intel burn test question

  • 68 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#1 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

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

Avatar image for C_Rule
#2 Posted by C_Rule (9816 posts) -
Not sure what a 8150 should get, but it certainly not anything that low. Try restarting your PC and running it again.
Avatar image for deactivated-579f651eab962
#3 Posted by deactivated-579f651eab962 (5404 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#4 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

Here are my results. 

edit: tried setting it back to stock settings and it would dip into the 12gflop range

Avatar image for C_Rule
#5 Posted by C_Rule (9816 posts) -
Guess IBT doesn't like the Bulldozer architecture. I get 132 seconds/117 GFlops testing with 6.5GB RAM.
Avatar image for deactivated-579f651eab962
#6 Posted by deactivated-579f651eab962 (5404 posts) -
You sure it's getting enough volts?
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#7 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

yes even tried running stock and same results even less flops

Avatar image for JohnF111
#8 Posted by JohnF111 (14187 posts) -
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?
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#9 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

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

Avatar image for deactivated-579f651eab962
#10 Posted by deactivated-579f651eab962 (5404 posts) -
Hows ya RAM, just tweaked mine got and my Gflops went up to 103
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#11 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

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)

Avatar image for JohnF111
#12 Posted by JohnF111 (14187 posts) -

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).

Avatar image for basher999
#13 Posted by basher999 (220 posts) -

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

Avatar image for C_Rule
#14 Posted by C_Rule (9816 posts) -

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
Apparently you have to email Microsoft to get them. Does anyone know why they were pulled?
Avatar image for darksusperia
#15 Posted by darksusperia (6945 posts) -
[QUOTE="basher999"]

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
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.
Avatar image for C_Rule
#16 Posted by C_Rule (9816 posts) -
[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="basher999"]

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
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.
Avatar image for way2funny
#17 Posted by way2funny (4570 posts) -

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

Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#18 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

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

Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#19 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

why can i not install the hotfixes?

Avatar image for darksusperia
#20 Posted by darksusperia (6945 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#21 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

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

Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#22 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

bump

Avatar image for deactivated-579f651eab962
#23 Posted by deactivated-579f651eab962 (5404 posts) -
If your PC is running fine I wouldn't worry too much about it. Next time get yourself a proper CPU..........................( uh-oh, flamebait )
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#24 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -
[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]If your PC is running fine I wouldn't worry too much about it. Next time get yourself a proper CPU..........................( uh-oh, flamebait )

ouch :p
Avatar image for kraken2109
#25 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

Try a different benchmark to see if it's just burn test or actually your CPU.

If it runs fine everywhere else stop worrying.

Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#26 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

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) :/

Avatar image for kraken2109
#27 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

[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
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#28 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

[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 benchmark

I guess what im trying to say is why does my cpu score WAY lower than other people with the same CPU?

Avatar image for JohnF111
#29 Posted by JohnF111 (14187 posts) -

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

i tried my old 9500 2.2 phenom and it scored the same as my 4.6 8150 (21gflops) :/

_SKatEDiRt_

Try a different benchmark

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.
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#30 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -
[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 lol
Avatar image for deactivated-579f651eab962
#31 Posted by deactivated-579f651eab962 (5404 posts) -
Might be worth giving the socket a blow and reseating the CPU.
Avatar image for horgen
#32 Posted by Horgen (116619 posts) -
Might be worth giving the socket a blow and reseating the CPU. acanofcoke
Try another benchmark first. Do you got any CPU heavy games? How does your performance in them compare to others?
Avatar image for darksusperia
#33 Posted by darksusperia (6945 posts) -
have you tried changing threads from all to 8? Ive heard thats help on the odd occasion.
Avatar image for deactivated-579f651eab962
#34 Posted by deactivated-579f651eab962 (5404 posts) -
Might be worth giving the socket a blow and reseating the CPU. acanofcoke
or try it with just one RAM stick or some other RAM.
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#35 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Truth_Hurts_U
#36 Posted by Truth_Hurts_U (9703 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for JohnF111
#37 Posted by JohnF111 (14187 posts) -
[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

I guess what im trying to say is why does my cpu score WAY lower than other people with the same CPU?

_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.
Avatar image for Ben-Buja
#38 Posted by Ben-Buja (2809 posts) -

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?

Avatar image for way2funny
#39 Posted by way2funny (4570 posts) -

[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

Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#40 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Ben-Buja
#41 Posted by Ben-Buja (2809 posts) -

[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...

Avatar image for C_Rule
#42 Posted by C_Rule (9816 posts) -

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_
Wait... You bought an octo core and then disabled half the cores?
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#43 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

[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

C_Rule

Wait... You bought an octo core and then disabled half the cores?

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

Avatar image for C_Rule
#44 Posted by C_Rule (9816 posts) -

[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_

Wait... You bought an octo core and then disabled half the cores?

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? :?

 

 

Avatar image for way2funny
#45 Posted by way2funny (4570 posts) -

[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

Avatar image for darksusperia
#46 Posted by darksusperia (6945 posts) -

[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?
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#47 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

[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? :?

 

 

It was the best amd CPU out at the time, and i was building an AMD rig/ nvidia GPU

Avatar image for C_Rule
#48 Posted by C_Rule (9816 posts) -

[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? :?

 

 

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.
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#49 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]

Why did you get an 8150? :?

 

 

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

Avatar image for way2funny
#50 Posted by way2funny (4570 posts) -

[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_

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

Really now?