CPU Benchmarking with luminous

[Aury]

New! Spreadsheets are now up!
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreads ... n_US#gid=0 <-- original, mostly chronological
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... li=1#gid=1 <-- sorted by raw score

Pale:
Yellow results: not used for comparison due to error
Green results: best scores in their category
Red results: worst scores in their category

Full:
Green: best score (overall)
Red: worst score (overall)

I remember a while back Bmbl was talking about benchmarking with luminous (specifically CPU's) - Luminous works by rendering one line of pixels per core.

Instructions:
1) download luminous and the sample galaxy configuration at http://www.neurohack.com/luminous/downloads.html [fixed link]
2) load luminous and open the galaxy
3) set the mode to 'high-quality'

Using a 1090T (phenom II x6) @ 3.72Ghz, 8GB DDR3 ram @ 1.52Ghz (note that the ram is actually being under clocked):

Default galaxy, 256x256, high-quality:
Run 1: 12.4 seconds [note, was with luminous at normal priority: runs 2-4 were at high priority]
Run 2: 11.9 seconds
Run 3: 11.4 seconds
Run 4: 11.6 seconds

Run 5: 11.3 seconds [same clock speed, was trying to see how high of a temp spike I got on the new cooler]

Now OC'ed @ 4.0Ghz, 8GB DDR3 ram @ 1.52Ghz (I forgot to bump up the ram, but w/e):
Default galaxy, 256x256, high quality, high priority: 10.6 seconds

Did again OC'ed @3.94Ghz (multiplier instead of FSB) - ran several high priority and realtime, and found that I got a better score on high priority as realtime would jam up for a second or so near the end before resuming for some reason.
Default galaxy, 256x256, high quality, high priority, 9.6 seconds

Tried bumping up the ram to the next highest option (which was over stock freq), but that was unstable.

Galaxy size causes render time to scale linearly as area of image scales linearly

Default galaxy, 512x512, high-quality: 40.9 seconds

Using a Celeron 743 @ 1.3Ghz, 2GB DDR2 ram @ 0.8Ghz: (fixed unknown stats; turns out that the cpu freq is lower than I thought)

Default galaxy, 256x256, high-quality: 240.9 seconds [luminous @ high priority]



~edit, and another score
Pentium D @ 2.8Ghz, 2GB ram @ 800Mhz, high priority, 256x256 high quality: 154.7 seconds

I should compile some tables and charts once I have enough data

~and another

Turion X2 (TL-62) @ 2.1Ghz, 4GB ram @ 800Mhz, high priority, 256x256 high quality: 77.8 seconds

~and another

Pentium M @ 1.6Gh, 512MB ram @ 433(?)Mhz, realtime, 256x256 high quality: 257.8 seconds

~and the long awaited intel atom test (its an N455 though, not an N450)

Intel Atom N455 @ 1.66Ghz (no HT, dual core), high quality 256x256
Realtime: 232.8
High priority: 255.8

I'll redo this netbook on realtime later (realtime is kinda risky as I had luminous cause instabilities at this level, but for small computers with a high proportional overhead from OS and stuff, its easier to get a clear reading. For my workstation, there is no real difference between high and realtime for example, but at over 20 seconds for a netbook, thats an appreciable difference.

And the netbook again:
Celeron 743 @ 1.3Ghz, high quality 256x256 realtime: 233.7



Current standings:

Best overall:
AMD Phenom II x6 1090T @ 3.94Ghz (fsb 232Mhz x17 max mult), high priority, 9.6 seconds
Worst overall:
Intel Pentium M @ 1.6Ghz, realtime, 257.8 seconds

Best logical threading score:
AMD Phenom II x6 1090T @ 3.94Ghz (fsb 233Mhz x17 max mult), high priority, 57.6 seconds (single logical/physical, 6 total, base score 9.6 seconds)
Worst logical threading score:
Intel Atom N455 @ 1.66Ghz, realtime, 465.6 seconds (Single logical/physical, 2 total, base score 232.8 seconds)

Best physical threading score:
AMD Phenom II x6 1090T @ 3.94Ghz (fsb 233Mhz x17 max mult), high priority, 57.6 seconds (6 total, base score 9.6 seconds)
Worst physical threading score:
Intel Atom N455 @ 1.66Ghz, realtime, 465.6 seconds (2 total, base score 232.8 seconds)

Best per-Ghz score:
AMD Phenom II x6 1090T @ 3.94Ghz (fsb 233Mhz x17 max mult), high priority, 37.82 seconds (base score 9.6 seconds)
Worst per-Ghz score:
Intel Pentium 4 w/HT UNK model @ 3.6Ghz, realtime,, 674.28 seconds (base score 187.3)

Best logical threading score per-ghz:
AMD Phenom II x6 1090T @ 3,94Ghz (fsb 233Mhz x17 max mult), high priority, 226.94 seconds (single logical/physical, 6 total, base score 9.6 seconds)
Worst logical threading score per-ghz:
Intel Pentium 4 w/HT UNK model @ 3.6Ghz, realtime, 1348.56 seconds (base score 187.3)

Best physical threading score per-ghz:
Intel Xeon E5540 w/HT @ 2.8Ghz (OC), realtime, 202.73 seconds ((8 threads), 4 total, base score 18.1 seconds)
Worst physical threading score per-ghz:
Intel Pentium D 935 @ 3.42Ghz (OC), high priority, 880.31 seconds (2 total, base score 128.7 seconds)

[digdug]

Acer Aspire 5920G
Intel Core2Duo T8300 @2.4GHz, 4Gb DDR2 Ram @800MHz
Microsoft Windows Index: 4.8

Default galaxy, 256x256, high-quality: 68.8 secs

[sdw195]

intel pentium 4 @ 3.60 GHz with 4.00 gb ram (3.12 usable)
realtime 187.3 seconds

intel core 2 @ 3.00 GHZ with 4.00 gb ram (3.46 usable)
normal 52.5 seconds
high 48.2 seconds

[Ttech]

Ah I will have to try this, but sdw, your system is amazing.

[sdw195]

Ah I will have to try this, but sdw, your system is amazing.

not really, with my one (the pen 4) it is a good day if it doesn't crash at least once, and the other one is my mums one

[Aury]

Ah I will have to try this, but sdw, your system is amazing.

clock for clock, my netbook's celeron beats out his pentium 4 (And given the clock on it, its got HT)
Hehe, and now, finding that my CPU is running about 8% slower than I thought it was, that makes it even more so.

[Aury]

adding score for another computer, an older pentium D (not pentium dual, which is more modern) machine

Pentium D @ 2.8Ghz, 2GB ram @ 800Mhz, high priority, 256x256 high quality: 154.7 seconds

It is interesting to note that a slower pentium D gets better performance than a faster pentium 4 in this case, showing the rendering system luminous uses benefits much more from real cores vs. virtual cores (as is the case with hyperthreading, which I know all 3.6Ghz P4's support).

[Aury]

Turion X2 (TL-62) @ 2.1Ghz, 4GB ram @ 800Mhz, high priority, 256x256 high quality: 77.8 seconds

This is my infamous vista laptop (it was the one that exposed the vista-lag issues transcendence has/had - that may have been fixed since, as I heard vista has been optimized, but I'm too lazy at the moment to find out)

[Aury]

... and this was my ancient XP laptop that ran transcendence better than the vista one.

Pentium M @1.6Ghz, 512MB ram @ ~433?Mhz: realtime, 256x256, high-quality: 257.8 seconds.

[Chase]

i got the latest alienware laptop, not sure about the specs but i got it as a gift from one of my friends. ( how he found the money i will never know)

[Aury]

Its running windows I presume?
To get the cpu make and ram amount, just go to the start menu, right click 'my computer' and select properties. It should list them on that page.

[Chase]

windows ultimate
Featuring Extreme Edition Intel Core i7 processors
18.4” Wide Full HD 1920 x 1080 WLED display
32GB of high performance memory
Dual graphics and HDD options
2nd Generation Quad Core Intel Core i7 Processors
3D Capable 17" 120hz Full 1920x1080p HD Display
Featuring 1.5GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M graphics
Stream HD video and audio wirelessly with new 60GHz Wireless HD technology
Up to 7 hours of battery life

[Aury]

nice, that looks like, 3-4kUSD
but what does it bench at? (and what is the cpu frequency)

(also lol @ 'up to' 7 hr battery life... I wonder what it really gets in practice)

[Aury]

some benchmarking results from another community:

Pentium D 935 3.0Ghz OC @ 3.42Ghz, 2GB ram @ 800mhz, 256x256, high quality:
141.0 (normal priority)
128.7 (high priority)
129.5
130.2

Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 2.0ghz, 2gb ram @ 400mhz, 256x256, high quality:
78.9

Core 2 Quad @ 2.4Ghz, 6gb ram @ 800mhz, 256x256, high quality:
34.0

[Chase]

nice, that looks like, 3-4kUSD
but what does it bench at? (and what is the cpu frequency)

(also lol @ 'up to' 7 hr battery life... I wonder what it really gets in practice)

its about somewhere near 7hour's on internet but only 5 on games(pretty damn good) not sure about benching but 7GB ram. Did the research costs .bout R50,000. The rate is R7-US1