Hardlimit test bank

[cobito]

This morning @Namiga has once again contributed a couple of CPUs: an i5-4440 and a Celeron N3450.

The first of these is a mid-2013 desktop Haswell with 4 non-HT cores very similar in performance in all aspects to the i7-4720HQ laptop processor. The closest modern micro for which we have data would be the i3-7100 for multi-threaded tasks. For single-threaded tasks as is usually the case, we have to go back to previous generations to find something similar.

The second processor is in my view the most interesting for its low TDP: only 6W. It is the Celeron N3450 which in the case of the results sent by Namiga, is mounted on a CHUWI LapBook, a 14.1" ultrabook and priced at around €450. With that TDP, its 4 cores and 2.2Ghz turbo frequency makes it very difficult to find similar processors apart from the N3540 which as its name suggests, is from the same fifth. And the complication of the comparison comes from the fact that its performance is comparable to CPUs from the Core 2 era but only in FPU processing. As soon as the benchmark for software optimized for SSE3 (the highest set available on this Celeron) is passed, the N3450 eats the veterans LGA775 for breakfast. There are many LGA775 models that are comparable, but each model is in areas that are too specific to be able to choose just a couple of them.

[cobito]

@Namiga continues to complete our database of processors with an i3-6006U.

This is a more or less recent portable micro that, as a curious particularity today, apparently only works at one frequency, without turbo boost.

Its performance is also somewhat peculiar. It is at the bottom of the list of AVX2 CPUs, which means that our system has had some complications to find a match for it. If we focus on FPU performance, it looks quite similar to the i5-2520M, which only reaches the AVX1 set. The interesting thing is that the HT of the i3-6006U seems to be helping a lot because although in single-core performance both are practically identical, in multi-core performance the i3 from Namiga beats the old i5 by 25%.

[kynes]

I just bought myself a laptop with a 1060 with 6gb and an i5-7300HQ. When I get it set up, I'll run the tests again

[cobito]

@kynes The datasheet is already done here.

It's a good mobile micro. The difference with its smaller brother, the i5-7300U, is that it has 4 physical cores while the U has 2 with HT. With the same single-thread performance, in multi-threading the HQ is 45% faster than the U. Otherwise, they are practically identical.

Making a more general comparison, you would have to go to desktop CPUs like the i5-7500 to find something similar. If we go a few generations back, in single-threading it is comparable to none other than the i7-4790K, although the availability of HT in this four-year-old CPU makes it 25% faster than the contemporary portable processor that kynes has been given.

[kynes]

@cobito I am learning a lot by looking for ways to silence it. I think I will make a guide for undervolting modern processors, using the Throttlestop program. I have managed to limit a 45W TDP micro to 27W in OCCT, at the maximum multiplier it allows, and in normal use (web, office software) it usually does not exceed 5 or 6W. The battery lasts 66% longer, and the fan barely makes a sound. I wonder when I will have some time to get started, as it is a very interesting program.

[QVENGADOR]

I just did the test and it shows me a strange code in the signature.
Another curiosity is to know who does these things and what it is programmed in. Thanks,
By the way rank 299 what a shame. And I was so proud of my PC.

[cobito]

@qvengador said in Hardlimit test bench:

I just did the test and I get a strange code in the signature.

I think you mean that your nick has been superimposed on the results table. I have it noted for the next revision.

Another curiosity is to know who does these things and what it is programmed in. Thanks,

I do this myself. The front-end of the central (the web with results) is made with PHP-HTML and the back-end is written in C. The front-end of the program is written in TkInter and the back-end is in C and assembler.

I use C only when brute force processing is needed (like the calculation of results, similar processors, etc. of the central) and for the test bench where the compilation has to be predictable. Also, I need assembler to calculate frequency, read micro identification records and other low-level operations.

[QVENGADOR]

@cobito Eres un maestro

[cobito]

@Namiga brings us this time a micro from AMD from the pre-Zen era. It's an Excavator from a year ago whose strong point is surely the integrated graphics. It's the A9 9420.

Its performance is not for throwing rockets but for being a portable micro and with a TDP 15W it is not so bad. Coincidentally, the most similar model found has been the i3-6006U that the same companion brought us a few days ago. The A9 has snatched the tail leadership in the AVX2 multithread test by quite a bit. In the single thread it surpasses the 6006U by very little. In general both seem to be very similar processors, but the lack of SMT in the AMD makes it succumb to the Intel with HT in multithread.

[QVENGADOR]

Why does Kynes have a better rank than me? Is it because of memory? It's not because I'm envious, which I am, but because I know what this rank thing is about.

[kynes]

@qvengador Because I am more handsome, taller, smarter and I don't have grandmothers

Now seriously, you passed the test in mode 2, my team in mode 2 gets more or less the same as yours, 42095 in monothread and 138049 in multithread.

[QVENGADOR]

@kynes I will repeat it. It is a simply philosophical question. I mean what makes a pc more competent. Memory, without a doubt, that is the reason for my question. Well then in the ranks it always depends on the ordering criterion but ultimately it is to know what combination of elements makes a pc more efficient.

[kynes]

@qvengador When you run it, and we can compare on equal tests, you'll see that your team scores better than mine in this benchmark. Cobito can confirm, but I think his tool is about 90% processor and 10% memory.

[Xevipiu]

Missing a link to statistics at the end of passing the test

[cobito]

@kynes said in Hardlimit Test Bench:

Cobito can confirm, but I think his tool is about 90% CPU and 10% memory.

Tests 1, 2, and 3 are pure CPU. Test 4 makes heavy use of memory but depends heavily on the number of threads to run. The higher the number of threads, the more the result is penalized because more memory accesses are being done concurrently. That 90/10 percentage is more or less correct since the memory test aims to use as much CPU as possible where the bottleneck is memory.

@QVENGADOR next week I'll be able to find some time to fix the username issue in the signatures.

@xevipiu said in Hardlimit Test Bench:

A link to statistics would be missing at the end of passing the test

What do you mean by that link? If you go to the CPU information tab, there's a button to check the CPU datasheet with results, statistics, and extra information. And when the test bench finishes, a button appears to validate that leads directly to the result with detailed information about the test.

========================
And on another note, @Namiga keeps sending new CPUs. We should show a ranking of users who have validated the most different CPU models, let's see what comes out...

Anyway, this time she brings one from 2012: a portable processor i3-3217U.

It's not easy to find similar models for this one. I've noticed that with Ivy Bridge the system struggles and it's probably due to it being an architecture without support for AVX2 and that there are quite a few models with incomplete results (without tests in Mode II - AVX). So this time I'm not able to make a half-decent comparison (well, I'll say that the one that looks most like it is the i5-2467M, but that's not the same). The CPU itself has 2 cores with HT and a TDP of 17W.

In addition, she has sent results of a Xeon X3430, but it seems that the results were not sent under optimal conditions and have been discarded by the system. This happens when there are background processes consuming CPU while the test bench is being passed. Still, if you're curious, the validations are always available and you can find them through the search engine.

[Xevipiu]

You should put a direct tab to https://bm.hardlimit.com/

[Namiga]

@cobito said

In addition, he has sent results of a Xeon X3430, but it seems that the results were not sent under optimal conditions and have been discarded by the system. This happens when there are background processes consuming CPU while the benchmark is being run. Nevertheless, if you are curious, the validations are always available and you can find them through the search engine.

Well, you are right. It is a server, and in a hurry I put w10 on it. There are no video drivers for w10... so the one from Microsoft was installed, which we know is not worth much... so it could have been that.

I will put a 2008 server on it and repeat

[Namiga]

@cobito
I've already installed the W2008 server and its drivers OK... but I can't run the HLM.
It says that a library is missing...
I've tried downloading the one you put in the link but it says it's not the right one, and in w2008 x86 I've already installed everything that's in Windows update

Error... I've already seen the problem.... it's only available for W2008 x86 without SP.
I've installed SP1 and it's installing SP2...
After that it should work... I'll let you know

[Namiga]

Ya. Por fin he podido pasar el hlbm al xeon.
Dime si son resultados coherentes

[cobito]

@namiga The problem detected is that the boost frequency is 2.6Ghz instead of the 2.8Ghz it should reach. Coincidentally (or not), those 2.6GHz is the medium load frequency, that is, when two cores are in use. I can think of two things: either there is still something consuming the core while running the benchmark or for some reason, the CPU is unable to reach the boost frequency (high temperature, some issue with the BIOS, etc.).

The truth is that I can't think of anything you can do except take a look at the BIOS settings or check if the memory is running at the correct frequency. But I think it's too much work if it's just to send good results.

Regarding the results in these cases, they are usually reliable in multi-threaded. The problem is that the benchmark in single-threaded mode was run at 2.6GHz and that is not representative of this model. That's why they are automatically discarded from the model's datasheet. In the same way, when overclocking the processor, those results are not used to get the model's score but appear in a specific zero ranking for each datasheet.