TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan 1TB SSD Review
Corsair K57 RGB Wireless keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X review
PowerColor 5700 RED DEVIL review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Evoke review
ASUS Radeon RX 5700 XT ROG STRIX review
ViewSonic Elite XG240R Monitor Review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
X570 Aorus master review
Cooler Master Silencio S600 review
Black Hole benchmark Download Version V4.1
on: 08/20/2013 04:52 PM [ 18 comment(s) ]
Advertisement
Download the Black Hole benchmark (Final). It tests the pure calculation speed of your cpu in double and integer (floating and integer). The bench has 3 tests, multithreaded 4 threaded and singlethreaded. Multithreaded will take all your threads to its max use, singlethreaded stresses 1 thread 100%
Usage
First Close ALL other programs.
- Download the app from the download in this thread
- Extract the exe
- Run the exe and press multithreaded test (the program can be stuck while running, just let it do his job for 1-5 min)
- When completed that, run the 4threaded test (will last 1-2 min)
- Run the last test, the singlethreaded test
- Then you get the final score
Other important information
- Only for windows from xp and up (recommended)
- You need at least .NET framework 2.1
- Ram speed and latency can affect the score pretty much
- At this moment it supports up to 34 threads!
SmileMan
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 2013-01-09
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 2013-01-09
#4508341 Posted on: 01/24/2013 12:13 AM
No, you're right to post here. This is for the new beta, the other thread is from 4.1.
No, you're right to post here. This is for the new beta, the other thread is from 4.1.
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 7144
Joined: 2011-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 7144
Joined: 2011-07-20
#4508410 Posted on: 01/24/2013 01:24 AM
Thanks!
Results:
Don't know if that's good or not. Just have to wait and see.
**Added**
Oops, I see there's already a thread for results. Sorry about that.
How did you save the image? ms paint? I get no right click.
Thanks!
Results:
Don't know if that's good or not. Just have to wait and see.
**Added**
Oops, I see there's already a thread for results. Sorry about that.
How did you save the image? ms paint? I get no right click.
dark_surge
Senior Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 2003-10-28
Senior Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 2003-10-28
#4508424 Posted on: 01/24/2013 01:46 AM
I used GIMP to save the image. I say save, but I guess they call it exporting now.
How did you save the image? ms paint? I get no right click.
I used GIMP to save the image. I say save, but I guess they call it exporting now.
BetA
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: 2008-03-03
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: 2008-03-03
#4509090 Posted on: 01/24/2013 08:56 PM
hmmm, am i wrong or do i really allmost keep up with the i7 u have????
hmmm, am i wrong or do i really allmost keep up with the i7 u have????
dark_surge
Senior Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 2003-10-28
Senior Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 2003-10-28
#4509128 Posted on: 01/24/2013 09:42 PM
Nah if anything I'm doing it wrong. I've noticed the same thing on the 4.1 benchmark thread. I think I just need to take a look in the BIOS and see if there's any throttling or power management junk or etc I've overlooked. Either that or this CPU isn't as good as I originally thought. I got it for practically nothing so it's a possibility.
**Added**
After playing around in the BIOS I managed this:
Not much better but oh well.
To be honest it's been almost a decade since I last overclocked anything or really messed around with the BIOS, especially with this Rampage IV. There's just a staggering amount of options to change when compared to any mobo I've ever owned in the past. Technology is already so fast nowadays and I've got a steady job so I haven't needed to squeeze every last drop of performance out of my electronics like I used to. I just do the basics of updating the BIOS when needed, turning off any throttling or whatnot, and making sure my clock speeds and timings are where they should be and then I leave it alone.
And on that note, if anybody else has a Rampage IV extreme and has any pointers I'd appreciate any help I can get.
**Added**
After googling your CPU I see you've got quite a nice OC on it. 2.83GHz to 3.8?
**Added**
@4.2GHz
hmmm, am i wrong or do i really allmost keep up with the i7 u have????
Nah if anything I'm doing it wrong.
I've noticed the same thing on the 4.1 benchmark thread. I think I just need to take a look in the BIOS and see if there's any throttling or power management junk or etc I've overlooked. Either that or this CPU isn't as good as I originally thought. I got it for practically nothing so it's a possibility.
**Added**
After playing around in the BIOS I managed this:
Not much better but oh well.
To be honest it's been almost a decade since I last overclocked anything or really messed around with the BIOS, especially with this Rampage IV. There's just a staggering amount of options to change when compared to any mobo I've ever owned in the past. Technology is already so fast nowadays and I've got a steady job so I haven't needed to squeeze every last drop of performance out of my electronics like I used to. I just do the basics of updating the BIOS when needed, turning off any throttling or whatnot, and making sure my clock speeds and timings are where they should be and then I leave it alone.
And on that note, if anybody else has a Rampage IV extreme and has any pointers I'd appreciate any help I can get.
**Added**
After googling your CPU I see you've got quite a nice OC on it. 2.83GHz to 3.8?
**Added**
@4.2GHz
zipper
Senior Member
Posts: 1011
Joined: 2005-03-14
Senior Member
Posts: 1011
Joined: 2005-03-14
#4509173 Posted on: 01/24/2013 10:22 PM
My old laptop lags behind...
My old laptop lags behind...
SmileMan
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 2013-01-09
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 2013-01-09
#4509262 Posted on: 01/25/2013 12:27 AM
Nah if anything I'm doing it wrong. I've noticed the same thing on the 4.1 benchmark thread. I think I just need to take a look in the BIOS and see if there's any throttling or power management junk or etc I've overlooked. Either that or this CPU isn't as good as I originally thought. I got it for practically nothing so it's a possibility.
**Added**
After playing around in the BIOS I managed this:
Not much better but oh well.
To be honest it's been almost a decade since I last overclocked anything or really messed around with the BIOS, especially with this Rampage IV. There's just a staggering amount of options to change when compared to any mobo I've ever owned in the past. Technology is already so fast nowadays and I've got a steady job so I haven't needed to squeeze every last drop of performance out of my electronics like I used to. I just do the basics of updating the BIOS when needed, turning off any throttling or whatnot, and making sure my clock speeds and timings are where they should be and then I leave it alone.
And on that note, if anybody else has a Rampage IV extreme and has any pointers I'd appreciate any help I can get.
**Added**
After googling your CPU I see you've got quite a nice OC on it. 2.83GHz to 3.8?
**Added**
@4.2GHz
Clock for clock the old intel series aren't that much behind in pure calc speed. If you'd test an i5 2500k at the same speed of the c2q, you'll only see a difference of 200-300 points.
Anyway, the new series are cooler and can be clocked much higher (w/o ln2)
The reason why the difference quad threaded cpu vs 8threads is minimal, is because singlethreaded and quad threads will give around the same result.
That said, overclocking does help VERY much in this bench, especially multithreaded will scale up. Here will all 8threaded cpus gain much points, because the scale of the multithreaded test is much bigger
.
I'll try 5.2ghz tomorrow.
Edit: People with overclocked phenoms are very welcome atm!
Nah if anything I'm doing it wrong.
I've noticed the same thing on the 4.1 benchmark thread. I think I just need to take a look in the BIOS and see if there's any throttling or power management junk or etc I've overlooked. Either that or this CPU isn't as good as I originally thought. I got it for practically nothing so it's a possibility.
**Added**
After playing around in the BIOS I managed this:
Not much better but oh well.
To be honest it's been almost a decade since I last overclocked anything or really messed around with the BIOS, especially with this Rampage IV. There's just a staggering amount of options to change when compared to any mobo I've ever owned in the past. Technology is already so fast nowadays and I've got a steady job so I haven't needed to squeeze every last drop of performance out of my electronics like I used to. I just do the basics of updating the BIOS when needed, turning off any throttling or whatnot, and making sure my clock speeds and timings are where they should be and then I leave it alone.
And on that note, if anybody else has a Rampage IV extreme and has any pointers I'd appreciate any help I can get.
**Added**
After googling your CPU I see you've got quite a nice OC on it. 2.83GHz to 3.8?
**Added**
@4.2GHz
Clock for clock the old intel series aren't that much behind in pure calc speed. If you'd test an i5 2500k at the same speed of the c2q, you'll only see a difference of 200-300 points.
Anyway, the new series are cooler and can be clocked much higher (w/o ln2)
The reason why the difference quad threaded cpu vs 8threads is minimal, is because singlethreaded and quad threads will give around the same result.
That said, overclocking does help VERY much in this bench, especially multithreaded will scale up. Here will all 8threaded cpus gain much points, because the scale of the multithreaded test is much bigger
.
I'll try 5.2ghz tomorrow.
Edit: People with overclocked phenoms are very welcome atm!
SmileMan
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 2013-01-09
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 2013-01-09
#4509288 Posted on: 01/25/2013 12:55 AM
My old laptop lags behind...
Really, it's an okey score compared to some others I saw already.
Some scores:
Athlon 64 3700+ stock
I7 3770 stock (3.4ghz, for singlethreaded 3.9ghz, turbo always on 1 thread)
So it seems there IS still a big difference c2q if they were on same clock. Could you test that c2q on 3.5ghz?
I5 2500k @4.3ghz
I7 920 stock (2.63ghz)
I7 2600k @5ghz (will do 5.2 or more tomorrow)
I7 3930k @4.9ghz
I7 2630QM stock (2ghz)
For people who want to get the best score out of their systems, lowering RAM LATENCY (speed not really), makes pretty much sense in the score and will give it a 200-500 points boost.
My old laptop lags behind...
Really, it's an okey score compared to some others I saw already.
Some scores:
Athlon 64 3700+ stock
I7 3770 stock (3.4ghz, for singlethreaded 3.9ghz, turbo always on 1 thread)
So it seems there IS still a big difference c2q if they were on same clock. Could you test that c2q on 3.5ghz?
I5 2500k @4.3ghz
I7 920 stock (2.63ghz)
I7 2600k @5ghz (will do 5.2 or more tomorrow)
I7 3930k @4.9ghz
I7 2630QM stock (2ghz)
For people who want to get the best score out of their systems, lowering RAM LATENCY (speed not really), makes pretty much sense in the score and will give it a 200-500 points boost.
-Tj-
Senior Member
Posts: 16301
Joined: 2012-05-18
Senior Member
Posts: 16301
Joined: 2012-05-18
#4509292 Posted on: 01/25/2013 01:04 AM
Here is mine at ~ 3.56ghz
So it seems there IS still a big difference c2q if they were on same clock. Could you test that c2q on 3.5ghz?
Here is mine at ~ 3.56ghz
dark_surge
Senior Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 2003-10-28
Senior Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 2003-10-28
#4509308 Posted on: 01/25/2013 01:23 AM
Clock for clock the old intel series aren't that much behind in pure calc speed. If you'd test an i5 2500k at the same speed of the c2q, you'll only see a difference of 200-300 points.
Anyway, the new series are cooler and can be clocked much higher (w/o ln2)
The reason why the difference quad threaded cpu vs 8threads is minimal, is because singlethreaded and quad threads will give around the same result.
That said, overclocking does help VERY much in this bench, especially multithreaded will scale up. Here will all 8threaded cpus gain much points, because the scale of the multithreaded test is much bigger.
I'll try 5.2ghz tomorrow.
Edit: People with overclocked phenoms are very welcome atm!
Wow, we have the creator himself here. Thank you for explaining that to me. I'm surprised there's so little difference between a lot of these CPUs.
I wish I still had my Phenom II 965 rig in one piece so I could test that for you.
Clock for clock the old intel series aren't that much behind in pure calc speed. If you'd test an i5 2500k at the same speed of the c2q, you'll only see a difference of 200-300 points.
Anyway, the new series are cooler and can be clocked much higher (w/o ln2)
The reason why the difference quad threaded cpu vs 8threads is minimal, is because singlethreaded and quad threads will give around the same result.
That said, overclocking does help VERY much in this bench, especially multithreaded will scale up. Here will all 8threaded cpus gain much points, because the scale of the multithreaded test is much bigger
.
I'll try 5.2ghz tomorrow.
Edit: People with overclocked phenoms are very welcome atm!
Wow, we have the creator himself here. Thank you for explaining that to me. I'm surprised there's so little difference between a lot of these CPUs.
I wish I still had my Phenom II 965 rig in one piece so I could test that for you.
SmileMan
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 2013-01-09
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 2013-01-09
#4509317 Posted on: 01/25/2013 01:33 AM
Np, could you plz experiment with your ram latency? Lower it a bit (1-2 cycles down or something) and test again. You'll have better scores.
Also, really close ALL programs. Even the smallest backgroundprograms like skype,... can affect your score pretty much.
Np, could you plz experiment with your ram latency? Lower it a bit (1-2 cycles down or something) and test again. You'll have better scores.
Also, really close ALL programs. Even the smallest backgroundprograms like skype,... can affect your score pretty much.
dark_surge
Senior Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 2003-10-28
Senior Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 2003-10-28
#4509466 Posted on: 01/25/2013 04:27 AM
@3.8GHz
For some reason I got a better score running the memory at 1600MHz than 1866. I'm assuming it's because the 3820 is only supposed to run up to 1600MHz when in quad channel?
I tried tightening my RAM timings but I couldn't manage anything lower than 8-9-9-23-1 @1.55v (I was at 9-9-9-24-1 @1.5v originally) and I didn't feel safe going much higher even though I've heard of people going up to 1.6 with this specific RAM.
Nonetheless, your advice has improved my score quite a bit. Thank you. It also got me back into OCing again a bit, although I've got a lot of catching up and re-educating to do before I feel as comfortable doing it as I once did. I feel like a junkie who's had his fix after 10 years of sobriety....that wasn't the best analogy.
@3.8GHz
For some reason I got a better score running the memory at 1600MHz than 1866. I'm assuming it's because the 3820 is only supposed to run up to 1600MHz when in quad channel?
I tried tightening my RAM timings but I couldn't manage anything lower than 8-9-9-23-1 @1.55v (I was at 9-9-9-24-1 @1.5v originally) and I didn't feel safe going much higher even though I've heard of people going up to 1.6 with this specific RAM.
Nonetheless, your advice has improved my score quite a bit. Thank you. It also got me back into OCing again a bit, although I've got a lot of catching up and re-educating to do before I feel as comfortable doing it as I once did. I feel like a junkie who's had his fix after 10 years of sobriety....that wasn't the best analogy.
SmileMan
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 2013-01-09
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 2013-01-09
#4509648 Posted on: 01/25/2013 10:15 AM
@3.8GHz
For some reason I got a better score running the memory at 1600MHz than 1866. I'm assuming it's because the 3820 is only supposed to run up to 1600MHz when in quad channel?
I tried tightening my RAM timings but I couldn't manage anything lower than 8-9-9-23-1 @1.55v (I was at 9-9-9-24-1 @1.5v originally) and I didn't feel safe going much higher even though I've heard of people going up to 1.6 with this specific RAM.
Nonetheless, your advice has improved my score quite a bit. Thank you. It also got me back into OCing again a bit, although I've got a lot of catching up and re-educating to do before I feel as comfortable doing it as I once did. I feel like a junkie who's had his fix after 10 years of sobriety....that wasn't the best analogy.
Going over 1.6v with your ram isn't dangerous, I run my ram at 1.59v all the time. Because I've 2 kingston hyperX sticks and 2 ripjaws, but the kingstons need more voltage to get these 1600mhz...
@3.8GHz
For some reason I got a better score running the memory at 1600MHz than 1866. I'm assuming it's because the 3820 is only supposed to run up to 1600MHz when in quad channel?
I tried tightening my RAM timings but I couldn't manage anything lower than 8-9-9-23-1 @1.55v (I was at 9-9-9-24-1 @1.5v originally) and I didn't feel safe going much higher even though I've heard of people going up to 1.6 with this specific RAM.
Nonetheless, your advice has improved my score quite a bit. Thank you. It also got me back into OCing again a bit, although I've got a lot of catching up and re-educating to do before I feel as comfortable doing it as I once did. I feel like a junkie who's had his fix after 10 years of sobriety....that wasn't the best analogy.
Going over 1.6v with your ram isn't dangerous, I run my ram at 1.59v all the time. Because I've 2 kingston hyperX sticks and 2 ripjaws, but the kingstons need more voltage to get these 1600mhz...
beta-sama
Senior Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 2012-11-14
Senior Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 2012-11-14
dark_surge
Senior Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 2003-10-28
Senior Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 2003-10-28
#4509903 Posted on: 01/25/2013 05:15 PM
That's a relief. I'll try upping the voltage a tad then and see if I can tighten them up a bit more, although if I can't I'm happy with 8-9-9-24.
Thanks again for all your help!
Going over 1.6v with your ram isn't dangerous, I run my ram at 1.59v all the time. Because I've 2 kingston hyperX sticks and 2 ripjaws, but the kingstons need more voltage to get these 1600mhz...
That's a relief. I'll try upping the voltage a tad then and see if I can tighten them up a bit more, although if I can't I'm happy with 8-9-9-24.
Thanks again for all your help!
rflair
Moderator
Posts: 3812
Joined: 2004-11-20
Moderator
Posts: 3812
Joined: 2004-11-20
#4510029 Posted on: 01/25/2013 07:57 PM
12516
4644 4708 3164
Q9550@3.8GHz
12516
4644 4708 3164
Q9550@3.8GHz
DLD
Senior Member
Posts: 805
Joined: 2002-09-14
Senior Member
Posts: 805
Joined: 2002-09-14
#4510938 Posted on: 01/26/2013 08:50 PM
my machine's results:
my machine's results:
Post New Comment
Click here to post a comment for this file on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 2003-10-28
Thanks!
Results:
Don't know if that's good or not. Just have to wait and see.
**Added**
Oops, I see there's already a thread for results. Sorry about that.