Computer Hope

Thanks goes out to Broni for mentioning this benchmarking utility in the Reviews and Recommendations section. I'm creating this thread to see what everyone's computers benchmark score in CrystalMark is. Users who don't have their own custom built computer are also welcome to post in this thread.

Download for CrystalMark2004

My score for this system is: 80092

Not self-built, though....

stupid hdd 

Wow impressive! 

What's the HDD you've got in there?

thanks

some sorta 160gb ide 7200rpm drive.  Weird model too.  I really need to get a 500gb sata one.  160gb isnt enough for me

Pretty cheap now days especially for the system you have I'd definately a worthy investment. I'd imagine it's a pretty big drag on overall system performance in certain situations such as opening a program or game.

yup but my mom wont let me buy one  I should show her this thread

Why did you waste your gift certificates?

And buy a hard drive at best buy  ya right! it would still cost me more to buy it at best buy vs. newegg

Run on Windows 7 so not as fast as it could be...If I had the proper ATi drivers installed it would run the OGL test but I like my Aero 

No 64Bit ? ?     

I could run a few individual tests but no results page.

Ohh that's too bad!

Little blurred but I reduced the quality so the file was fairly small.  Hope the image isn't stretching the topic or anything.
Could have tweaked my system a little to get a better score - for example my RAM is running slower than rated, but ... it's only a benchmark.

I have a plan to dominate this benchmark though ...

Looks good Calum and with that Mark score I do believe you're dominating.

no no, I am

Quote from: Computer Hope Admin on March 09, 2009, 11:10:15 AM
Looks good Calum and with that Mark score I do believe you're dominating.

I'm not winning ... yet.  I believe CR's right, he's got the highest overall score so far.

i have 166,000 or something like that calum got about 144,000

Ohh good point, guess you're dominating at this point computeruler

wewt

Quote from: computeruler on March 10, 2009, 02:22:03 PM
wewt

Haha lucky aren't you?

I've been looking for a 8800GT for cheap for ages...cant find one anywhere here, they are so rare in NZ they are still around $180 NZD in the shops, which is I believe around $100 USD

As far as I was aware, $100 USD is cheap/average for an 8800GT ... if they sold here for £70-80, or whatever the equivalent of $100 is in GBP, I'd be ecstatic.

that is an average price

Sorry...the cheaper 8800Gt's are the slower DDR2 versions, the DDR3 versions, which I would prefer cost $260 NZD here, $135.32 US dollars, and £96.44 GBP

Quote from: Kurtiskain on March 15, 2009, 09:52:36 PM
Sorry...the cheaper 8800Gt's are the slower DDR2 versions, the DDR3 versions, which I would prefer cost $260 NZD here, $135.32 US dollars, and £96.44 GBP

I wasn't aware there was a DDR2 8800GT produced
£96 would still be an acceptable price for the UK actually, I just checked and I can find a 9800GT (same card) for £87, but that's a fluke - usual price is £120 or more.

Edit: again, my 1337th post - I'm leet!

Hehe noticed that. Congrats. Your the fist time I've even seen a user with it active.

Quote from: Calum on March 16, 2009, 05:04:03 AM
I wasn't aware there was a DDR2 8800GT produced
£96 would still be an acceptable price for the UK actually, I just checked and I can find a 9800GT (same card) for £87, but that's a fluke - usual price is £120 or more.

Edit: again, my 1337th post - I'm leet!

Wow ok, I might start putting some money away...

Someone needs their eyes checked, computeruler, is miles ahead.

 

I got to watch in horror as my graphics card came to a screetching halt in the 3D test....  (At least I don't use my computer for gaming )

[attachment deleted by admin]

Computeruler can be a showoff at times.  Let him gloat for a little while.  He'll settle down and soon figure out that nobody really cares what his score is, just that now we can all see what our own computers got on the test.

I thought amd was better 

No doubt in my mind.....................  it is!

I have a 2.3, you have a 2.5!  See the difference?

And my gpu is horrific!

2.4 My gpu is horrific too!
Death to amd/ati!

ATI MUST DIE!

haha, hey it rhymed!

hmm... maybe i should overclock...

and PS - AMD is NOT better...

Captain - could you post your specs, or even better, edit them into your profile, so we can see what hardware you have?

XClio A380 Full tower ATX case (Black)
Enermax Galaxy EGA1000EWL 1000W ATX (80 plus) PSU
Intel DX58SO LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX motherboard
Intel Core i7 940 Nehalem 2.93GHz Quad-Core Processor
6GB (3x2GB) G.Skill 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM (PC3 10666)
ASUS NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 1GB 512-bit GDDR3
4x Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATA2 (all 4 drives in RAID 0 array)
Sony Blu-ray Burner BWU-100A
Samsung 22x SATA DVD burner SH-s223F
Hanns•G HG-281DPB Black 27.5" 3ms Widescreen LCD HDMI Monitor
Microsoft M54-00013 Blue Bluetooth keyboard
Logitech G5 Laser mouse
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate x64


<3 newegg.com

I <3 newegg too!  Very nice system you got there.  Makes me feel old and outdated and I want a new one.  Also, wouldnt it be about the same price to just gt a 2tb hard drive?

probably right, but the transfer speeds are much faster with 4 drives on RAID 0. Also, I originally built my system two years ago, and have since replaced all but the keyboard, mouse, case, and... Hard drives    There might have possibly been 1TB drives available at that time, but if so were very pricey. 320s were the most bang for the buck at the time. Been serving me well or they would have gone the way of the EVGA motherboard that I quickly came to loathe which now sits collecting dust in the closet lol.

Quote from: patio on March 07, 2009, 05:40:52 PM
No 64Bit ? ?     

I could run a few individual tests but no results page.

Me too. 

hmm, i'm 64 bit and didn't have any issues.

Ah, there we go. It will run on 64bit.

This is with a slight overclock of the Host Clock Frequency, about 10 Mhz I believe.  The results seem a little strange, mostly I guess the fact that the HDD score was down. Possibly related to major fragmenting from backing up and deleting files from computers that I have been working on...  anyway, I'm sure this hardware is capable of much more, but I don't feel like risking blowing is all up, so that's good enough 

Yeah definately not worth damaging the hardware, you're getting great results with what you're already doing.

Bad DLoad...got it to run on VistaX64 and Win7X64...

QuoteCrystalMark :  161832

I'm making this thread a sticky since most new SBCC members miss it and it's always interesting to see benchmark scores (at least I think it is). 

Since i've got Win7 32bit now installed i can run it...
Wouldn't run on 64bit OS's so thanx for the reminder...

Seeing as this is now a sticky, I thought I'd try it out....and pass everyone else out.



Oh, and it runs fine on 64 bit.

text doc says it all really!!

haven't O.C'd my system for this either I reckon if I put it back to 5GHz on the proc and 1600 for the RAM i'd be over 300,000 ~<400,000 (wishful thinking perhaps)

[Saving space, attachment deleted by admin]

see attached jpeg

[Saving space, attachment deleted by admin]

Results look excellent kpac and Stats look. 

my newest sbc score
101665

Here is mine (See Attachment)

[recovering disk space - old attachment deleted by admin]

Looks good camerongray thanks for sharing.

Well for what it's worth here's mine on a 2 week old self build, 1st windows computer ever.

Any-good?



[recovering disk space - old attachment deleted by admin]

Nice. Specs?

They are in there somewhere. I'm just trying to amend my profile so they show up under specs.

There we are. They show under specs now.

And thanks

If I over-clock they'll get better wont they?

Just thought I would bench my rebuild.
Not the best score in here by any means.  My memory score could be higher if it was running at its rated speeds, also my CPU score could be higher as I can bench at a much higher clock than I currently run 24/7, but to get my system 100% stable at 3.2GHz requires a large jump in voltage, above that speed it will not pass Linpack but is stable for all other intents and purposes.
The rerun of the benchmark certainly shows the difference from my older build, but I'm really not sure why the OGL score dropped just over 10000, it may be that this test doesn't use my newer card to its full capabilities and perhaps benefits more from the higher shader clock of my older 8800GT - just guessing, as some apps are like that.

Who said you could back here and beat me?

Beat you?
With last-gen tech?
Nah ... that wasn't my intention at all
Now ... what I may have to do is see if I can somehow get the top score in the thread with this ol' tank ... I somehow doubt it but it might be fun to try ...

grr - Calum beat me 

I have upgraded the hard drive so I could probably improve with that.  I really need a new Graphics card.

Does this support 64bit as well ? I checked the web site and it says it is a 32bit only

I ran it fine on XP X64, I believe others have run it under newer X64 OSes too.
Give it a try, it won't hurt

just tested my main computer i use for my projects.




its not over clocked yet and i know i can push it a lot more but just not worth the time right now...maybe when i get back into 3d rendering again i will.

Looks great bloob thanks for sharing. 

bloop, could you post the specs of your machine so we can see what the scores relate to?

Benchmarks from a new PC I built for my uncle.
Specs:
Intel Core i3 530
2x2GB patriot Sector G 1333MHz DDR3 RAM
Gigabyte H55M-UD2H motherboard
OCZ StealthXStream 600W PSU (yes...not great I know, but I was reusing it...)
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB HDD
Samsung  SH-S223C DVDRW
Xigmatek Asgard case

I spent a bit of time having fun with overclocking and testing this - did I mention hw much I LOVE i3?  I got it much higher, even on the stock cooler, but without raising the graphics voltage a fair way the integrated graphics weren't stable under full load.  3.6 is a nice conservative clock, actually done on lower than stock voltage so the temps are still very cool.

Non-overclocked:


Overclocked to 3.6GHz

Nice OC ! !

It's not bad for lower than stock voltage, and the stock cooler
Ignoring the onboard graphics instability under load, I pushed to 3.8 with the same voltage - this is a very good chip, and I know for a fact it could go further.  If I'd used a separate graphics card, thus disabling the onboard graphics, it probably would have gone to 4.0 - with an aftermarket cooler, even a very cheap one as the i3's put out very little heat, I could have gone further, as I could with better RAM.
But, then I sat down and remembered the aim of this build was a cheap internet machine...
For reference, maximum temperatures after a full 12 hours of Linpack were 65C - this is way above any other load anyone can put on a processor, and while running CrystalMark's CPU benches it didn't break 50C.  I love i3.

Very nice. Like the comparison pics. Gives a good comparison between them.

Thanks.
The results are somewhat strange, though - see how the graphics benchmark scores have increased, although the graphics core speed has remained the same?  Shows that CrystalMark's graphics tests are rather CPU dependent.
Also, the memory score has gone up ore than I'd expect, for saying at stock clocks the memory is at 1333MHz and at the overclocked speed it's at something like 1396MHz, somehow this has given nearly a 4000 point increase.  I can only assume the memory part of the benchark is also rather CPU dependent.
Just goes to show the relationship between the components I guess.

Idk what to say..

Oppps Double attach

[recovering disk space - old attachment deleted by admin]

Quote from: BluerjB on June 27, 2010, 06:57:06 PM
Idk what to say..

Oppps Double attach

Nice stats, look good. I helped you out and deleted one of your posts. Thanks again for sharing.

Quote from: Computer Hope Admin on June 30, 2010, 02:15:01 PM
Nice stats, look good. I helped you out and deleted one of your posts. Thanks again for sharing.

Thanks

this win7  is hard to learn , i'm having to write these results down until i get screen capture up and running


MARK  140666

ALU     49303

FPU     48390

MEM    19026

HDD    12579

GDI     6908

D2D    1913

OGL    2547

Quote from: harry 48 on August 05, 2010, 03:24:18 PM
this win7  is hard to learn , i'm having to write these results down until i get screen capture up and running

It's still PrintScreen or Alt+Printscreen (for just the active window), just as it's been since windows 3.1...

Any comparable benchmark tools for us Linux users?

Quote from: SilentAssasin64 on September 10, 2010, 09:17:16 PM
Any comparable benchmark tools for us Linux users?

That's a great question and sorry forgetting the Linux crowd. I hope to see more Linux related questions so I can amp up the Linux support on Computer Hope. I mainly focus on Windows since that's what most users have. I welcome any other Linux benchmark suggestions, but from what I've read HardInfo and Phoronix are the best.

http://hardinfo.berlios.de/HomePage
http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/

I'll give those a shot.  In CrystalMark2004, I hit around 157,000.  This was while having a few torrents, flash videos, and applications running, though.  Will give these all a test later on an idle system.

I'm running Firefox (+100 tabs), Winamp and a torrent client, so I dont know if these results are good/bad

CrystalMark: 117005

AMD Athlon II 250 3.0GHz
ATI 5670 1GB
4GB Ram
WinXP 32Bit
1280x1024 & 1024x768 32Bit

Was curious how my latest build would do. (specs in profile)

Quote-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CrystalMark 2004R3 [0.9.126.452] (C) 2001-2008 hiyohiyo
                                  Crystal Dew World [http://crystalmark.info/]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalMark Result
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CrystalMark :  198841

[ ALU ]             51854
[ FPU ]             52200
[ MEM ]             34016
[ HDD ]             10195
[ GDI ]              9951
[ D2D ]              4871
[ OGL ]             35754

What benchmarks are used for SPARC64 and PowerPC systems running FreeBSD and OpenBSD?

is there a newer version for 64bit Quad Core

CrystalMark 2004 Score 29.9.11 by pinzac55, on Flickr

This is my score with my current setup, core components being -
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme Z mobo
Intel i7 2600K CPU
XFX Radeon 6950 2GB GPU
8GB (2 x 4) G.Skill Ripjaws X 2133 Mhz RAM
OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD "C" Drive
WD Caviar Black 1TB HDD "D" Drive

All parts are at their factory setting, not overclocked and the GPU not unlocked (yet).

Here's a rather amateurish video of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ9xcFcezAU&feature=channel_video_title please thumbs up if you like!

mine is : 93331!!!!! YAH

I got 204156. with load of apps running- I ran the benchmark on a whim.
I would probably see better marks if I didn't have anything running. certain programs such as Dropbox (for work) uses CPU/disk all the time. Bittorrent uses disk & network. Got VLC Media player running (watching Naruto), then there's Chrome, steam, log me in, and finally Vista's wasteful system resources hog. suppose if I took the effort and inconvenience to turn everything off, I'd probably get better scores.


Full size: http://i.imgur.com/hOyW1.png

Image shows all system specs as well as programs running in background @ time of test.
Computer name blocked out to protect my personal info.
Also system temps- either this benchmark isn't very heavy on resources or I've got excellent cooling that can handle all loads. when I first built this PC there were some temps concerns- at full load in stress tests CPU temps would hit 75C and IOH would top 90C. temps are much lower now... although I've yet to do a 100% load stress test.

Did I mention this is a silent/ultra low noise system? Its so quiet if it wasn't for one fan LED (I disabled the others since they're stupid) I'd probably forget it's even running...

New computer

What's the most standardized for win7 ult 64?

And when I post my results, expect them to be photoshopped! LOL! Jk

Although this is an old thread, I thought I may as well update it with the results for my current PC.  Was thinking that it may also be a good idea to create a new thread like this with a newer benchmarking utility as I'm not sure how much CrystalMark2004 will take advantage of modern hardware.

Also note that although Speccy shows the CPU clock as being 3.5GHz, I actually have it overclocked to 4.3GHz with Turbo Boost up to 5.25GHz.