New algorithm for determining overclocking in charts

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • a7751218
    Junior Member
    • Oct 2011
    • 14
    #16
    thank you for an excellent post!

    PassMark admin: Many Thanks for clarifying this!

    I've been using the cpu charts for quite a while now and was always concerned about overclocked cpu's leaking into the normal bechmarks.

    Your excellent explanation and change in algorithms allows me to put more trust in your benchmarks now. And I find your new 90mhz threshold to be a fairly wise choice considering how cpu manufacturers release minor upgrades on CPU, i.e. i7 2600 vs i7 2700

    However, it does concern me a little that other hardware (motherboard / ram) can have such a difference in cpu clock (~90mhz)?

    Also, I hope you guys keep on top of new CPU's, their stock and turbo speeds as new ones are constantly released.

      Comment

      • David (PassMark)
        Administrator
        • Jan 2003
        • 11097
        #17
        We aren't publishing graphs for RAM performance nor motherboards, at least for the moment. So CPU overclocking impacting on RAM speeds isn't a big issue for us.

        There has been a ridiculous number of CPUs released of the last 24 months. Some are also very rare, engineering samples, private OEM releases, or buggy so the model number doesn't report correctly. So finding the correct specs can be hard.

          Comment

          • rdeleonp
            Junior Member
            • Feb 2012
            • 4
            #18
            Originally posted by passmark
            There has been a ridiculous number of CPUs released of the last 24 months. Some are also very rare, engineering samples, private OEM releases, or buggy so the model number doesn't report correctly. So finding the correct specs can be hard.
            Hi.

            If you don't mind... can you validate the following scores?

            AMD FX-8100 : 6508
            AMD FX-6200 : 8084

            Thanks for your time.

            Regards.

              Comment

              • David (PassMark)
                Administrator
                • Jan 2003
                • 11097
                #19
                Both these CPUs are just a few days old. And very rare at the moment.
                The FX-8100 result looks about right.
                For the FX-6200, the only results we had turned out to be overclocked, and not just by a small amount. Like the i5-2550K above, it was missing the turbo speed in the database. This has now been fixed. The consequence of this however is that we now don't have any standard result for the FX-6200 and it has disappeared from the standard chart.

                  Comment

                  • David (PassMark)
                    Administrator
                    • Jan 2003
                    • 11097
                    #20
                    After fixing up the above it became obvious that there was also another overclocking issue that impacted the charts with the AMD Llano chips. Details can be found here,
                    http://www.passmark.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3635
                    and here
                    http://www.passmark.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3580

                    This should be worked-around in PerformanceTest V7.0 build 1028.

                    In conjunction with the release of the 1028 build we manually adjusted the rankings of the AMD Llano chips in the CPU charts to manually filter out the overclocked results (as the automatic filtering wasn't always working for these chips). This has dropped the AMD Llano's down the charts a bit as of the 23/Mar/2012.

                    Update: Turns out there might be another AMD Llano issue. This time with a CPU bug.

                      Comment

                      Previous 1 2 template Next
                      Working...