Strange

Barry1337 · 22 Aug 2007 at 02:19

Any ideas why this is slower than:

E6300 @ 3.4ghz ocz PC6400 @ 972mhz 5-5-5-12 timmings is slower than

E6420 @ 3.2ghz ocz pc6400 @ 800mhz 4-4-4-12 timmings

Zefan · 22 Aug 2007 at 02:20

What are you using to measure performance?

Barry1337 · 22 Aug 2007 at 02:21

Super Pi times are slower

Zefan · 22 Aug 2007 at 02:25

The only thing I can think of is your memory timings. I'm not really clued up on Core 2 Duo so I'm not sure whether that's normal or not with relaxed timings.

Barry1337 · 22 Aug 2007 at 02:26

Yeh but surely not thats all down to timmings.

Zefan · 22 Aug 2007 at 02:31

Depends how big the difference between the SuperPi times is I guess.

Sorry, I'm sure someone less clueless will post soon

weescott · 22 Aug 2007 at 02:42

The optimal FSB is 450mhz. It may have a relation to ram timings. So Ram at 486 could actually be slower than ram at 400mhz. It could be a combination of timings, FSB and raw MHZ.

Well thats my late night theory anyway.

GeForce · 22 Aug 2007 at 02:53

SuperPI loves memory speed and bandwidth. Having tight RAM timings will give you a better SP score than a higher clock speed.

Try almost any another benchmark and you'll probably find the E6300 @ 3.4ghz quicker.

Jon

Justintime · 22 Aug 2007 at 03:21

Don't really do the SuperPi thing, but maybe it likes the extra 2mb cache and lower latencies?

GeForce · 22 Aug 2007 at 03:32

Justintime said:
maybe it likes the extra 2mb cache

Oh yeah, and that

silversurfer · 22 Aug 2007 at 07:45

Also its the timings you cant see like on the NB

Chris Beard · 22 Aug 2007 at 10:30

Cache has a massive impact on super pi. 4mb v 2mb no contest.

Barry1337 · 22 Aug 2007 at 13:51

Thanks for that guys