Help me with some benchmarks please! Q9xx, Pxxxx, Txxx, i7, etc..

If you would be so kind, please download this sucker and post your benchmarks and your system specs (if it's not in your sig). Many benchmarks for Fritz already exist online, but mainly for desktop CPU's. I'm looking to get some results specifically for the Q9000, and P8700/P8800/P8400 and T9xxx, 720QM series cpu's, however if you just want to demonstrate to everyone how superior your setup is, by all means feel free to share. This is helping me in my laptop decision, as I need a gaming laptop for most current games, but I also do a lot of Chess analysis as well, and obviously that's much more CPU dependent.

I'll start it off, with my rather weak Dell D630 here at work (don't feel obligated to post a screen cap, numbers are good for me if you don't have the time).

C2D T7500 2.2GHZ
3.5GB RAM
XP 32bit




The link again for the quick download is here, and I assure you this is a real chess benchmark tool, not a virus, spyware, etc.. Scout's honor.

http://www.jens.tauchclub-krems.at/diverses/schach/Fritz Chess Benchmark.zip

Thanks in advance, I really, really appreciate the help.

Code:

[B]-------------------------[/B]
----Current Results------
[B]-------------------------[/B]

yuio - 25.70 / 12,321 i7 920 OC 3.4GHz  (**Desktop**)
Cafeine - 24.82 / 11913 - i5 750 4.5GHz (**Desktop**)
narsnail - 21.20 / 10176 - i7-920 2.66ghz (**Desktop**)
----------

Mutant_Tractor - 25.25 / 12,121 -i7 975 @3.33GHz

King of Interns - 18.89 / 9065 - Q9650 @ 3.3ghz

5482741 - 18.05 / 8665 - QX9300 @ 3.163GHz

asaad77 - 17.45 / 8375 - 920XM @ 2GHz

kaltmond - 16.95 / 8135 - Q9200 3.0GHGZ 333x9

mmarchid - 16.49 / 7913 - Q9550S @ 2.83GHz

sglimore62 - 16.31 / 7827 - Q9200  @2.8GHz

BobXX - 16.0 / 7681 - Q9000 OC 2.79GHZ

SUADE8880 - 15.35 / 7368 - i7 820QM  1.73GHz

BrandonSi - 15.23 / 7308 - i7 820QM 1.73GHz

Marecki_clf  - 14.37 / 6898 - QX9300 @ 2,53GHz

sgilmore62 - 13.6 / 6530 - Q9200 2.4GHZ

DrKnow65 - 13.38 / 6421 - Q9100 2.2GHz

Snarl - 13.24 / 6353 - i7 720QM 1.6GHz

fred2028 - 13.23 / 6352 - i7 820QM 1.73GHz

BrandonSi - 12.12 / 5818 - i7 720QM 1.6GHz

cataclysm - 11.69 / 5611 - Q9000 2.0GHz

LaptopNut - 11.47 - 5507 - Q9000 2.0GHz

BobXX - 11.37 / 5456 - Q9000 2.0GHz

Serg - 11.23 / 5388 - i7 720QM 1.6GHz

JWnFL - 11.1 / 5328 - Q9000

fred2028 - 10.45 / 5016 - i7 820QM (battery power)

theriko - 9.82 / 4713 - X9000 3.5GHz

ramgen - 9.28 / 4453 - T9900 3.06GHz

jenesuispasbavard - 9.24/4434 - T9600 3.2GHz

EIement - 8.9 / 4272 - P8700@ 3.12GHz

Kamin_Majere - 8.82 / 4235 - x9000 3.0GHz

jenesuispasbavard - 8.67/4163 - T9600 3.0GHz

Blacky - 8.39 / 4026 - P9700 2.8GHz

TabbedOut - 8.25 / 3961 - X9000 2.8GHZ

jenesuispasbavard - 8.04/3857 - T9600 2.8GHz

Kallogan - 8.01 / 3846 - P9600 2.66GHZ

MegaMan X - 7.89 / 3785 - P9700 2.8GHZ

moral hazard - 7.87 / 3775 - T7300 OC 2.63GHZ 263mhz FSB

moral hazard - 7.78 / 3736 - T8100 OC 2.62GHZ 250mhz FSB

EIement - 7.7 / 3695  - P8700@ 2.7GHz

MexicanSnake - 7.48 / 3590 - P9500 @ 2.53ghz

nofxman32 - 7.47 / 3583 - T9300

crayonyes - 7.34 / 3522 - T9300 @ 2.5GHz

sean473 - 7.28 / 3492 - T9400 2.53GHZ

mystery905 - 7.14 /3428 - P8700 2.53GHZ

namaiki - 7.12 / 3415 - P8600 2.4GHZ

crayonyes - 6.74 / 3236 - T7700 2.4GHz

hustheman - 6.5 / 3117 - P8700 2.53GHZ

Tinderbox (UK) - 6.31 / 3028 - T6600 2,2GHz

moral hazard - 6.20 / 2978 - T8100 2.1GHZ

croyonyes - 6.10 / 2926 - T8100 @2.1GHz

moral hazard - 6.01 / 2887 - T7300 2.0GHZ

BrandonSi - 5.85 / 2809 - T7500 2.2GHZ

ChinNoobonic - 5.38 / 2582 - T7500  2.2GHz

StefanP67 - 5.80/2784 - P7350 2.00GHZ

iNoob.x - 5.72 / 2747 - T5800 2.00GHZ

2un@ - 5.56/2668 - P7450 2.13GHZ

Changturkey - 5.14 / 2467 T5600 1.83GHz

Namaiki - 4.65 / 2231 - L7500 1.6ghz

Tippey764 - 4.44 / 2131 - Athlon 5200+ 2.6GHz

BobXX - 4.17 / 2002 - SU9400 1.4GHz

lee_what2004 - 4.16 / 1998 - T2250 1.73GHZ

BrandonSi - 4.05 / 1946 - T5470 1.6GHZ

Phil - 2.21 / 1062 - Pentium M725 1.6GHZ

 

Here is my T7300 overclocked to 2.6ghz (266mhz FSB).
Relative speed: 6.93
kilo nodes per second: 3327

I can help you overclock your FSB if you want

EDIT: My temps top out at 82C with stock cooling running intelburntest.
Temps are slightly lower running ORTHOS.

 

P8600 (2x2.4GHz)

Relative speed: 6.54
Kilo nodes per second: 3137
(while playing music.. I'm not going to stop the music lol)

Stopped the music:
Relative speed: 6.90
Kilo nodes per second: 3312

Closed all other programs:

 

Thanks guys! I'm going to try and keep a running tally at the bottom of my original post for the overall results.

Thanks for the offer Moral Hazard but it's a work PC. Now when I get home I might look into that on my equally crappy laptop!

 

P9600

7.88
3783

 

Q9200 @ stock 2.4ghz


Q9200 oc'd @ 2.73ghz

 

That would be me

Pentium M725 1.6GHz

Relative speed: 2.21
Kilo nodes per second: 1062

 

Contest over!! Phil wins!!

I doubt we'll get any i7 results soon, but from the desktop benchmarks they look scary fast.

I ran it on 8 cpu server here at work and it got about ~13,000 kn/s.. I won't post that one though, not really fair

 

P7450 2.13Ghz

Relative speed - 5.56
Kilo nodes per sec - 2668

 

Thanks for all the results so far, keep 'em coming..

So far sgilmore62 is taking up the top 2 spots with a pretty substantial lead.

 

relative speed: 4.16
kilo nodes per second: 1998
t2250 1.73 GHz

 

T9400..

Relative Speed 7.28

Kilo Nodes per sec 3492


it seemed to increase each time i did it.. first was 6.8 then 7.0 and now 7.28 LOLZ ....

 

[not the OP here] Could someone try this benchmark on an Atom?

 

Its because a 2.7gHz quad > any dual core

I've running an x9000 @3.0gHz and this was my score

About where it should be against the q9200 score. I have faster cores but 1/2 the number so i'm scoring just slightly over 1/2 his score

 

Found some Atom N270 results on the internet. I'll add them to the overall list if someone on the forum posts them here.

1.6 / 767 (2 CPU w/ HT)

1.08 / 516 (HT off, 1CPU)

 

Oh, I agree! The benchmark performance directly correlates to the amount of cores.. What I'm curious to see is how close a lower-end QC like the Q6600 or Q9000 might compare to a high end C2D..

 

Yeah this is one of those rare programs that "Clock Speed x Number of Cores = Score"

3.0gHz x 2 = 6.0
2.73 x 4 = 10.92
about 55-56% better

and the difference between our scores is right at 56%

So for any of the Core 2 architecture you can pretty much extrapolate all the scores at any given speed and core number.

So the Q9000 at stock would be
2 x 4 = 8
So it would give about 22-25% better score than i got

 

I agree, it looks that way. I don't think we'll see the case where a dual core (even OC'd) beats the slowest QC.

I'm interested to see how it plays out in the QC range though. For example on many benchmarks, the Q9000 beats the Q6600, even though the Q6600 has a higher clock speed.

As it is we've already seen some discrepancy in the C2D range.. Take the following two results.

Kallogan - 7.88 / 3783 - P9600 2.66GHZ
moral hazard - 6.93 / 3327 - T7300 OC 2.6GHZ 266mhz FSB

give the math (core x cs) ..

Kallogan - 2 x 2.66 = 5.32
MH - 2 x 2.6 = 5.2

That's a difference of about 2.25% in the math, but an increase of ~14% when you look at kilonodes/sec. I think memory bandwidth / clock speed has a good amount of influence as well.

 

Q9000 Stock (if i ran the test right)

 

Fantastic! I was hoping someone would post up a Q9000. Thanks!

 

No problem brandon Let me know if there is anything else you need from it

 

SU9400 @ 1.4GHz

Relative speed: 4.17
Kilo nodes per second: 2002

I'll test and post the results from my Q9000 later.

 

4.05 / 1946 - T5470 1.6ghz

 

Relative Speed: 21.20

KN per Second: 10176

Stock, no turbo boost, msn messenger and itunes running.

Just for some variety

 

Q9200 @3.0G 333x9

 

Here you go:

Q9000 @ 2.0GHz

Relative speed: 11.37
Kilo nodes per second: 5456

Q9000 OC @ 2.79GHz

Relative speed: 16.00
Kilo nodes per second: 7681

 

Damn, that OC was impressive.. Almost up to Q9200 level. Do you normally go up to 2.79GHZ? Wonder how feasible it would be to run it that high for long periods of time.

 

A lot of W90 owners have had great success at OC'ing. I never usually go up to 2.79GHz as it starts to get unstable. At 2.8GHz, Windows freezes at Desktop.

For me, 2.76GHz is pretty much the highest stable OC I've been able to achieve, but I find that 2.6GHz is plenty powerful and very stable.

 

That's really good to know. I'm holding out until January for my laptop purchase so I'm hoping to get an i7-720QM but the Q9000 seemed to be a good alternative if I can't spend enough for the i7.

And I'd never heard of the W90 until I looked at your signature, and I officially hate you. And I want your laptop.

 

Here's mine:

 

relative 6.50
kilo nodes per sec 3117
i wonder why im getting lower values than mystery
huh maybe cuz i undervolted my p8700

 

can you close RMclock (if you're running it) and all other useless programs.

That should speed things up for you.
If you are undervolting with a hardware mod, then it shouldn't cause any performence decrease.


EDIT: Update to my score, seems like it runs better today

T7300 @2ghz: 6.01/2887
T7300 @2.63ghz (263mhz FSB): 7.87/3775

 

What OS are you running? I'm on W7 Ultimate 64-bit RTM.

 

I don't think so. I'm "hard-undervolted" using RMclock and it doesn't change the score at all.

Score update too (with antivirus disabled, wifi off...therefore optimal score this time) :

 

Thanks everyone! I'm still putting the list together so feel free to share as many as you want.

Result list should be up to date now.

 

Brandon his W90 isn't the ultimate laptop yet... Alienware M17x is the one with 4870 crossfire with GDDR5.. you should be really very jealous of those who are going to get it...

 

I have a T5470 1.6GHz C2D with an 8400m GS. I'm jealous of many, many people at this point.

 

It's still up there.

1. & 2. M17x and Sager NP9850 with SLI GTX280m's
3. Asus W90Vp with Crossfire HD4870m's
4. m17 with Crossfire HD4850m's
5. M17x with SLI GTX260m's

In all likelihood, the M17x with dual HD4870m's, if they do in fact have GDDR5, will indeed be the new #1, but reviews still aren't out yet.

If only the W90 had better driver support...

 

My score is super low compare to these guys with the super rigs.

 

Just a little bump as a reminder, I still want those i7 7/820QM benchmarks when you fancy first-adopter people get your notebooks..

 

bump

10 char.

 

Here's my P7350 score:

StefanP67 - 5.80/2784 - P7350 2.00GHZ

 

First official (mobile) i7 added to the list.. 820QM. A bit disappointing but I think we've established it's pretty much raw speed that leads this benchmark. Still, it's clear the 820QM will beat the Q9200 without OC'ing.

 

Maybe equao to QX9300. Still need result of 920XM.

 

Good god who is it that got their i5 up to 4.5 Ghz ? I was surprised to see it wasnt much faster than my system stock, but no HT, so I guess it makes sense.

 

Cafeine did.. I think he posted in the Sager forum, in the W860CU owner's lounge. I didn't really ask him about it, it was in his sig. Would be interesting to hear about it though.

 

P8700@ 2.7GHz= 7.7 relative and 3695 kn/s

 

Pretty good.. why not the 3.12 GHz in your sig?!

 

that requires me to pull out SetFSB...guess I can but I generally don't need it for anything I do. 2.7GHz is only a click away with Power4Gear on my G51.