Post Your CPUMark 2.1 Scores Here

**mcbee** · #16 28-04-2007, 05:31 PM

No you don't. Just as a reference I tested a P2 300Mhz in a pile of old bits. Score 561.5. Took quite a while to complete.

**carpious** · #17 29-04-2007, 12:11 PM

3268.1

D920 2.8

Will post my new scores in a week or 2 when I've finally made an informed decision, with help from you guys and gals!! :)

Keith.

**alex** · #18 01-05-2007, 02:47 PM

Hey Dave.

Got the score for the 6420?

I'm betting the extra 2mb cache makes no difference on this measure. 'Cause if you look at the tests the cache doesn't really come into it.

**Dave Hybrid** · #19 01-05-2007, 07:13 PM

Ill run the test now, back in a minute mate.

**Dave Hybrid** · #20 01-05-2007, 07:46 PM

Ran in safe mode so should be nothing else using the CPU.

Surprisingly a lower score than you Alex.

7527.8

**mr_miller** · #21 04-05-2007, 01:26 PM

just got a new box in for a client so i thought i'd post up the cpumark score

Test 1 1050
Test 2 413
Test 3 8403
Final 7473.5

Its a quad xeon e5335 @ 2GHz, i'm tempted to take it home tbh.

**mr_miller** · #22 04-05-2007, 01:36 PM

another box we are 'setting' up for clients

Test 1 1096
Test 2 458
Test 3 8403
Final 7527

Its a dual xeon 3050 @ 2.13GHz, and it was still running exchange 07 in the background.

**Dave Hybrid** · #23 04-05-2007, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by mr_miller

just got a new box in for a client so i thought i'd post up the cpumark score

Test 1 1050
Test 2 413
Test 3 8403
Final 7473.5

Its a quad xeon e5335 @ 2GHz, i'm tempted to take it home tbh.

So that's 8Ghz of processing power?

Interestingly its the same as the dual core (4Ghz ish) scores.

**mr_miller** · #24 04-05-2007, 02:23 PM

I was expecting a bigger score if i'm honest, but CPUMark seems to be more reliant on clock than cores. I'm not sure how it evaluates and produces the scores, as the super PI result was about 25 seconds on the quad and 33 on the dual for 1million digits.

**Dave Hybrid** · #25 04-05-2007, 02:29 PM

Thats a good point, the software may not be designed for more than 2 cores.....

BabyPowderSux · #26 04-05-2007, 11:00 PM

This almost seems a bit inaccurate.

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 3.2 GhZ

**Dave Hybrid** · #27 04-05-2007, 11:09 PM

Thats a high result... is your PC overclocked?

Have you run the test again to confirm the score?

BabyPowderSux · #28 05-05-2007, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Hybrid

That a high result... is your PC overclocked?

Have you run the test again to confirm the score?

Yeah. it's overclocked to 3.2 Ghz. Still seems a bit high. here are results from a second test:

**Dave Hybrid** · #29 05-05-2007, 12:17 AM

That's probably about right.

The E6400 2.13/4.26 is 7500ish.

So an E6400 @ 3.2/6.4 is 50% more CPU power. 4.26 + 50% = 6.39.

7500 + 50% = 11250.

I really need to upgrade to what you have, you have 4x the power as me lol.

What m/board and ram are you running?

**Dave Hybrid** · #30 05-05-2007, 12:26 AM

On another thought it just shows how good these new intel chips are, overclocked 50%, thats mad.

Post Your CPUMark 2.1 Scores Here

Computer Juice - Forums - Post Your CPUMark 2.1 Scores Here