Best CPU Benchmarks?

[Santilli]

Hi
In this world of processors I am looking for a benchmark that allows comparing different CPUS.
The requirements for the benchmark are:
1. primary a huge database
2. government accuracy

So far the only one I have found with a decent database is passmark.
Does anyone else have a benchmark that fits the above criteria?

 

[Mercutio]

Usually I look at benchmark scores as wankery of a particular sort. I tax CPU cores by video encoding. If I genuinely care how fast a CPU is compared to another one, I'll encode some video. For the most part the only time I see subjectively meaningful differences is when I compare CPUs of different generations or architectures. Within the same generation the differences normally amount to a rounding error and I see no reason to concern myself with that.

A higher score on a benchmark has no intrinsic value on its own, especially since end users really don't get to see how the sausage is being made, both in terms of the test's biases (e.g. using a compiler that optimizes for Intel at the expense of AMD) and the various ways in which OEMs try to cheat the outcomes. Synthetic system benchmarks are their own special kind of useless, since they're more or less a judgment call on the part of one particular agency for weighting various computer subsystems.

In the end, I don't build or use computers to run benchmarking software and the only time I might even check scores is the case of comparing new or infrequently used parts with those I'm already familiar with.

 

[ddrueding]

I don't check benches either. By default I go to the latest architecture/process/socket, and then choose either:

1. The fastest.
2. The best bang/buck
3. The cheapest

This is determined exclusively by clock speed and price at the time. Occasionally there is variable cache to worry about, and I tend to favor more over less (go figure).

 

[Santilli]

...

In the end, I don't build or use computers to run benchmarking software and the only time I might even check scores is the case of comparing new or infrequently used parts with those I'm already familiar with.

Precisely what I use a benchmark for.

For instance do you have a benchmark that quantifies the difference between a i7 920 and an i7 3930K?

I can't run out and buy a 3930K to see if I notice the difference video encoding.

I am trying to determine:
1. The fastest.
2. The best bang/buck

Cheapest can be determined without a benchmark.

Without a data base it is often hard to tell which cpu is which generation with Intel's marketing and naming structure.

 

[ddrueding]

I am trying to determine:
1. The fastest.
2. The best bang/buck

Within a processor family you don't need benchmarks for these, either. Performance scales fairly linearly with clock speed.

 

[Mercutio]

For instance do you have a benchmark that quantifies the difference between a i7 920 and an i7 3930K?

Yes. I'd feed both CPUs a BluRay in Handbrake at the same encoding settings and see which finished first. Since that's the task that primarily concerns me, it's a completely valid real-world yardstick. The time it takes to re-encode that content is measured in hours and a 25% improvement in performance is quite significant.

On the other hand, if you don't have a specific task that you need to get done faster and you have a computer that works just fine for the work you're doing with it, I have no idea what to tell you about evaluating performance except that you're almost certainly better off saving your money for the day that you DO have a need.

 

[BingBangBop]

I am trying to determine:
1. The fastest.
2. The best bang/buck

I'm sorry, but your approach is screwy. There is no such thing as the perfect CPU benchmark and especially not a govt. approved one. What is perfect for you, is not the same as what if the best for another because everyone's needs are different. A person that video encodes extensively is different than a CAD user which is different than someone optimizing for folding which is different than someone that needs a machine for light office work or web access.

Even trying for the best bang for the buck runs into the problem of what is your minimum acceptable threshold as to what is fast enough. For some Atoms on netbooks are plenty fast enough, while others using that combo on the of lightest workloads are screaming in frustration and annoyance. There are lots of people totally happy still using P4's while others are not happy unless they have the newest highest over-clocked extreme i7. There's just no such thing as a definitive "right answer" to the best bang for your buck. Even if you could find your minimum acceptable performance threshold and your optimum usage there is the fact that new CPU's are constantly being issued and prices move constantly so you are trying to hit a continuously moving target.

If I were you, I'd not be searching for the perfect benchmark, but rather search for good people that are knowledgeable, keep informed, and that you trust.

 

[Handruin]

Look up Spec:
http://www.spec.org/benchmarks.html

I wouldn't buy my CPU by these numbers but it meets the two criteria you requested. It's just a number. It won't make any real difference.

 

[Santilli]

Thanks Handurin. Next time I buy server quality machines processors et cetera, that is an excellent reference.

No I guess is the other answer.

Comparison becomes particularly problematic when you are comparing a variety of processor families produced at different time periods, or at the same time.

There is some merit to buying one generation back from the bleeding edge. Value is usually better. Bugs are usually worked out. Hardware is tested for compatibility.

The trade off is testing components are going to be less likely to be cost effective or plentiful.

DD and Mercutio thank you for sharing your methods in determining how and what works for you.

 

[Handruin]

Thanks Handurin. Next time I buy server quality machines processors et cetera, that is an excellent reference.

No I guess is the other answer.

Comparison becomes particularly problematic when you are comparing a variety of processor families produced at different time periods, or at the same time.

There is some merit to buying one generation back from the bleeding edge. Value is usually better. Bugs are usually worked out. Hardware is tested for compatibility.

The trade off is testing components are going to be less likely to be cost effective or plentiful.

DD and Mercutio thank you for sharing your methods in determining how and what works for you.

What computing task are you trying to accomplish faster that you're considering a new CPU for? Are you certain the task is CPU-bound?

 

[Santilli]

Blu-ray playback

I am preparing for the HTPC dying.

It is both a HTPC and an office machine.

Blu-ray playback is the most stressful activity it does. It also has to sync this through an Xplosion sound card.

In the Low powered computer thread Stereodude says,

"Personally, I use my HTPC for video playback, not for running passmark. What's the connection between passmark (which is largely integer math) and video plaback? "

I am always looking for a benchmark that allows me to compare different processors. I have certain levels of performance improvement that motivate me to consider a new CPU/motherboard/ram configuration.

Passmark has been my go to benchmark. Passmark has been easy to search, comprehensive, if not laser accurate. If there is another better benchmark I am looking for it.

 

[CougTek]

You certainly don't need an i7-3930K simply for a HTPC combined with an office machine. Unless you want to plug 6 monitors/TVs to the computer and play 6 different 1080p movies from 6 different VMs from it. If that's not your plan, please reconsider your options here. An i7-3930K is a bad choice for a HTPC because it's a processor with a relatively high TDP. The higher the TDP, the harder the CPU normally is to cool off, the more noise generally coming from the cooling solution used. In a HTPC, silent operation is paramount. You'd be much better with something fitting on an LGA1155. Something like an i5-2320 would fit the bill nicely, even be overkill, but since it's for you, I assume overkill is the norm.

 

[Stereodude]

Just read the HW requirements for BD playback software. link

 

[Bozo]

Unless you purchase one of each processor that you think might work for you, why would you need a testing program?
Just search the net for the reviews of the CPUs. Usually they are compared to other similar CPUs.

 

[Clocker]

All he wants to do is blow his cash on new hardware, whether he needs it or not. It's a repeated theme. So just answer his question and move on. :crucified:

 

[Mercutio]

It is both a HTPC and an office machine. Blu-ray playback is the most stressful activity it does.

You could use a G-series Pentium or an AMD Llano CPU and perhaps a passively cooled modern video card and have a perfectly satisfactory office machine that supports HD video decoding.

My HTPC uses a Core 2 Duo E5300 and a Radeon 6450; it has plenty of horsepower to handle video playback.

 

[Santilli]

All he wants to do is blow his cash on new hardware, whether he needs it or not. It's a repeated theme. So just answer his question and move on. :crucified:

The goal is to do the EXACT opposite. NOT blow cash unless the improvement is warranted.

 

[BingBangBop]

Then why are you even asking about a benchmark?

Is there something that your current setup can't do that you want or need to do? Is there something that is taking so much time that it is annoying or frustrating you? That is what you need to be talking about, not a seeking a benchmark to see if it justifies upgrading because it doesn't no matter what the benchmarks say unless you have some need/want. Without that need or want, any purchase is a waste of total money.

Once you start talking about those needs and wants, then someone that is knowledgeable can point you in the direction you should be heading.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

The goal is to do the EXACT opposite. NOT blow cash unless the improvement is warranted.

A cool running Llano based APU (CPU+GPU on same die) is more than sufficient to decode Blu-ray, and pretty much any other HTPC playback duty. No need for another video card. Now if you want to do a whole lot of encoding, the i7 range would be the better performer. but for bang for buck a Llano is hard to beat. You already have a high performance, high power consumption CPU.

 

[Santilli]

Then why are you even asking about a benchmark?

Is there something that your current setup can't do that you want or need to do? Is there something that is taking so much time that it is annoying or frustrating you? That is what you need to be talking about, not a seeking a benchmark to see if it justifies upgrading because it doesn't no matter what the benchmarks say unless you have some need/want. Without that need or want, any purchase is a waste of total money.

Once you start talking about those needs and wants, then someone that is knowledgeable can point you in the direction you should be heading.

I know your a little late to the party and a bit short. The machine is over 6 years old, running an AMD 3800 dual core. Failure of some component is imminent.

It is a bit late to come up with ideas when the patient is dead already.

I find it incredibly ironic when people who have so many times told me that using server class equipment and keeping it for a long period of time is not a proper computer technique due to driver and hardware advancements, berate me for changing hardware on a SIX year old computer.
Yes, it's annoying not having a driver for a perfectly functioning Xerox 130 printer/copier for Windows 7. That is one of the reasons for wanting to move to another setup.

 

[BingBangBop]

I'm making the assumption that it is no longer your main machine because of your sig. I have no problem being proactive. So what does the machine you are replacing have as its dedicated purpose? What does it need to do, that can't be done by your main machine?

If it doesn't have a dedicated purpose then what about retiring it, without even bothering replacing it as the cheapest most efficient use of your money. Just move the applications and data to your main machine an turn the power off permanently. Possibly sell the component parts on Ebay, donate it to a charity or a school, perhaps you have a relative that has a need for a computer.

Please note, the process of replacement does not start with getting benchmarks. Rather, the process starts by identifying the machines uses and then optimizing for those uses.

 

[BingBangBop]

Also, replacing the computer will not fix the problem of not having a driver for your printer in Win7. Replace the computer and you still will not have a new driver. For a solution to that, you probably need to replace your perfectly good printer/copier. Lots of people had to do that when Vista/Win7 came out because Microsoft used a different driver model and lots of manufacturers didn't write new drivers for their old HW. Your choices are to keep an old OS running (and print through it) or to replace your printer. Perhaps you can deal with XP mode as your kludge?

 

[Santilli]

"I'm making the assumption that it is no longer your main machine because of your sig. I have no problem being proactive. So what does the machine you are replacing have as its dedicated purpose? What does it need to do, that can't be done by your main machine? "

It works as a double duty Home Office PC, and HTPC. The main computer is not in the living room which is the major advantage of the Athlon X2 3800+ (Gigabyte motherboard Xplosion sound card Xerox 130 printer 2 gigs ram Vertex Turbo 30 gig drive
Sparkle Nvidia 9600 video card).

 

[Santilli]

My current kludge is a SSD with XP 3 on it. This allows using the laser printer/copier. It really pisses me off that I can't use the Xerox printer/copier in 7. My girlfriend came over and needed to print something off the web.
I'm trying to bring her into this century with Windows 7 on the computer. I have another drive with 7 Ultimate installed and working. First thing she does is turn on the printer thinking she can print the material she needs from 7
to the Xerox

It's hard to explain to a non-computer person why the 'new better' operating system won't work with a perfectly good laser printer.

 

[LunarMist]

Why is that difficult to explain? At a certain point the device manufacturer doesn't want to write a new driver for an obsolete product.

 

[BingBangBop]

Have you looked into the XP mode inside Windows7 to use to print from?

 

[Chewy509]

It really pisses me off that I can't use the Xerox printer/copier in 7.

Umm, what version of the 130 do you have, as this indicates she'll work fine?

http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/co...rinters & Scanners&sc=Multifunction&os=32-bit

 

[time]

You didn't click on the 64-bit tab ...

It's not on Xerox's list of Windows 7-compatible printers (pdf).

 

[Chewy509]

You didn't click on the 64-bit tab ...

It's not on Xerox's list of Windows 7-compatible printers (pdf).

Apologies, sorry didn't do that... But anyone else pick up on the fact that the printer model is 11+ yrs old? ( A Google on the model shows introduction date to be April 2000).

Kudos for Xerox for building a solid printer/copier...

PS. I haven't heard too many good things about LPT pass-through in XP Mode on Win7. Some say it's works perfectly, and others say it didn't work at all. I guess it depends on the printer software and how much it takes over the LPT port.

 

[BingBangBop]

You didn't click on the 64-bit tab ...

It's not on Xerox's list of Windows 7-compatible printers (pdf).

If it is compatible with 32 bit Win7 but not 64 then install the 32 bit version. For his uses, 64 bit Windows7 is totally unnecessary.

PS. I haven't heard too many good things about LPT pass-through in XP Mode on Win7. Some say it's works perfectly, and others say it didn't work at all. I guess it depends on the printer software and how much it takes over the LPT port.

It might not work, but I would at least try it. It is so much cheaper than replacing the printer/copier.

 

[time]

Greg, I know you're attached to your printer - most of us here appreciate good machinery - but please consider taking advantage of the current Xerox promo and pick up one of [http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828118544]these[/url] before the end of the month for $270 (I don't think Best Buy sells them). It does everything that your old one does, eg. Auto Document Feeder & Duplexer, except it only comes with one paper tray as standard. Almost weighs as much as well.

 

[time]

Fixed URL: XEROX Phaser 3300MFP/X

 

[Santilli]

First off: Thank you all for taking the time to try and help out.
I love you guys;-)

So far I haven't been able to find a fix, even trying Xerox's more or less universal printing solutions. Tried the 32 bit 5.

Time I have managed to get it to print to my even older HP 4000N network printer.

For what it's worth, the document feeder never worked. I think I'll either sell it or make sure the XP drive is installed when my girlfriend comes over.

The 32 bit version does not install auto in 7. Sure, it sees it. Driver? No.
Print test page no.
I'll try this tomorrow from the box to let you know if I'm wrong.

While I respect the fact that the printer I have has worked well, the last fucking thing I'm going to do is reward Xerox for failing to write a driver for that printer by buying a new Xerox printer.

I will shove it up their collective asses if I can figure how to do that.

 

[Chewy509]

Out of interest, does the printer support any of the major printer languages? eg Postscript, PCL, IBM ProPrinter?

 

[Mercutio]

If you're willing to spend about $40, you can get a little print server appliance that will work to keep your old printer working. I'd also bet any amount of money that printer works fine with CUPS on Linux.

 

[Chewy509]

I'd also bet any amount of money that printer works fine with CUPS on Linux.

Strangely enough the exact model isn't listed in the CUPS database nor on openprinting.org or on gutenberg (gimp-print.org).

Still want to take a bet, as it's cousin the XD120df is listed as a paper weight? (The primary difference between the 120 and 130 was print speed).

 

[time]

I'm happy to take his money: it's a GDI printer.

That would be why there is no chance of a 64-bit driver. Actually, I suspect there isn't really one for 32-bit either - it's most probably a mistake.

 

[time]

I have managed to get it to print to my even older HP 4000N network printer.

That would be because it supports PCL-6 and it was easy for Microsoft to add to their database, NOT because HP wrote a 64-bit Windows 7 driver for it.

For what it's worth, the document feeder never worked.

Then what's the point of keeping the printer?

The 32 bit version does not install auto in 7. Sure, it sees it. Driver? No.

That's just its ID string showing up in Plug 'n Play; it's only a label, not actual software.

While I respect the fact that the printer I have has worked well, the last fucking thing I'm going to do is reward Xerox for failing to write a driver for that printer by buying a new Xerox printer.

You have this ass-backwards. Unlike HP, Fuji-Xerox supports their products for many years, but this one was released last century. The printer architecture means a generic driver isn't possible and a port to 64-bit Windows 7 isn't practical.

It has become clear that your needs would be served with a basic laser MFP that you could pick up for about $100 or $200 with a duplexer. Stop farting about and do it.

 

[Mercutio]

I had no idea Xerox even made GDI printers. News to me.

I find it incredibly ironic when people who have so many times told me that using server class equipment and keeping it for a long period of time is not a proper computer technique due to driver and hardware advancements, berate me for changing hardware on a SIX year old computer.

You clearly don't understand the application or need for workstation-class hardware. We've tried to communicate the implications of doing so for years. Your natural inclination appears to be to overspend. We are mostly trying to prevent you from doing that.

 

[Santilli]

Thanks Time.

I guess when GF comes over I need to swap the XP disk back in to boot from.

The Wikipedia article suggests that only the lowest models of printers used GDI. It's really wonderful when your printer is compared to Macintosh's QuickDraw. What was that? 7.1?

Xerox got nearly 1200 dollars for that printer (XD130df) when I bought it.

HP has at least released drivers that work for 7 for the 4000N. GETTING those drivers is sometimes easy other times not.
Sometimes MSFT lets you download them sometimes they don't. Took over five days to get them this time.