(06-10-2010 03:34 AM)pcsx2fan Wrote:  

Quote:57.87 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 860 - 2.80 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost on) - ilovejedd
59.48 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 860 - 2.80 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost on, CPU affinity: 2 & 3) - ilovejedd

Gazing at the two FPS. The Turbo Boost should have AUTOMATICALLY given you the maximum performance as much as possible right? What the hell when MANUAL adjustment is required in order to acquire the maximal performance in Turbo Boost?

Actually, given that the values for that were fluctuating from 54~57 FPS, getting a constant 59 FPS by itself is pretty significant. Methinks I should try this trick on my Thuban once I get my replacement motherboard (died during OC).

Turbo Boost for the i7-860 goes like this:

Basically, what Turbo Boost does is cut off power to unused cores and diverts that power to active cores so they can run faster. The problem is Windows divides the threads among all available cores so instead of just 2 active cores, you've got 3 or more cores active hence limiting Turbo. By setting CPU affinity, you're reducing/removing load from the other cores enabling the CPU to Turbo higher.

(06-10-2010 03:34 AM)pcsx2fan Wrote:  Turbo Boost sucks as well cost one additional budget, I'd rather or prefer manually overclock if necessary, and bought a CPU without Turbo Boost.

Turbo Boost has its benefits. Prior to its introduction, people have had to choose between less, faster cores or more, slower cores (e.g. E6850 3.0GHz dual vs Q6600 2.4GHz quad). With Turbo Boost/Core, it's possible to get a quad- or hexa-core that would perform similarly to a higher clocked dual-core in applications that are not optimized to take advantage of multiple cores. Unfortunately, it does seem as if the implementation leaves a lot to be desired if manual tweaks are required to get good performance.

I'll reiterate, though, it's not a feature worth paying for if you're just going from i3-530 to i5-660. However, for people trying to decide between a Core i5-750 and i5-661, Turbo Boost tips the scale in the quad's favor.

May I also contribute to this helpfull benchmark ?
My results:

27.30 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ - 2.7 GHz Stock- Abelus

Quote:27.30 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ - 2.7 GHz Stock- Abelus
26.19 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 - 1.6 GHz Underclocking - pcsx2fan

The K8 was behind E7200 by almost 1 GHz, while the K8 was still alive in market two years ago when E7200 had been borned. The K10 seems caught up with Core 2 Duo, but still behind the modern Core ix.

durable PC since 2008
CPU : E7200 @ 2.53 GHz 1.04 V / OC 3.7 GHz 1.36 V (390*9.5, 4GB DDR2 780)
GPU : 8600GT (GDDR3, 256 MB) / OC (750 / 900)
BOARD : GA-EP31-DS3L (rev 1.0)
PSU : 300 W
OS : Windows 7 Home Basic x86

21.23 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD Athlon X2 QL-64 - 2.10 GHz Stock - Rezard - CPU-Z
12.31 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD Sempron II M120 - 2.10 GHz Stock - Rezard - CPU-Z

And here's a CPU-Z for my T9600

(04-12-2010 12:31 AM)pcsx2fan Wrote:  59.48 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 860 - 2.8 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost on, CPU affinity: 2 & 3) - ilovejedd

You should add more info, the 860 with only 2 active cores (affinity) with turbo runs @ 3.33Ghz.

(06-27-2010 11:31 PM)Unr3al Wrote:  

(04-12-2010 12:31 AM)pcsx2fan Wrote:  59.48 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 860 - 2.8 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost on, CPU affinity: 2 & 3) - ilovejedd

You should add more info, the 860 with only 2 active cores (affinity) with turbo runs @ 3.33Ghz.

I was actually planning on including that info but the values from TMonitor were fluctuating from 2.93~3.2GHz between runs so I just left it out. Despite the fluctuation in clock rate, it still delivered 59FPS consistently. Given the inconsistencies, I suggest leaving out the clock rate from the list.

The original one can be deleted.
Pure multiplyer overclocks give 0 performance at all.
Even windows still see's it as 3.33ghz (same results with stock)

Anyways here is my 4GHZ result (normal overclock)
70.02 FPS - SLES 51815 - Intel Core i7 Extreme 980x - 4 GHz OC


cpu-z

(06-28-2010 08:37 PM)ChronicNL Wrote:  The original one can be deleted.
Pure multiplyer overclocks give 0 performance at all.
Even windows still see's it as 3.33ghz (same results with stock)

Then I'll change the original one to be stock rather than delete it.

Quote:63.62 FPS - SLES 51815 - Intel Core i7 Extreme 980x - 3.73 GHz OC - ChronicNL - CPU-Z Screenshot

durable PC since 2008
CPU : E7200 @ 2.53 GHz 1.04 V / OC 3.7 GHz 1.36 V (390*9.5, 4GB DDR2 780)
GPU : 8600GT (GDDR3, 256 MB) / OC (750 / 900)
BOARD : GA-EP31-DS3L (rev 1.0)
PSU : 300 W
OS : Windows 7 Home Basic x86

Weird, my overclock is done via purely multiplier. A lot of programs don't recognize it, but I'm getting the performance i should be so that's all that counts.

actually multiplier OC works just fine either for downclock or overclock, the only thing that matters is if the BIOS can see the overclock and not other programs.