Old School is Best School is a team competition series for the overclockers who enjoy tuning ancient hardware. The series includes five rounds with each two stages. Each round lasts two months, so you have plenty of time to track down all hardware.
In the fifth round of the Old School is Best School competition series, we compete in SuperPI 32M and 3DMark01. In the first stage, SuperPI 32M, the hardware is limited to socket 3 processors. In the second stage, 3DMark01, the hardware is limited to Voodoo4/5 graphics cards. For both stages a verification screenshot and system picture are required. Good luck!
| # | Team | Points | Participants |
| No points have been awarded in this competition | |||
Belarus eXtreme Team
Wallpaper available now: http://news.hwbot.org/Competitions/1206-1210_OldSchoolBestSchool/OSiBS5_Wallpaper_1080.jpg
Is SuperPi 1.1 allowed (if enter result as x.999) so that we can use win9x?
Please stay within rules for spi, 1,5 and 1,6 allowed, sorry to annoy you but results might be integrated in general hwbot ranking so rules apply
I simply cannot run 32M on my Socket 3 system. 1M works just fine, but I always get "Not exact in round" just around the initial value is finished. My system have 80MB ram, running WinNT and 200 MB page file. Any help would be appricieted. But maybe no one has succeded?
Managed to solve the first problem and it was just a matter of disk space. Added another harddrive and ran SuperPi from that one. Unfortunatly Dr.Watson pops upp and throws an exception just before SuperPi is finished. I haven't seen live what exactly happens since the round finishes either when I'm at work or at night, but my guess is that there is some problem when SuperPi is doing the last stuff, writing to file and what not.
Has anyone managed to run a 32M SPi? Anything below is just fine, 16k-8M, but 32M just wont work.
Unfortunately I have no system to test this myself, but I saw zero submissions - what is even more interesting, I did not find a single spi32m submission at any socket 3 cpu at database, so make your own thoughts about this...
I've tryed all types of settings. various chips, OC, Low Clock, stock, more ram, less ram etc etc. Just wont finish
Will be very interesting to see if any one can actually pull it off...
I think to run Pi32 on Sock3 is possible, but very hard. I have tried 3 different cpu, and have a crash on 2-d day of calculating. Disk space in enough. I Think may be there is a lack of RAM and Super pi going to be closed. http://itmages.ru/image/view/2918638/4eeb227f
I have one running atm, but it will not be finished in time. No big difference really, just trying NTFS instead of FAT16.
I think as someone mentioned in another thread that maybe Win2k works better if you can get it to run on Socket 3. Parhaps a Pentium Overdrive will do the trick? Looked at some on ebay when this stage was announced, but they were a bit on the expensive side.
Its possible to run Pi32, you just need 128Mb memory, NTFS, windows2k and ofc patience.
Had 128mb ram, Windows2000, NTFS. Still no go. Even tryed the OS 1st-drive, PageFile 2nd-drive, SP 3rd-drive.
I'm someone will eventually figure out how.
Seems like a lot of combinations have been tested, but no Pentium overdrive. Another idea is to test with an external IDE controller
As said, I was unable to find any result for this at database, but who knows, maybe it is possible - checked the 3d stage, for me result is final. Also checked the challengers, apart from mobile stage results are final for me as well, but maybe it changes if I overlooked something^^
I managed to run SuperPi 32M on P90 easily, but that is Socket 5/7 ... but on same mobo I get into very big troubles using AMD K5 PR75... So it is possible, but it is quite hard.
Yeah?....where's your entry?
I'm run out of time(2 days left when i finished my rig), so i wont run the test.
I will submit it when i have time to run the test on my socket3 config.
Pls let us know on the progress too.
Most definitely would be interested in seeing if/what/how you did...
The test was run 2 days long, and when i saw i'm out of time, i stop it. I have no exception or any error before i stop it, so i guess its possible to get a result in pi 32m with socket3.
That is not true.
People have finished the iterations without error but errored in the final output.
Don't speculate. Either you finish the run or you didn't.
Who knows when will sum up this competition results?
The problem is not the run itself, it's when SuperPi are finalizing the calculation the errors occurs.
I don't have a stability problem as such since SuperPi gladly continue through all the way. It has something to do with the last things out does, moving data, writing to file and what not. I can do 8MB without any problem. I would like to try my setup with a Pentium overdrive and see if it's 486 related.
Well, it is definitively not related to over 24h for calculation, as 33+h runs are shown:
So it must be related to HDD / chipset stability under very high CPU load...
That's an old version of SPi, though, so it doesn't rule out the possibility of in-built cheat detection getting tripped in mod1.5.
Good point. So basically any slower SuperPi 1.5 calculation that 24h is need, right? That should be tested easily w/o overclocking - the AMD K5 PR75 is slow-enought... And the machine seems stable enought, right?
...
Yet still I failed to manage SuperPi 32M on same mobo with just exchanged the CPU to AMD K5 PR75
Overclocked to 90MHz (60x1.5). Last attempt I had to stop at loop 21 or 22, because K6 arrived and I wanted much more that the K5 score to know, if it will run at 7.14MHz FSB. It does not run... 
So I put K5 there back again, clean the CPU legs well, as ludek suggest ... and run SuperPi 32M w/o overclocking. That will be 27-28h I presume...
Ok, I cleared thoroughly (even that they looks perfect, gold-plated and very clean - compare with the K6 description bellow) only the pins. Put the CPU back in action and under WinNT it is now calculating the SuperPi 32M. Expect 27-28h to finish, witch will answer the 24h question.
But it is true, that I never managed the 32M run to finish on K5 before. Now it is NOT overclocked (50x1.5), voltage is maximum the board can deliver (3.5V) and 16k SuperPi tooks 15sec...
BTW, the legs of the K6 is silver only, bendt and looking bad and unclean (some seems to be gold plated sometimes, but now the gold is gone...?) ... yet the CPU works great, stable and fast. Yes, I overvolt it a little (minimum the board support is 1.8V, the K6-III+ 400MHz want 1.6V by default), but I also overclock it a bit, using the x6 multiplier (remaped on x2 settings) and 83MHz, witch gives 500MHz in turn.
We see.
Up next is to obtain the Socket 3 mainboard - I want the FIC 486-GAC-2, put a Pentium Overdrive in it and test that combo in action. Anyone have FIC 486-GAC-2 mobo to sale/spare...?
I have bad news, guys. I was reluctatnt to admit, that there might be a 24h limit in SuperPi 32M test, however now I have to rethink that. The K5 PR75 run slowly so it took the time:
As you can see, the 23h 44min 11.743sec is very, VERY close to the 24h mark. Now let's consider this - the machine run 100% stable for first 20 loops. Loop 20/21 is not the problematic "saving" loop, where is serious HDD activity and even most CPU/mem stable machines could fail. However very soon after I saw this:
So, unless someone produce 24h+ result with SuperPi mod1.5 XS, then I do believe that there is 24h limit. I tried the SuperPi 32M with my K5 (50x1.5) for 5th time and it always crashed on machine, that run stable highly overclocked K6 (83x6): http://hwbot.org/submission/2996958_
SuperPi 32M is therefore 24h limited.
...
However I have to believe that we can still have some low-end scores, if there is 1) patch that remove the 24h limit, while not inflicting damage to the calculating process 2) if we use the older SuperPi - but w/o the hash it is just a quessing game, if user cheated or not...
Also we can try getting SuperPi 32M score "as close to 24h, as possible."
...
Bugs like that suxx bad
:( 
This is depresing. We never can have a SuperPi score on slow CPU's... The question is only if the Pentium Overdrive can score under 24h on Socket 3. I believe, that there IS a possibility.
...
Subsequent findings:
Pentium 1 60MHz have no SuperPi 32M score: http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/pentium_1__60mhz/
Pentium 1 66MHz have no SuperPi 32M score: http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/pentium_1__66mhz/
Pentium 1 75MHz have SuperPi 32M score at lowest at 112.6MHz: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/superpi_-_32m/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_897&cores=1#start=0#interval=20 (18h 52min worst time)
Pentium 1 90MHz have SuperPi 32M score at lowest at 102.8MHz: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/superpi_-_32m/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_898&cores=1#start=0#interval=20 (worst time at 19h 2min)
Pentium 1 100MHz have SuperPi 32M score at lowest at 112MHz: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/superpi_-_32m/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_899&cores=1#start=0#interval=20 (with 16h 50min time)
...
Conclusion - with some luck and very well optimized run, Pentium Overdrive at 83MHz (at least) can get the SuperPi 32M bench under the critical 24h limit of SuperPi 32M. The score is, IMHO, possible.
Who does it, should be, however, granted a pretty big crown for being socket 3 hero andking of kings for olscholl overclocking
well I can tell you now that there is no submission on the bot that goes over 24H, longest one is 23H and 27Min here : http://hwbot.org/submission/1065306_zabit_superpi___32m_k5_pr75_23h_27min_0sec_600ms
So it does look like the benchmark has a max run time of 24Hours which is a little strange.
Ive moved out my slowgpupi rig again to test this superpi thing, plan is to try and get 2 runs with slowdowns, first one finishing at around 23h 50min and second one just passed 24h
ObscureParadox -
It just cannot be, I believe that I already proved it. 5 crashes at 24h mark is, IMHO, enough.
Not that much, wPrime 1024M run suffer the same problem. When time flip at midnight to the next day, it write just "cheat detected" and stop the calculation. So this is another bench, besides SuperPi 32M, witch is limited to 24h.
I recently encountered that with... you quessed what - AMD K5 PR75. So it is not all that strange for me, it is "normal behaviour" from my point of view. Of course that *SHOULD* get fixed. Who will bug the autor/autors or anyone who can help out?
lanbonden - more verifications is need, agreed. But I'm quite sure already.
The thing i do differnt is runing it on a "modern" rig with winXP, not that it should mater but still nice to see.
wonder if we get this as a stage in the country cup, longest superpi32M run
That would basically means to slow it down till almost 24h and then "fire it up" and hope not exceed the 24h mark, but get to the 23:59.999
That would be funny compo, tough SuperPi did not like to be slowed down too much (at least for sure it hate disabled caches - it always crash). Possibly another bug?
Agree, the ms is not necessary for these long runs
So is it confirmed you cannot have >24h in pi32m?
Why older that Socket 5? On Socket 7 mobo you cannot run the K5 PR-75 SuperPi 32 bench, because it will not made it before 24h...!
Even overclocked to 90MHz (60x1.5) it does not stand a chance. Losing 8-10min per loop to 1h, witch with 24+ loops mean sure crash at the end!
TerraRaptor -
I would say at 100%.
probably wont be home when it happens, but first referens round will finish in a bit over 4hours at an estimated runtime of 23h 53mins to see that my slowdown dont affect superpi in any wierd way. Next part after that is to start a new round with the goal to finish just after 24h to see if its possible with a "modern" system with winXP or if its actually superpi thats to blame instead of a bug with winNT and superpi or something.
There is no SuperPi 32M result over 24h:
http://url.hwbot.org/1R1cwYN
However, there are SuperPi 1M results over 24h:
http://url.hwbot.org/1jQOwNH
It is allowed in the case of very old hardware to use the old version of SuperPi (the one that doesn't have ms)
That would have been great for the comp.
So that everyone is on the same page; would it be possible to list what hardware exactly (to the best of your knowledge) would be allowed to run on the older version of SuperPi and can be submitted to Bot.
lanbonden -
I get crashes on my K5 PR75 in WinXP too. Just WinNT can be optimized better, so I have higher chance of making the run bellow 24h critical crash-mark...
Christian Ney -
Witch one that is, where to download it and who is responsible for the mod1.5 XS anyway? Maybe a proper way would be to get "mod1.6 XS" that will allow over 24h calculation time...?
Also - what define "very old hardware"? Basically any HW, that cannot finish the run under 24h apply?
mr.paco -
Exactly my point. But list will be always incomplete and subject to chages, so I suggest the 24h rule: Under 24h - you have to use mod1.5 XS, over 24h - you have to use older SuperPi.
Best solution will be a patch...
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?292870-SuperPi-32M-mod-1-5-need-patch-that-make-32M-calculations-over-24h-works!
If I remember correctly it was decided for everything older than socket 7 included.
Someone tried the 1.6?
starting a 24h+ run of 1.6, will report results tomorrow.
Where to get the v1.6...?
Okay, googled it there:
http://www.techpowerup.com/wizzard/super_pi_mod.exe
From: http://www.systemshock.co.za/forums/topic/30628-superpi-mod-1-6-available-for-download/
...
The executable is notably smaller (92 528 bytes compared to 104 960 bytes for the "classic" SuperPi mod1.5 XS) and after this predicably end in yet another crash:
(Asus TXP4-X, AMD K5 PR75 @ 90Mhz (60x1.5) )
...I could give it a try. The results from v1.6 will be accepted as these using v1.5...???
Google is your friend
Found it here
http://www.systemshock.co.za/forums/topic/30628-superpi-mod-1-6-available-for-download/
As predicted, SuperPi 32M run fail, when it should show new finished loop with more that 24h:
...but my GF was faster and captured the fail on her cellphone camera, witch the SuperPi window still in background (looks like that there is some autoclose wait in WinNT...):
So I started the SuperPi v1.6 and in just 24h we will know, if it can surpass the 24h limit or not for the 32M test. Yet still I repeat the question: The results from v1.6 will be accepted as these using v1.5...???
You've always been able to use 1.6 if you wanted to. http://hwbot.org/news/879_application_7_rules/
Slowed the first 24h run down a tad to much so watched it close down, must have been on the seconds as it finished 21:42 as it should but must have been at a to late second, if loop 24 is as long as the others that is.
So, that means you can confirm the crash at 24h or not? "Watched it close" seems to suggest that, but frankly... more direct confirmatio might be need.
I run the v1.6 ... it goes faster, as before K5 PR75 @ 90MHz need 68min per loop, now 59min is enought... interesting. Maybe it run with the part of ram, that goes on 2 ranks dimm, instead of the 1 rank one? Dunno. But I'm, of course, nowhere near the end...
Well, I guess so. I didnt get an error on WinXP but it just closed down instead. I took a risk at trying to end it with a nice time of 23h 59min XX seconds but it backfired and superpi just closed down instead so my guess for the crash is that the end time was 24h 00min XX sec which lead to a crash or that it just crashed the second it reached 24h.
Im just over 19h into the run with 1.6 now so will know how it plays out in 5 hours.
Okay then, v1.5 crash confirmed.
I'm at 20h 46min with the 1.6 at 21th loop, so we see soner what happen then
I have to sadly report, that SuperPi v1.6 Techpowerup mod crash at 24h mark for 32M test too:
That suxx. And sadly I did not took a photograph using camera from the amazingly fast run - 23 loop was at 23h 43min! IMHO good for 90MHz K5 PR75...
Now this is interesting. I just assumed that since 1.6 was slower than 1.5 on new stuff that it was just plain old slower. But if it's faster on old stuff, well, I guess I have some rebenching to do!
ludek - Yep, and you did well with the K5 PR75, overclockead at 100MHz
I cannot match your score at 90MHz, no way.
On WinNT you can see the crashed app for short period of time, then it autoclose down and Dr.Watson does his work. If I optimize Win more (read, under 10MB
), then I disable Dr.Watson and I will also not see a thing... 
(time to look for possibility of some undocumented Asus TXP4-X voltage options to get more that 3.5V, because at 3.5V @ 99/100MHz mine K5 PR75 just post (partly) ... and that it is...)
Dead Things -
I was very surprised to see that the loop get under 1h and each loop cut progressively from the time down and down... But I did not managed the score under 24h, hence crash come. These versions won't be much different, because both versions crashed badly, lol. The different size is mainly due to different exepacker.
I wasnt home when it ended, but the 24h+ run on 1.6 sure has crashed for me aswell now after 24h plus. So confirmed that 1.5 and 1.6 cant run longer then 24 hours id say.
lanbonden - thanks for the confirmation.
Dead Things -
Well, for you, I compared the 1.5 and 1.6 versions on AMD K5 PR75:
SuperPi 1M v1.5: http://hwbot.org/submission/2982984_ (26:32.871)
SuperPi 1M v1.6: http://hwbot.org/submission/3001139_ (26:14.634)
...but meanwhile I optimized the WinNT more, so it is a good question, if the speed are really faster with v1.6. I'm sure that for 32M tests is the v1.6 had notably faster run (about 8 to 12min per loop), but since my TXP4-X memory system exclude it from drawing any real conclusion from it.
The reasons:
- Asus TXP4-X support maximum 256MB of ram, but I have it running at 384MB of ram
- the rams are not even - first stick have 1 rank and 1 side, 128MB capacity. Second have 2 ranks, 2 sides and 512MB capacity, from witch 256MB is used
- the IDE drive fail (mostly) to work with DMA on, reducting the speed to snail average 4MB/sec (with the K5 PR75) with high CPU load and when it run with DMA on, the speed-up is dramatic! ( DMA off: http://s13.postimg.org/n5y9xs7av/13_G_Seagate_P90.png DMA on: http://s22.postimg.org/dt20a7sm9/32_G_CF_Sandisk_karta.png )
- 512k L2 cache onboard, but it (due to chipset limitations working with L2) can cache only 64MB of ram...
So, you have no guaranetee, why the run was faster. It was, but why is the question. I would first repeat this test. There also might be a difference on how the executable packer wreck the memory management on unpacking the executable. That could play a key role too, but we just did not know for sure. Little bit more testing will go a long way
So, >24H is possible with 1M but not with 32M?
How about 4M or 8M?
Has anyone tried 32M on a 64bit OS?
Doubt it. All the >24 hour runs were done with an old version of SuperPi that only counts to the nearest second. I imagine >24 hours is impossible for all tests in either 1.5 or 1.6.
I probably could slow down the CPU to 10.7MHz and give these 1M, 4M or 8M test a try (that way they sure will be over 24h), but I think that 1M test will rival a week time, if it does not crash after first loop past 24h mark...
@trodas, did you try to run it slower then 24h on a x64 OS? Not that it should be relevant as no CPU that suports x64 is close to slow enough for it to mater but still.. if you didnt test Ill do it.
And did you start that 1M run yet?
Ok, I tried to slow my socket 754 rig down but I cant get it slower then ~3.5h for 1M, so only a slowdown of 250x
Ill try the part with 32M on a x64 OS instead, just need to decide on what bench ssd/hdd to sacrafice for a future reinstall..
lanbonden -
Nope, please test it. I did some testing in the possibility of slowing-down more modern CPU's, but I failed completely. For some reason, when I disable L1 cache (L2 does not have that big effect AND things work w/o L2 normally, even SuperPi), SuperPi crash for me. Always. It run very slow and then (5-6 loop for AMD, 9-10 loop for P4) crash.
Most these old board can disable L1 and L2 caches, some even the SSE instructions support and even that disabling all but L1 does not affect the performance much, disabling L1 is "super-killer" of performance. For the reference, all these machines can do SuperPi 32M w/o fail or crash or any other problems, all the computers have replaced their original bad caps to good ones and all these computers are 100% stable and I can run on th SuperPi 32M tests repeatedly w/o any trouble... BUT!
Here we come. I got starting scores 12h 28min per loop, or even 17h 59min per loop:
(PCchips M810LR (SIS 730) 11x100MHz AXP Barton SDRAMs 3-3-3-6)
(Jetway V266B (KT266A) 5x100 AXP-M DDR 2-2-2-5)
That would produce (18hx24) a 432h long benchmark (18 days) - but it crashed on the 24h limit also.
However, and that is where things get really bad, it always crash. Sooner or later it crash on any machine with disabled L1 cache in bios I run it. A good example is P4 3.4GHz CPU that fail w/o caches too:
(MSI PM8M3-V (VIA P4M800) 17x200 Pentium 4 DDR 2-3-2-5)
(notice the crash time!)
I would once again stress, that the machines are completely stable, there is no way that the error is hardware related. Not when it happen like 10x times. Since all these tests failed, because they go over 24h, then this 24h bug is completely and entierly confirmed. Please someone test on 64bit OS. And maybe use other slow-down methods. For me, the cache off come as the easiest thing to do...
Yes, all these tests are 32M runs. I let run 1M overnight w/o caches (600MHz Duon + 4.2GHz P4) and we see what happen.
On the 10.7MHz CPU? Nope. I was banging my head currently on how to give the Asus TXP4-X maniboard a fast HDD. I get a PATA to SATA adapter, SanDisk 120G (must be to be under the 128G limit with patched bios) Ultra II SSD and now I figuring out how to make it all work. It does not. The SSD is well detected during POST and things seems to work (I can install ANY operating system on it, WinNT, WinXP...) but it does NOT BOOT from it:
(SanDisk Ultra II 120G (SDSSDHII-120G), PATA to SATA bi-derectional adapter from Gembird, chipset JM20330, should do hot-swap for non bootable devices)
I tried many disk-setup programs, from old fdisk thru Windows setup to Acronis on Hiren Boot CD 8.6 (my favorite Mini Tool Partition Wizard Pro BOOT CD (allign SSD) does not work on the board... and AMD K5 PR75 in it right now), yet it always fail to boot from the SSD. I have no idea what to do and I very much want to get fast HDD operations... so I trying to push for this instead of having the machine bogged down with 24h limit test... Maybe later, when I figure this crap out. That is second time when PATA - SATA conversion proved unbootable for me. First case - Dell OptiPlex GX110. Same result, different convertor used. Working, but NOT booting...
Sigh.
ludek -
The only unlocked CPU for multiplier settings I have for the TXP4-X is the AMD K6 III+. That (together with the AMD K5 PR75 CPU) refuse to post at 7.14MHz settings. One bios patcher/moder suggested, that it might take the clock as test one and ignore it. Intel does not support that test mode, so it works just right away... Dunno if that is the reason, but I found no AMD CPU yet that can work at 7.14MHz FSB. AND I have no one other Socket 7 CPU to test... Donations accepted for the cause, of course.
I bought Pentium OverDrive 200 MMX, but the person who have to send it did not yet confirmed even going to the post office, so... that will took some time, I'm affraid, to get there.
So while in teory it should work, it does not. No idea why and except some change in bios (test mode to normal mode?), there is a little hope that it will run at 7.14MHz. Besides, lowest K6 multiplier is 2. A bit high for me
))
It is unnecessary, it will crash over 24h for sure, but I let the Duron 600 run w/o caches for the 1M and we see. If it piss me off by going too fast, then I will slow it down to 200MHz: http://valid.x86.fr/kfqjxs ...AND kill the caches
That should do it easily.
I thought that I can do it on the Pentium 4 at 4.2GHz, but it turns out I cannot. The lame ASROck bios does not support cache off option and Windows compatible version of program to disable the cache(s) is not ready yet to roll, so sorry. Only one computer is dedicated to over 24h SuperPi 1M test now.
I more waiting for some news from Fugger. I want fix for this error
So with v1.7 I could be the first to break 24h on SuperPi 
))
Well, I have the SuperPi already unpacked and therefore editable:
...so I could take a look at the code, but it did not seems to have any possible "hidden options" at all. Unpacked size is 579 504 bytest after correctios on resource sizes (before it was 764 416 bytes). The depacker is called there:
...and when I started more that hour ago the 1M calc, w/o the caches are the CPU that slow, that unpacking the 100k packed exe took about 15 sec or something. Maybe I should give the unpacked one a chance, but that version is not for public usage, because it is packed for good reasons...
lanbonden -
3,5h for 1M? Nah, that is too fast
What do you used to slow SuperPi down? For me is best killer the L1 cache. Maybe I should give CPU-Z stress a chance too, if the cache is not good enought 
Worked great for me on the GPUPI challenge 
Please do.
Guys, sorry for my lame mistake, fdisk /mbr fixed the boot issue, so I get the SSD running in my Asus TXP4-X mainboard. That is a good thing. Install went fine even at 83MHz FSB (witch give 41.7MHz PCI bus clock) using Pentium 90 @ 125MHz.
However that is all for good things. Bad thing is, that the SSD will not using DMA at all and the speed is accordingly limited by CPU - see 93.3% CPU usage - to 7.2MB/sec:
This is laughable for SanDisk 120G Ultra II SSD, even run thru the adapter that support SATA (1) only...
...
I would like to mention that ONCE (just once!) I get the DMA running using PATA to CF adapter and that give me on same machine speed around 24MB/sec. With around 20% CPU usage. That might looks a big high, but remember that we are talking about Pentium 1 system, not i7 machine...
So, anyone have any ideas / solutions for that DMA failure? Anything that could be done there? Do I need some install for the i430TX chipset to get the DMA working?
Im using a software fake load that lets me set the load betwean 1-99%, It works suprisingly well couse if I set it at 96% SuperPi for example runs very close to the calculated speed it should at 4% CPU speed.
Combine this program with fsb reduced by 50% and another load like GpuPi on high prio in the background and its get very slow.
Your tips about killing the L1 cache would probably make that superpi 1M totaly possible tho!
Im ~21.5 hours into a test on Win XP x64 now aswell, but really cant see it matering?
Well, my Duron let me down. At 200MHz (34.5x6) w/o caches it make the 1M test in about 2h, witch is pretty quick. I stoped it at loop 16 or so, when it is at 1:40... because that suxx. I got screen, but not on my computer right now.
So I try another approach. Again no caches + ~200MHz + load by the new CPU-Z. Sadly I forget that new CPU-Z mostly freeze on the MSI K7TM Pro, despite the mobo run stable for nearly month for the Aquamark score 2... it freezed, witch make me just switch it off and leave it alone. Pissed at CPU-Z bugses...
...
Today I give it a chance. Again no caches, again ~200MHz, but now a SuperPi 32M for load. However when I set the priority to Realtime, my mouse stop working, lol ... no comment. Setting priority of the 32M background task to High cause it took ~3.5h for just preparing the memory for the loop 1, so... that *WILL* definitively took the 1M test (lowest priority) over 24h.
But dunno, if I manage at least few pases, because the 1M test did not print anything in it's window for ~3.5h...
Maybe I overdid it?
wow, looks like the effect from changing priorities is way bigger when runing without cache active, impressive!
1h 25mins left for the crash on 32m on 64bit OS now.
The 32M on x64 run is completed, was lucky to get run 22 to finish at like 23h 58min 56seconds or something so picked up the phone to catch it on film. Was really suprised how it didnt crash instantly this time but almost at 24h 1min into the benchmark.
So x64 OS not working either confirmed.
We just need 1M run on 1.5 or never to reach 24h now so good luck with your current run.
The 1M run still did not even show "The initial value finished" and it is running for hours now... so I quess that I overdid it. No change on the 32M hi-priority one as of yet. So it will be very bad, there will be (like on the tests above) just few time infos and then crash...
Good to hear that the crash is confirmed on 64bit OS too, but I did not expect any different.
This is pretty interesting to follow, thanks for all the research.
There's also a V1.9, but that one only includes hardware detection and online submission: http://www.superpi.net/Download/
Log in or register to comment