]

If the program utilized both cores (smp)...

That is only possible with threading. And gfxlib + threading = messy right now. At very least, using gfxlib from multiple threads is messy.

[KristopherWindsor]

On my 3GHz P4 (Northwood HT), running Linux, the first results I got were all negative (-250mHz). After declaring t as double, I got 1681 MHz. Seems to me like Intels suck.

2423 MHz on a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 (Prescott) in a Shuttle ST62K.

I've got a Intel Core Duo (@1.66GHz, 667MHz FSB) which gets around 2600MHz.

It makes sense that the newer Core Duos would be faster, but as for only 1681 MHz, I wonder if Linux is the problem. It is possible that the compiler gives the program a roundabout graphics method. If that is the case, the program could run faster with optimization.

If the program utilized both cores (smp) then I could score maybe twice 2500MHz (?)... 5GHz?

My FreeBasic programs only use 50% of the CPU on my Pentium D, so there is more speed available. However, I have Photoshop CS and Photoshop CS2, and one of the main upgrades in CS2 was multiprocessor support. Some filters can take ten minutes to process, but CS2 doesn't seem any faster than CS. Supporting dual CPUs might be really difficult.

So Pentium D 2.8 GHz matches Core Duo 1.7 GHz. I knew my computer wasn't too fast. :-)

[Sterling Christensen]

I wonder if Linux is the problem.

Possibly. CPU stuff like scheduling and memory management are faster on Linux, but graphical stuff is usually slower... unless you have an nVidia card and use nVidia's drivers for it.

So the graphical parts of this benchmark could be throwing it off.

[spaz_man]

I'm running an old Pentium III-MMX at 500 mhz with Win 98 FE. The program returned 444 mhz.

[KristopherWindsor]

I tested the program on a new AMD Turion X2 (1.6GHz), and it gets just over 2.0GHz. It seems a bit slow, considering that computers could run at that speed two or four years ago, but I suppose the Turion is made for 64-bit programs, dual-core multitasking, and power efficiency.
I also wonder if Vista slowed it down. XD

[srvaldez]

test 1: 3377 Mhz
test 2: 6196 Mhz
test 3: 3760 Mhz
test 4: 5060 Mhz
avg 4598 Mhz

Mac Pro, 2 x dual-core Xeon @ 2.66 Ghz, WindowsXP SP2

[KristopherWindsor]

Wow!!! XD