Nuclear Multi-Core CPU benchmark

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

highwire

Senior member
Nov 5, 2000
363
0
76
Originally posted by: Toadster
404 file not found
NO nuclearMC.rar d/l from OP's link. File does not show up on the parent directory either. Must have been pulled.

I didn't get a 404 , just a null file - no download. I tried googling for another site, but no luck. (the name "nuclear" screws up the search a bit, too)

Anybody?
 

Xvys

Senior member
Aug 25, 2006
202
0
0

10832

---------------------------------------------
E6300 @ 520FSB x 7 = 3640 Mhz / Asus P5B / 2 x 1G Crucial 10th Anniversary / ATI X800XL / Seagate 250G / Hec AcePower 420w
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,211
597
126
I don't think this app works correctly with Vista 64-bit. The app reads incorrect clocks with my Q6600 @3.20GHz. And the score I got is 16567 which looks way higher than what it should get compared to others'.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
59
91
This thread is an interesting psychology study on how readily people will download mystery files from a Russian server, installing root-kits and whatever it feels like doing, all in the name of measuring and reporting one's e-penis.

Hey everyone, I have a file you can download for performing new random benchmarking, now don't be worried none about the fact that it is from Nigeria and may snoop your hard-dirve for bank account info...it's all just part of the benchmark.

Oh, and if the server gets shutdown because it is doing malicious stuff then I am sure some creative forum members will diligently track it down from some other server, ensuring everyone can enjoy some root-kit fun!
 

Toadster

Senior member
Nov 21, 1999
598
0
76
scoop.intel.com
Originally posted by: lopri
I don't think this app works correctly with Vista 64-bit. The app reads incorrect clocks with my Q6600 @3.20GHz. And the score I got is 16567 which looks way higher than what it should get compared to others'.

so - you have a c2Q6600 runnin 8x400 = 3200 so that's 3.2Ghz

your FSB is much higher than mine (400 vs 275) - so your number seem correct
 

Diogenes2

Platinum Member
Jul 26, 2001
2,151
0
0
Thought I would bump this to see how things have changed in almost 2 years..

My new i7 920 @3.7 is scoring 20188
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
59
91
Originally posted by: Diogenes2
Thought I would bump this to see how things have changed in almost 2 years..

My new i7 920 @3.7 is scoring 20188

Dang...nearly 2 yrs and we got a 29% performance improvement.

Originally posted by: Idontcare on 04/15/2007 12:29 PM
15,737

QX6700 @ 3.73GHz

Moore's law my ass.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,162
984
126
Damn you guys for making my e-peen limp. At least my board and CPU only set me back $260.

Yeah, that will make me feel better.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,271
917
136
Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
Damn you guys for making my e-peen limp. At least my board and CPU only set me back $260.

Yeah, that will make me feel better.

i got my cpu for free
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
59
91
Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
New link for the program.

http://nuc-rus.narod.ru/eng.htm

15827 with my Q8200 at 2.75ghz.

How the hell did i get better then that QX6700? Higher FSB? I can take a screen if nobody believes me. How do i take a screenshot of just that window?

I'm thinking they must have re-done the code or recompiled with different optimizations since the program was last used by the 2007 posters because I just downloaded it again and retested on my QX6700 and I get 13752 @ 2.67GHz (stock QX6700) whereas before I was getting 15737 @ 3.73GHz (vaporphase cooling, not setup at this time so I can't retest at that OC).

Based on this newest iteration of the program my QX6700 at 3.73GHz ought to weigh in around 19000.

So 13752 for a stock QX6700 vs. 15827 for Q8200 @ 2.75GHz sounds just about right assuming there are some SSE4.1 optimizations taken advantage of by the program.

But if this is true (program has been re-compiled with different switches, etc) then comparing scores on today's rigs to score generated nearly 2 yrs ago are going to be invalid.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |