1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Where to locate my CPU benchmark?

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by Eric, Jun 18, 2010.

  1. Eric

    Eric Flightless Bird

  2. Paul

    Paul Flightless Bird

    Eric wrote:
    > My CPU is Intel® Xeon® Processor 2.66 GHz,
    > http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL73M
    > I get no idea on how to locate my CPU's performance, because there is no
    > specific model number for my CPU.
    > Does anyone have any suggestions on how to locate it under CPU benchmark list?
    > http://www.cpubenchmark.net/mid_range_cpus.html
    > Thanks in advance for any suggestions
    > Eric


    I found this on the Intel site, which helps match the CPU id to
    some steppings.

    1 CPU/ 2 CPUs Intel Xeon(tm) processors with 400MHz/533MHz for
    CPU id 0F24/0F27/0F29/0F25 (B0/C1/D1/M0 Stepping)

    Your processor is an M0. The geometry is 0.13 microns, which
    makes the processor close in some way, to a Pentium 4 Northwood.
    The Northwood has 512KB cache and 0.13 micron geometry. This
    is a D1 and they don't make M0 versions of that particular
    processor. (Steppings are silicon revisions - silicon is
    rev'ed to improve design performance or increase yield at
    the foundary.) So we could say your processor is in the
    same ballpark as a P4 2.66GHz/FSB533 512KB cache 0.13u
    processor. (Some Xeons, and even some P4 processors, have
    L3 cache, which would make their performance different again.
    I see enough similarities between these two, to say they'd
    be in the same ballpark. I can't honestly say, how your
    Xeon differs. I don't know if it has a TLB, whether the
    TLB is bigger on the Xeon or not. Usually, the difference
    would be attributed to cache.)

    http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL6PE

    This is the ark entry for your processor. The list at the
    bottom, shows all the SLxxx numbers corresponding to that
    Xeon.

    http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=27272&processor=&spec-codes=SL6GF,SL6NR,SL6VM,SL6YP,SL72E,SL73M

    *******

    Not that any of that is important.

    You didn't look low down enough on the chart. I can find it
    on this page. It's near the top of the low_end chart (11th
    entry from the top). It turns out to be significantly
    faster than the P4 Northwood.

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/low_end_cpus.html

    Intel Xeon 2.66GHz 402 points
    Intel Pentium 4 2.66GHz 340 points

    You'll notice, that the CPUbenchmark terminology is not
    precise enough, to tell which exact processor they're
    referring to. Those are my best guesses, as to what would be
    close to your processor. You'll notice, at the bottom of
    the chart, they have an entry called simply "Celeron", and
    there are hundreds of processors that fit the description.
    I expect the Passmark people have the necessary information,
    but chose not to mess up the chart putting it in.

    If your motherboard has two of those CPUs, and is a dual
    socket motherboard, then your benchmark will end up
    significantly higher.

    Paul
     
  3. Eric

    Eric Flightless Bird

    My motherboard has two of those CPUs, and is a dual
    socket motherboard, would it be 402 points x 2 = 804 points.
    Thank you very much for suggestions
    Eric


    "Paul" wrote:

    > Eric wrote:
    > > My CPU is Intel® Xeon® Processor 2.66 GHz,
    > > http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL73M
    > > I get no idea on how to locate my CPU's performance, because there is no
    > > specific model number for my CPU.
    > > Does anyone have any suggestions on how to locate it under CPU benchmark list?
    > > http://www.cpubenchmark.net/mid_range_cpus.html
    > > Thanks in advance for any suggestions
    > > Eric

    >
    > I found this on the Intel site, which helps match the CPU id to
    > some steppings.
    >
    > 1 CPU/ 2 CPUs Intel Xeon(tm) processors with 400MHz/533MHz for
    > CPU id 0F24/0F27/0F29/0F25 (B0/C1/D1/M0 Stepping)
    >
    > Your processor is an M0. The geometry is 0.13 microns, which
    > makes the processor close in some way, to a Pentium 4 Northwood.
    > The Northwood has 512KB cache and 0.13 micron geometry. This
    > is a D1 and they don't make M0 versions of that particular
    > processor. (Steppings are silicon revisions - silicon is
    > rev'ed to improve design performance or increase yield at
    > the foundary.) So we could say your processor is in the
    > same ballpark as a P4 2.66GHz/FSB533 512KB cache 0.13u
    > processor. (Some Xeons, and even some P4 processors, have
    > L3 cache, which would make their performance different again.
    > I see enough similarities between these two, to say they'd
    > be in the same ballpark. I can't honestly say, how your
    > Xeon differs. I don't know if it has a TLB, whether the
    > TLB is bigger on the Xeon or not. Usually, the difference
    > would be attributed to cache.)
    >
    > http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL6PE
    >
    > This is the ark entry for your processor. The list at the
    > bottom, shows all the SLxxx numbers corresponding to that
    > Xeon.
    >
    > http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=27272&processor=&spec-codes=SL6GF,SL6NR,SL6VM,SL6YP,SL72E,SL73M
    >
    > *******
    >
    > Not that any of that is important.
    >
    > You didn't look low down enough on the chart. I can find it
    > on this page. It's near the top of the low_end chart (11th
    > entry from the top). It turns out to be significantly
    > faster than the P4 Northwood.
    >
    > http://www.cpubenchmark.net/low_end_cpus.html
    >
    > Intel Xeon 2.66GHz 402 points
    > Intel Pentium 4 2.66GHz 340 points
    >
    > You'll notice, that the CPUbenchmark terminology is not
    > precise enough, to tell which exact processor they're
    > referring to. Those are my best guesses, as to what would be
    > close to your processor. You'll notice, at the bottom of
    > the chart, they have an entry called simply "Celeron", and
    > there are hundreds of processors that fit the description.
    > I expect the Passmark people have the necessary information,
    > but chose not to mess up the chart putting it in.
    >
    > If your motherboard has two of those CPUs, and is a dual
    > socket motherboard, then your benchmark will end up
    > significantly higher.
    >
    > Paul
    >
    >
    >
    > .
    >
     
  4. SC Tom

    SC Tom Flightless Bird

    If you look here:
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/multi_cpu.html
    you'll see the listing for yours as

    [Dual CPU] Intel Xeon 2.66GHz 845


    So a dual setup is a little better than just doubling the single CPU score.
    --
    SC Tom


    "Eric" <Eric@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:647CD8AF-9E89-490F-AE93-2BE058C5A402@microsoft.com...
    > My motherboard has two of those CPUs, and is a dual
    > socket motherboard, would it be 402 points x 2 = 804 points.
    > Thank you very much for suggestions
    > Eric
    >
    >
    > "Paul" wrote:
    >
    >> Eric wrote:
    >> > My CPU is Intel® Xeon® Processor 2.66 GHz,
    >> > http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL73M
    >> > I get no idea on how to locate my CPU's performance, because there is
    >> > no
    >> > specific model number for my CPU.
    >> > Does anyone have any suggestions on how to locate it under CPU
    >> > benchmark list?
    >> > http://www.cpubenchmark.net/mid_range_cpus.html
    >> > Thanks in advance for any suggestions
    >> > Eric

    >>
    >> I found this on the Intel site, which helps match the CPU id to
    >> some steppings.
    >>
    >> 1 CPU/ 2 CPUs Intel Xeon(tm) processors with 400MHz/533MHz for
    >> CPU id 0F24/0F27/0F29/0F25 (B0/C1/D1/M0 Stepping)
    >>
    >> Your processor is an M0. The geometry is 0.13 microns, which
    >> makes the processor close in some way, to a Pentium 4 Northwood.
    >> The Northwood has 512KB cache and 0.13 micron geometry. This
    >> is a D1 and they don't make M0 versions of that particular
    >> processor. (Steppings are silicon revisions - silicon is
    >> rev'ed to improve design performance or increase yield at
    >> the foundary.) So we could say your processor is in the
    >> same ballpark as a P4 2.66GHz/FSB533 512KB cache 0.13u
    >> processor. (Some Xeons, and even some P4 processors, have
    >> L3 cache, which would make their performance different again.
    >> I see enough similarities between these two, to say they'd
    >> be in the same ballpark. I can't honestly say, how your
    >> Xeon differs. I don't know if it has a TLB, whether the
    >> TLB is bigger on the Xeon or not. Usually, the difference
    >> would be attributed to cache.)
    >>
    >> http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL6PE
    >>
    >> This is the ark entry for your processor. The list at the
    >> bottom, shows all the SLxxx numbers corresponding to that
    >> Xeon.
    >>
    >> http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=27272&processor=&spec-codes=SL6GF,SL6NR,SL6VM,SL6YP,SL72E,SL73M
    >>
    >> *******
    >>
    >> Not that any of that is important.
    >>
    >> You didn't look low down enough on the chart. I can find it
    >> on this page. It's near the top of the low_end chart (11th
    >> entry from the top). It turns out to be significantly
    >> faster than the P4 Northwood.
    >>
    >> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/low_end_cpus.html
    >>
    >> Intel Xeon 2.66GHz 402 points
    >> Intel Pentium 4 2.66GHz 340 points
    >>
    >> You'll notice, that the CPUbenchmark terminology is not
    >> precise enough, to tell which exact processor they're
    >> referring to. Those are my best guesses, as to what would be
    >> close to your processor. You'll notice, at the bottom of
    >> the chart, they have an entry called simply "Celeron", and
    >> there are hundreds of processors that fit the description.
    >> I expect the Passmark people have the necessary information,
    >> but chose not to mess up the chart putting it in.
    >>
    >> If your motherboard has two of those CPUs, and is a dual
    >> socket motherboard, then your benchmark will end up
    >> significantly higher.
    >>
    >> Paul
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> .
    >>
     
  5. Paul

    Paul Flightless Bird

    Eric wrote:
    > My motherboard has two of those CPUs, and is a dual
    > socket motherboard, would it be 402 points x 2 = 804 points.
    > Thank you very much for suggestions
    > Eric
    >


    I don't know enough about Passmark to say what the result would be.

    Looking at the page here -

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_test_info.html

    I would guess running the same test on each of the
    CPUs, would result in some bus contention, especially
    in the compression test. Some of the other benchmark
    sites, see their highest dependence on memory bandwidth,
    in compression type tests. So that probably won't double.
    (I.e. Two processors can't do twice the work in that case,
    because it takes longer to get data from memory.)

    *******

    If you want a means of estimating, you could use
    Cinebench, run it on one processor, run it on two
    processors, and use the ratio as a "scale factor"
    to multiply by the 402 points number above.

    http://http.maxon.net/pub/benchmarks/CINEBENCH_11.529.zip (145,723,303 bytes)

    You unzip that, and run the "CINEBENCH Windows 32 Bit.exe"
    executable. There is nothing to install. (Run the 64 bit
    version if you have a 64 bit Windows OS.)

    The first thing to do, is go to the File menu, and remove
    the tick mark next to "Keep Best Score". You want the
    test to update the result after each run, no matter whether
    it is better or worse.

    On my computer, without changing the preference item, the
    program tells me I have a 2C/2T test situation. That is
    two computing cores and two test threads. That will likely
    be your default as well.

    Running the test might take 5-15 minutes. Click the "Run" button
    next to "CPU". Two windowed areas should open, showing the
    progress of two test threads. When the work of a thread is
    completed, another thread is dispatched. Two threads should be
    "in flight" until the test is finished. The program activity
    being computed, appears to be ray tracing in an image
    with multiple light sources.

    The program will report a score after the test is complete.
    For example, with two test threads, my score was 1.78 points.

    Next, go back to the File menu, and select Preferences. You
    can increment or decrement the number of test threads. Change
    the number to "1", tick the box for Custom Number Of Test
    Threads. Once you've set that preference, click the run
    button next to "CPU" again. When the program runs, you should
    see just one windowed area appear at a time, implying one test
    thread is being used. The test will take roughly double the
    time to run to completion.

    My result for the second run, using only one test thread (which
    uses one computing core), my score was 0.90.

    If I take the ratio of those two scores 1.78/0.90, the result
    is 1.978 . That means my processor scales pretty well. It should
    have executed two threads at twice the rate, but only managed
    to do it 1.978 times as fast.

    Take the ratio, using your dual socket motherboard, and see
    how much of a bottleneck your shared bus is. Your ratio should be
    some number less than 2. You can multiply that number by the
    Passmark result of 402 if you like, as an estimate of your
    dual socket result to be expected.

    To give some other examples, if you use a Core2 Quad core in
    a test like that, the internal shared bus is a bit of a bottle
    neck, and running four test threads, runs at about 87% of the
    speed you would have expected. So the bus structure costs you
    about 13% of the theoretical performance. If you repeat the
    test with a Phenom quad core, four cores runs at exactly
    four times the speed of one core, telling you there is no
    performance loss. I think the Core i7 is the same way as the
    Phenom. It has an integrated memory controller and a relatively
    large cache, and hides bus issues well. But the Core2 quad core
    isn't quite as good. I'm expecting a similar effect on your
    dual Xeon. It shouldn't be twice as fast with two test threads.
    I think the shared bus scheme runs out of steam at around
    four sockets. There would not be much point extending the
    bus on your motherboard, and using five sockets, as the
    bus would be choked.

    I'm just guessing here, but your processors are likely
    connected like this. The CPUs arbitrate to see who owns the
    bus and gets to do a transaction with the Northbridge.

    CPU0 CPU1
    | |
    +-----+-----+
    |
    Northbridge ----- Memory

    An alternative means, is to do this. This approach is used
    on more modern server motherboards, with colossal pin count
    Northbridge chips. By using a private bus connection for each
    processor, and perhaps hiding a snoop cache inside the Northbridge,
    some of the bus bottleneck can be removed. It is my guess your
    processor is a generation previous to this, and uses the first
    figure.

    CPU0 CPU1
    | |
    | |
    | |
    Northbridge ----- Memory

    Have fun,
    Paul
     
  6. Paul

    Paul Flightless Bird

    SC Tom wrote:
    > If you look here:
    > http://www.cpubenchmark.net/multi_cpu.html
    > you'll see the listing for yours as
    >
    > [Dual CPU] Intel Xeon 2.66GHz 845
    >
    >
    > So a dual setup is a little better than just doubling the single CPU score.


    Missed that :)

    I wonder how that is possible ?
    Doesn't that defy logic ?

    Paul
     
  7. SC Tom

    SC Tom Flightless Bird

    "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
    news:hvidml$j9h$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    > SC Tom wrote:
    >> If you look here:
    >> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/multi_cpu.html
    >> you'll see the listing for yours as
    >>
    >> [Dual CPU] Intel Xeon 2.66GHz 845
    >>
    >>
    >> So a dual setup is a little better than just doubling the single CPU
    >> score.

    >
    > Missed that :)
    >
    > I wonder how that is possible ?
    > Doesn't that defy logic ?
    >
    > Paul


    I don't know, maybe a slightly faster bus or chipset in the dual CPU setup?
    Newer revision?
    I never much got into benchmarks since the i486 days. I can remember
    spending quite a few dollars more buying a 486DX-50 CPU with matching MB
    instead of a 486DX2-50 because the DX ran on a 50MHz external bus instead of
    25MHz doubled. It was certainly faster than the 386 CPU and MB I was
    replacing, but wasn't perceptively faster than the DX2s we had at work :-(
    --
    SC Tom
     

Share This Page