i am only getting 16-20 gflops with my cpu. is that normal?
i went into my BIOS and enabled 1 core per compute unit (you know what i mean sorry ive been awake for 20 hours) now im getting 31 gflops at 2.6ghz
This topic is locked from further discussion.
i am only getting 16-20 gflops with my cpu. is that normal?
i went into my BIOS and enabled 1 core per compute unit (you know what i mean sorry ive been awake for 20 hours) now im getting 31 gflops at 2.6ghz
It depends on how much ram you're using. Use maximum for a more accurate gflops but that does sound very low. I get 101 with HT on, with HT off it would higher but I've not tried.
Here are my results.Â
edit: tried setting it back to stock settings and it would dip into the 12gflop range
Had a look on google and your chip should be somewhere in the 63Gflops area. Definitely an issue somewhere I just don't know where it could be, seen others running with a voltage of 1.55 volts... How does that compare to yours?JohnF111
stock settings on my cpu are 1.2 something volts. tried 1.36 and still same results. this is so frustrating
Hows ya RAM, just tweaked mine got and my Gflops went up to 103acanofcoke
my ram is running stock the only thing i have OCed is the multiplier and raised voltage. (1866)
Isn't the FX series the one that Windows released a couple of patches to fix performance? Have you installed the patches? I don't think they appear in Window Update.
Patch 1
Patch 2
I doubt they'll miraculously improve performance by 600% but you never know, it might be the missing link. Install the Schedular patch first, then the Core Parking one second(It's what the internet says anyway).
Apparently you have to email Microsoft to get them. Does anyone know why they were pulled?they do not.. they got pulled from the line-up of windows updates... however they are still availible for download... I would post links to them but for the life of me i cant find them at the moment
basher999
[QUOTE="basher999"]Apparently you have to email Microsoft to get them. Does anyone know why they were pulled? thats normal behaviour for a hotfix. its an automated thing, you email and you get the reply with the download link almost straight away. It would have been moved like that so that everyone didnt think they needed them. If you go searching for a problem and find an answer, different story. Ive had some server patches like that. (RDP compatibility between win7 SP1 clients and older rdp clients) etc.they do not.. they got pulled from the line-up of windows updates... however they are still availible for download... I would post links to them but for the life of me i cant find them at the moment
C_Rule
[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="basher999"]Apparently you have to email Microsoft to get them. Does anyone know why they were pulled? thats normal behaviour for a hotfix. its an automated thing, you email and you get the reply with the download link almost straight away. It would have been moved like that so that everyone didnt think they needed them. If you go searching for a problem and find an answer, different story. Ive had some server patches like that. (RDP compatibility between win7 SP1 clients and older rdp clients) etc. I see.they do not.. they got pulled from the line-up of windows updates... however they are still availible for download... I would post links to them but for the life of me i cant find them at the moment
darksusperia
So i have to email microsoft to get my cpu working right?
edit: so i recieved the emails but one of them wont open and i tried sending it again through the website but it gives me an error when trying to open the email.
edit: when i tried to install the fix it said that it is not applicable to my computer
user error?
normally if you've downloaded it, and then run the file, it will pop up a windows update like screen, check system compatibility, tell you if you need it or not. etc.
user error?
normally if you've downloaded it, and then run the file, it will pop up a windows update like screen, check system compatibility, tell you if you need it or not. etc.
darksusperia
it says it doesnt apply to my system but clearly it should
Try a different benchmark to see if it's just burn test or actually your CPU.
If it runs fine everywhere else stop worrying.
Try a different benchmark to see if it's just burn test or actually your CPU.
If it runs fine everywhere else stop worrying.
kraken2109
i tried my old 9500 2.2 phenom and it scored the same as my 4.6 8150 (21gflops) :/
[QUOTE="kraken2109"]
Try a different benchmark to see if it's just burn test or actually your CPU.
If it runs fine everywhere else stop worrying.
_SKatEDiRt_
i tried my old 9500 2.2 phenom and it scored the same as my 4.6 8150 (21gflops) :/
Try a different benchmark[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"][QUOTE="kraken2109"]
Try a different benchmark to see if it's just burn test or actually your CPU.
If it runs fine everywhere else stop worrying.
kraken2109
i tried my old 9500 2.2 phenom and it scored the same as my 4.6 8150 (21gflops) :/
Try a different benchmarkI guess what im trying to say is why does my cpu score WAY lower than other people with the same CPU?
Try a different benchmark[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]
i tried my old 9500 2.2 phenom and it scored the same as my 4.6 8150 (21gflops) :/
_SKatEDiRt_
I guess what im trying to say is why does my cpu score WAY lower than other people with the same CPU?
Try updating your BIOS, all the functionality seems to work apart from the performance, maybe you have a BIOS version that "supports" your chip but not very well.[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"][QUOTE="kraken2109"] Try a different benchmarkJohnF111
I guess what im trying to say is why does my cpu score WAY lower than other people with the same CPU?
Try updating your BIOS, all the functionality seems to work apart from the performance, maybe you have a BIOS version that "supports" your chip but not very well.i have newest version. Thought of that lolMight be worth giving the socket a blow and reseating the CPU. acanofcokeor try it with just one RAM stick or some other RAM.
I only use 4 cores because of my overclock. i tried each individual stick of ram plus a completely different set of 2x4gb. to no avail. seriously why are my computers always having weird problems that are unexplainable... ugh ugh ugh
IBT readings are unreliable. A simple voltage change in bios can either raise or lower the rating.
But that is a very low rating. If your not having issues with games or what ever you do... I wouldn't worry about it.
[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]Try updating your BIOS, all the functionality seems to work apart from the performance, maybe you have a BIOS version that "supports" your chip but not very well.i have newest version. Thought of that lol Do what Horgen says and also others saying to try different benchmarks.I guess what im trying to say is why does my cpu score WAY lower than other people with the same CPU?
_SKatEDiRt_
Thats interesting I'm getting 120 GFLOPS but my time is almost 400s, might have to do with me still running tons of things. I'll try it later and see what I get
way2funny
I have the same CPU just clocked lower at 4GHz and I only get 75 GFLOPS, any idea whats wrong?
[QUOTE="way2funny"]
Thats interesting I'm getting 120 GFLOPS but my time is almost 400s, might have to do with me still running tons of things. I'll try it later and see what I get
Ben-Buja
I have the same CPU just clocked lower at 4GHz and I only get 75 GFLOPS, any idea whats wrong?
Ram? I have faster ram / in quad channel. I dont know the rest of your specs
IBT readings are unreliable. A simple voltage change in bios can either raise or lower the rating.
But that is a very low rating. If your not having issues with games or what ever you do... I wouldn't worry about it.
Truth_Hurts_U
Thats insane
[QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]
[QUOTE="way2funny"]
Thats interesting I'm getting 120 GFLOPS but my time is almost 400s, might have to do with me still running tons of things. I'll try it later and see what I get
way2funny
I have the same CPU just clocked lower at 4GHz and I only get 75 GFLOPS, any idea whats wrong?
Ram? I have faster ram / in quad channel. I dont know the rest of your specs
I have 16GB DDR3 quad channel RAM but running at 1600 Mhz. you think that makes that much difference? Well, at least in this test...
Wait... You bought an octo core and then disabled half the cores?I only use 4 cores because of my overclock. i tried each individual stick of ram plus a completely different set of 2x4gb. to no avail. seriously why are my computers always having weird problems that are unexplainable... ugh ugh ugh
_SKatEDiRt_
[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]Wait... You bought an octo core and then disabled half the cores?I only use 4 cores because of my overclock. i tried each individual stick of ram plus a completely different set of 2x4gb. to no avail. seriously why are my computers always having weird problems that are unexplainable... ugh ugh ugh
C_Rule
Yes. I dont have any programs that use all 8 cores. and with half of them disabled it actually improved my FPS in alot of games
Wait... You bought an octo core and then disabled half the cores?[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]
I only use 4 cores because of my overclock. i tried each individual stick of ram plus a completely different set of 2x4gb. to no avail. seriously why are my computers always having weird problems that are unexplainable... ugh ugh ugh
_SKatEDiRt_
Yes. I dont have any programs that use all 8 cores. and with half of them disabled it actually improved my FPS in alot of games
Why did you get an 8150? :?
Â
Â
[QUOTE="way2funny"]
[QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]
I have the same CPU just clocked lower at 4GHz and I only get 75 GFLOPS, any idea whats wrong?
Ben-Buja
Ram? I have faster ram / in quad channel. I dont know the rest of your specs
I have 16GB DDR3 quad channel RAM but running at 1600 Mhz. you think that makes that much difference? Well, at least in this test...
Yeah some tests (especially in physics calculations) cache and memory spead play a huge role. But it shouldnt be THAT big of a difference. Try some other cpu test like that cinebench and let me know what u get
[QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]
[QUOTE="way2funny"]
Ram? I have faster ram / in quad channel. I dont know the rest of your specs
way2funny
I have 16GB DDR3 quad channel RAM but running at 1600 Mhz. you think that makes that much difference? Well, at least in this test...
Yeah some tests (especially in physics calculations) cache and memory spead play a huge role. But it shouldnt be THAT big of a difference. Try some other cpu test like that cinebench and let me know what u get
My 3770K @ 4.5 with 16GB dual channel @ 1600 gives me 117GFlops. It could be a faulty stick, try with only 1 in and see what you get?[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]
[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Wait... You bought an octo core and then disabled half the cores?C_Rule
Yes. I dont have any programs that use all 8 cores. and with half of them disabled it actually improved my FPS in alot of games
Why did you get an 8150? :?
Â
Â
It was the best amd CPU out at the time, and i was building an AMD rig/ nvidia GPU
[QUOTE="C_Rule"]
[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]
Yes. I dont have any programs that use all 8 cores. and with half of them disabled it actually improved my FPS in alot of games
_SKatEDiRt_
Why did you get an 8150? :?
Â
Â
It was the best amd CPU out at the time, and i was building an AMD rig/ nvidia GPU
Eh, what's done is done, but I don't understand why people chose to ignore the Bulldozer reviews and get one anyway. After turning your 8150 into a quad, you've effectively got a CPU you could have gotten late 09 for half the price.[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"][QUOTE="C_Rule"]
Why did you get an 8150? :?
Â
Â
C_Rule
It was the best amd CPU out at the time, and i was building an AMD rig/ nvidia GPU
Eh, what's done is done, but I don't understand why people chose to ignore the Bulldozer reviews and get one anyway. After turning your 8150 into a quad, you've effectively got a CPU you could have gotten late 09 for half the price.Lol i didnt even look at any reviews and i wasnt into the forums at the time. although i had been years ago. I got the best CPU according to the tech specs. obviously the times have changed. and with it overclocked im on par with 2600k
Eh, what's done is done, but I don't understand why people chose to ignore the Bulldozer reviews and get one anyway. After turning your 8150 into a quad, you've effectively got a CPU you could have gotten late 09 for half the price.[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]
It was the best amd CPU out at the time, and i was building an AMD rig/ nvidia GPU
_SKatEDiRt_
Lol i didnt even look at any reviews and i wasnt into the forums at the time. although i had been years ago. I got the best CPU according to the tech specs. obviously the times have changed. and with it overclocked im on par with 2600k
Really now?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment