Are these good results?

Good enough?
Lots of mods, I know

you dont know mods untell you look at my results.

You're supposed to do the test vanilla plus the test.rte
ie. no mods

Comically old CPU. Surprisingly, not that slow.

Everyone with a module count higher than 11 will be kicked in the face. I just realised that this includes witty.

Keptin: huh, not too terrible considering the age.
FoIL: holy crap you have a lot of computers.

I'll collate at some point tonight, hopefully.

Yeah, it seems that clock rate has a larger impact in CC than multiple cores, then again, the data has so many variables it's hard to tell what's going on exactly. It'd be interesting to see someone with a dual-core do a few tests with varying clock rates. e.g. 1.5Ghz, 2.5Ghz, 3.5Ghz. Even better if someone with a [similar architecture] quad-core could post results at the same rates to compare. There are a few of you P8x00/P9x00 guys that could do it.

Btw Geti, what are you using all of this for?

I'm using all of this to compile something to the tune of "be all end all this is what you should upgrade to run CC better" list. Top 3 processors/general trend, relative impact of RAM upgrades, etc. There've always been questions floating around along the lines of "hey why cant this computer run CC like a boss it plays crysis like all the way up i am confuse" and it turns out that they have an entry level CPU and a thousand dollar graphics card.

As for the comparisons, you can probably do that with the current data, if you look through the processors.
Looks like I'll be collating this tomorrow guys, I've got a lot of coursework and a phone call to make tonight, sorry

For what you're using them for, the results are great. For more specific info on what exactly influences CC performance, you'd probably need to lower the number of variables between results. Some of the results are so close (or odd), that the differences between them could be caused by different background processes and things that aren't being accounted for.

It's still interesting--CC could definitely multithread better. Fo sho.

Definitely, seeing as it doesn't actually multi-thread at all and Data says there aren't any plans to make it do so.

I like the idea of someone doing different clocks and RAM.

If you guys want, I'll do that within the next few days.


I can clock at 2, 2.5, 3, and maybe 3.5. Then I can RAM at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.
Also, even though it doesn't matter, I can switch between a 9600 GT and 7300 LE.

Maybe if I have some spare time I'll try clocking down the old P4 and then see how far it'll go.

But first there's still another laptop available around the house, another dual core if I'm not mistaken.

-edit-

Here we go

I'm limited to what I can do when it comes to changing clock speed on this server board, but I'm able to retard the clock a bit to save power. Test Results can vary by over 1 point (second?) between tests, so everything's ballpark.

@ 2.5Ghz,



@ 1.6Ghz,



This explains why that 3.41Ghz Phenom II X4 is doing so well in test 3. You P8x00 guys should be able to push >4.0Ghz.

*edit* lol, if only I had more controllers... http://i41.tinypic.com/50mhop.jpg

I'm able to do the same on my laptop.





and finally at the original clock


Higher clocks tend to handle the third test in a much smoother manner.

http://pastebin.com/egEUpcAS
Did some underclocking. The default setting for my computer is at the bottom, but I worked all the way down to 2.4 GHz from the standard 3.2. This is all on Vista, by the way.