Hi guys,

Looking a these reports it confirms what I suspected for a long time: In LFS, the car speed can be directly affected by the CPU processing speed, but to my surprise, in the inverse. It looks like the faster your CPU the slower you are.

I ran this same test for 1M and ended up with a whooping 1m:14sec. Yet I have better WRs in LFS World than many of you with your 15 second computers, except for my teammate Stu who's got quite an impressive record.

Now I don't feel so bad

lol, or maybe it shows that your computer sucks, and that you need to get a job to buy a better one, but as you are out of work you have nothing better to do than play lfs, hence the good times?

E6600 @ 3.6

Quote from ajp71 :

22.291 on a stock E6750

well it shouldn't take longer than 19 or 20 secs with this^^

I've got 15.062s on my E6750 (prime95-24h-stable clocks (with standard Vcore))

according to my temperatures the program uses only 1 core (and only parts of it)

EDIT:

Quote from Octane :

:banghead:

Yes, you are aboslutely right, i haven´t thought about that, stupid me...

well I loose 2 seconds when running on both cores - so u can see what performance ur idle system is consuming...could be interesting when optimizing there

Mine turned a 28.9s. It seems like people on lower end systems scored better... Also I noticed it's not multithreaded, only used one core. Anyways is this a bad score for an Athlon64 X2 6400+? Memory is 3GB DDR2 667mhz.
Edit: Also, if this is normal, and it looks that way after reading more posts in the thread, are the C2D chips this much quicker all around, or is it just this kind of processing they're good at?

Just to clear things out AMD's are still very cheap good gaming chips but C2D's are 4-5 steps ahead in terms of performance. In other words "It ain't no pentium 4 any more" the architecture is laid out very efficiently and wait till you see the newer ones, it just gets better and better.

Quote from DHRammstein :

Mine turned a 28.9s. It seems like people on lower end systems scored better... Also I noticed it's not multithreaded, only used one core. Anyways is this a bad score for an Athlon64 X2 6400+? Memory is 3GB DDR2 667mhz.
Edit: Also, if this is normal, and it looks that way after reading more posts in the thread, are the C2D chips this much quicker all around, or is it just this kind of processing they're good at?

That score is VERY bad. You should be looking at 27 seconds and below (i got just under 28 with a 3.07 GHz AMD chip and DDR1 RAM).

Hows your memory laid out? SuperPi likes memory bandwidth and so if you have 3 GB (ie 3x 1 GB sticks) chances are your having to run Single Channel.

And Intel's do run SuperPi a bit better than AMD's, i will admit, but at the end of the day the Core 2's are a better line of chips than AMD's current offerings

my score, 17.503. Not too shabby

Quote from DHRammstein :

Mine turned a 28.9s. It seems like people on lower end systems scored better... Also I noticed it's not multithreaded, only used one core. Anyways is this a bad score for an Athlon64 X2 6400+? Memory is 3GB DDR2 667mhz.
Edit: Also, if this is normal, and it looks that way after reading more posts in the thread, are the C2D chips this much quicker all around, or is it just this kind of processing they're good at?

Same at my uncle. He had 26-28 with a 6400+ 3,2.
*sigh* AMD.

My memory is dual channel, all settings are stock right now. In other benchmarks this chip moves very well, strange.

Here's my setup:


I should score better no?

Got any crap running in the background?

Hell yeah, Vista!

Nah nothing in background. LFS runs way over 200fps at all times, even with a full field of AI it fallls only into the 50's, but ony rarely, mostly stays above 200. I can run Crysis and other games very well, so I know there's nothing wrong, strange though, I can't figure why it runs so badly.

Yeey Finally put together a somewhat budget new pc Beats the crap out of my old 1.8ghz celeron, that was 6years old
Probably can do better, since all is at stock speeds + some programs running in background browsing teh net :P

Just a hint, 'evilgenius,' most people talk about the time it takes to calculate PI to 2M, not 1. Just so you don't confuse people in the future

Erm, no.

Can't think of anyone that uses 2M - theres a WR for it, but i've NEVER seen someone quote it.

1M is what you SHOULD be using, so your in the right Evilgenius.

Hmmm... you're right. I could have sworn we were using 2M here (dunno why.) I've used it on other forums... but w/e.

ok guys, I've opened the window and my case to let a bit fresh air in
additionally some Vcore modification and I got down to 13.718s

54,766 :/

35.625s meh another reason to get a new PC.

Test done on Dell XPS M170 laptop 2.3Ghz pentium M, 1 meg RAM (running hot as I've been gaming)

Here's mine: Intel e8400@3900mhz.

Quote from Ovidiu23 :

Here's mine: Intel e8400@3900mhz.

whoa....

Quote from Ovidiu23 :

Here's mine: Intel e8400@3900mhz.

Is that fast?

In which way?(sarcastic or serious) . Well, now i keep it at 3600 so is kinda normal.