Ah ok no probs, just wondered :).
Btw I didn't link a WU but many WUs.

When I had a 4870 I was running 4 CPU tasks on Ast@H + MW on the GPU, the GPU was nearly @ 100% load despite the 4 CPU tasks. That made good use of my h/w.
However with the 5850 I found that with 4 Ast@h tasks running the GPU was only @ 70-80% load, not good enough for me so I had to surrender a CPU core for it :(

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

HD 6990 ( 830 Mhz ) stock not uber mode - 165 secs
windows 7

R9 270x ( 1000 Mhz ) - 407 secs
windows 7

Thx for the stats Alez, good to see some different cards to the list :).

Btw, I take it you were getting 165s whilst still running a WU on each GPU?

****************************************************************************

So please share your new scores for old & new GPUs & CPUs alike! :)
I will update the table as necessary.

Requirements for benchmark, validated 213.76 credit WUs only, average of 5 WU times, dedicated CPU core for the GPU, please state clock speeds if overclocked (including factory o/cs) or state 'stock'. It would also be handy if you could state your BOINC & driver version & OS, incase it does make any odds.
[update] It seems MW@H have now (20th Feb. ish) released new faster 213.76 credit WUs along with the previously 'standard' speed WUs, so going by the benchmarks gathered upto the 17/2/14, you need to average 5 of the longer 213.76 credit WUs only. Each 'speed' WU should only vary by a few seconds or so where their is nothing else working the GPU.

Oh & for the benchmark please only crunch 1 WU at a time per GPU otherwise it will massively increase WU time, naturally! ;) (even if it does increase output), and the WU times seem to fluctuate much more than singly crunched WU so you can't 1/2 the time either. For CPUs you'll want to crunch 1WU per real core.

Current GPU statistics ~ Average Time to Complete 1 'long' 213.76 credit WU :-

HD 7970 (GPU 1150 MHz) ....................................... 75s Sunny129
R 280X (GPU 1100 MHz) ......................................... 75s Mumak
R 280X (GPU 1030 MHz) ......................................... 77s Dunx
HD 7970 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 77s Sunny129
HD 7970 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1400 MHz, Cat 14.1) .. 78s Mesyn191
HD 7950 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 80s Leonheart
HD 7950 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 81s Mumak
HD 7970 (GPU 1050 MHz) ....................................... 81s Sunny129
HD 7950 (GPU 900 MHz) ......................................... 82s WES
HD 7970 (stock) .................................................... 83s mikey
HD 7970 (GPU 1000 MHz) ....................................... 85s Sunny129
HD 7950 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1500 MHz,Cat 14.1 b) . 87s Leonheart
HD 7970 (GPU 950 MHz) ......................................... 90s Sunny129 (same time when RAM u/c to 800 MHz!)
HD 7950 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1500 MHz) ................ 95s Leonheart
HD 7870 XT (stock) .............................................. 120s Matt
HD 7950 (GPU 850 MHz) ....................................... 121s salvordorhardin
HD 6990 (stock) .................................................. 165s Alez [TSBT's Pirate] (dual GPU card)
HD 6970 (stock) .................................................. 165s Mikey
HD 6950 (stock) .................................................. 176s Icecold
HD 5870 (stock) .................................................. 192s mikey
HD 5850 (GPU 850 MHz) ....................................... 210s Assim1
HD 5850 (GPU 850 MHz, RAM u/c 500 MHz) ............ 211s Assim1
HD 5850 (GPU 775 MHz) ...................................... 231s Assim1
HD 5850 (GPU 750 MHz) ...................................... 245s salvordorhardin
HD 5850 (stock) ................................................. 246s Assim1 (1st post)
HD 5850 (GPU 800 MHz) ...................................... 246s petrusbroder
HD 5830 (stock) ................................................. 282s Pheonix
GTX 780 Ti (stock) .............................................. 403s ... Linux - 395s biodoc
R9 270X ............................................................ 407s Alez [TSBT's Pirate]
GTX Titan .......................................................... 414s Yankton (GPU load only 18% despite a free CPU core)
HD 4870 512 MB (stock) ...................................... 444s JumpinJohnny
GTX 560 Ti 448c (GPU 880 MHz) ........................... 471s GleeM
HD 4870 1GB (stock) ........................................... 503s Assim1
GTX 570 (stock) .................................................. 520s - Linux biodoc
GTX 480 (GPU 750 MHz) ...................................... 520s Dunx
HD 4850 1 GB (stock) .......................................... 553s wayliff
GTX 770 (GPU 1333 MHz) .................................... 609s Stojag
HD 4830 512 MB (GPU 670 MHz) .......................... 615s Assim1 (1st post)
HD 7770 GHz ed. (GPU 1100 MHz) ........................ 724s Mumak
HD 7770 GHz ed. (stock) ..................................... 807s Deerslayer
GTX 660 Ti (GPU 1046 MHz) ................................. 816s - Linux biodoc
GTX 560 Ti (stock) .............................................. 836s Deerslayer
HD 7750 (GPU 900 MHz, RAM 1300 MHz) ............. 1096s branjo
GTX 460 (GPU 750 MHz) 768 MB ......................... 1127s - Linux Ken g6

Current CPU statistics ~ Average Time to Complete 1 'long' 213.76 credit WU :-

Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3 (Turboing to 3.7 GHz) ...... 9881s Stojag
Intel Core 2 Q9550 (3.6 GHz, 424 MHz FSB) ..... 12,532s Assim1
Intel Core i7-3612QM ..................................... 13,068s mikey
AMD Phenom II X4 965 (3.41 GHz) .................. 13,774s JumpinJohnny
Intel Core 2 Q8300 ........................................ 14,949s mikey
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T ............................... 14,950s mikey
AMD FX 6300 ................................................ 15,521s mikey
AMD FX 6100 ................................................ 17,449s mikey
Intel Core 2 Q8200 ........................................ 19,542s mikey
AMD Phenom 9850 ........................................ 25,844s mikey

OS Windows, unless otherwise stated. CPU at stock clock where no speed shown.

Sorry for the busted links but it's the poor software this forum uses!
You can manually edit the url in the address bar or just go to the AnandTech thread & click on the linked names there.

KWSN forum thread http://www.kwsnforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=204042#204042
AnandTech forum thread http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2366988

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

Yes, 2 units running, 1 on each card. All the projects I have run on it so far treat it as 2 x 6970's basically. Think Moo might be the only project that would treat it as a dual card unless anyone can tell me different.
I'm still very disappointed with the DP performance of the R9 270x despite it being above a Titan on the list :)

Yea the only current AMD cards with good DP power are from the 280 upwards, with the 280X being the best of the single GPU cards.

I can't remember who I was talking to (or where lol) but I was comparing the 270s to older cards regarding DP, according to wiki the 270X DP theoretical power is inbetween the 4830 & the 4860/4730 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_HD_4000_Series

Still that's only in DP :), and I see your card is considerably faster than the 4870, even the though the 4870s DP is apparently ~43% greater!
The HD 6990 is still a beast :).

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

Long 213.76 WUs are over i think, its time to remake result table with new ones ;)

I see you've been checking times too ;), yes your right.

When/if I do start another table I I'll use MW v1.02 WUs next time as those are crunched by a bigger range of hardware & by more people.

****************************************************************************

Hmm, looking through my stats last night I noticed that the long 213.76 WUs are now very rare, I think I must of looked through over 100 results & only saw about 1/2 a dozen of the longs ones, if that continues then this benchmarking run is coming to an end :(, still we've got a good number of results :).

In the meantime hurry up if anyone wants to post some times!

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

Ok, I just did a benchmark per instructions at start of thread and see the following results for crunching on my GPU (using .945 of a CPU core)

WU #1 374.75
WU #2 364.39
WU #3 360.2
WU #4 379.88
WU #5 353.42

Average (seconds run-time): 366.528

Please add this to the GPU Benchmarking results list.

My system:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3720QM CPU @ 2.60GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9]
Number of processors 8
Coprocessors AMD AMD Radeon HD 7850/7870 series (Pitcairn) (2048MB) driver: 1.4.1741 OpenCL: 1.02
NOTE: Windows Device Manager shows 'display adapter' as: AMD Radeon HD 7970M
Operating System Microsoft Windows 7
Home Premium x64 Edition, Service Pack 1, (06.01.7601.00)
BOINC version 7.2.42

Oh yeah, I am running both CPU & GPU at stock setting. Since I crunch on my bad-ass Digital Storm gaming laptop ;-)

AMD Radeon HD 5870
GPU 868 MHz, memory 900 MHz, 2 cards, no CPU tasks

MilkyWay@Home v1.02, credit = 79.93 cs
34.09 s run time (single sample), 2.3447 cs/s

MilkyWay@Home v1.02, credit = 106.88 cs
45.17 s run time (50 sample avg), 2.3661 cs/s

Milkyway@Home Separation (Modified Fit) v1.30, credit = 213.76 cs
126.67 s run time (50 sample avg), 1.6876 cs/s

AMD Radeon HD 6970
GPU 950 MHz, memory 900 MHz, 3 cards, no CPU tasks

MilkyWay@Home v1.02, credit = 79.93 cs
28.23 s run time (4 sample avg), 2.8319 cs/s

MilkyWay@Home v1.02, credit = 106.88 cs
35.48 s run time (50 sample avg), 3.0126 cs/s

Milkyway@Home Separation (Modified Fit) v1.30, credit = 213.76 cs
101.67 s run time (50 sample avg), 2.1025 cs/s

---

Hi Brickhead, good to see you here :) & thanks for the times but I take it you didn't read my last post here? or the one at Picard's forum?

Interesting to see the different output from the different credit WUs, unfortunately as I mentioned in my last post here the 'long' 213.76 credit WUs that I was using for the benchmark are no longer being released*. And I'm pretty sure the 213.76 times your showing are for the short versions, so sadly your too late & I can't use your data for the table :(.

Although I'm thinking at some point I will start a new table & next time I will be using MW v1.02 WUs instead, as I've since discovered they can be crunched by a wider variety of hardware & by more people too. So I could use your times for that. Although for the 5870 I will need more than 1 sample.

*[update] Phew! I've just scanned through 1020 of your valid results for the 5870 & I found just 5 of the long 213.76s! So their not extinct yet but extremely rare! lol.
So anyway they all finish in about 187.5s for the 5870. I'll add that time to the table :).

I thought I'd found a bunch for your 6970 but their seem to be some larger fluctuations in times their, were you altering clock speeds or playing a game along side those longer time WUs? Or watching videos? Anyway the WUs I was looking at run from 133-148s (mostly 140-145s). Visually I'd say the average was ~143s but I'd like to hear your answer before I commit to that time ;).

Spencer
Thx for your input :), sadly the description at the beginning of the thread is out of date (I can't edit it), I did mention in that post I'd be adding updates to latter posts ;).
I'm after times for the long (slower) 213.76 credit WUs which (as per my above posts) are nearly extinct now. Let's see if your valid results have any.........
Yep we're in luck :) found 5 out 307!, your average for the long 213.76s is ~525s.

Oh & if you look in the CCC tab you can properly identify your GPU or you can d/l GPU-Z. If you can confirm via CCC or GPU-Z that your GPU is indeed a 7970M then I'll add the above time to the table.

Nice laptop btw :), although strictly speaking it has 4 cpu cores, 4 physical cores + 4 logical cores via HT.

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

https://onedrive.live.com/embed?cid=90818B717F6641E5&resid=90818B717F6641E5%211647&authkey=APiHZG_3HlW6QgU[/url]

Please see screengrab confirmation from GPU-z that I have a AMD 7970M.
If you can please add my time to the benchmark list I would appreciate it.

Thanks for helping with my benchmark and explanation of the tech!

Spencer

Hi Brickhead, good to see you here :) & thanks for the times but I take it you didn't read my last post here? or the one at Picard's forum?

Actually I did, but seing as I had 213.76 cs WUs aplenty, my brain refused to cooperate.

Interesting to see the different output from the different credit WUs, unfortunately as I mentioned in my last post here the 'long' 213.76 credit WUs that I was using for the benchmark are no longer being released*. And I'm pretty sure the 213.76 times your showing are for the short versions, so sadly your too late & I can't use your data for the table :(.

If the run time comparison needs WUs no longer available, isn't that a bit like judging which dinosaur meat tastes the best? (Not that I wouldn't like to know;)

I thought I'd found a bunch for your 6970 but their seem to be some larger fluctuations in times their, were you altering clock speeds or playing a game along side those longer time WUs? Or watching videos? Anyway the WUs I was looking at run from 133-148s (mostly 140-145s). Visually I'd say the average was ~143s but I'd like to hear your answer before I commit to that time ;).

That particular computer does nothing else while crunching, except the odd Windows update, and it has been running at 950/900 for years now. But the first 3 WUs after a logout or reboot may be interrupted and restarted once or twice, not only due to the logout, but sometimes again because the memory clock is too low for the driver to remember and must be manually retrieved from a preset.

---

If the run time comparison needs WUs no longer available, isn't that a bit like judging which dinosaur meat tastes the best? (Not that I wouldn't like to know;)

They taste like 'chicken' as the current thinking is they evolved from 'chickens'. In the 70's the Russians ate some Mastodon meat they found and said it tasted like 'steak'.

TA thank you for keeping the stats, it has helped!

Thx mikey :), got a good number of times anyway.

https://onedrive.live.com/embed?cid=90818B717F6641E5&resid=90818B717F6641E5%211647&authkey=APiHZG_3HlW6QgU[/url]

Please see screengrab confirmation from GPU-z that I have a AMD 7970M.
If you can please add my time to the benchmark list I would appreciate it.

Thanks for helping with my benchmark and explanation of the tech!

Spencer

Thank you, & will do :), actually I've already added it to the table at AnandTechs & KWSN, hadn't done it here yet because this stupid forum has a 1hr edit limit!

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

Hi Brickhead, good to see you here :) & thanks for the times but I take it you didn't read my last post here? or the one at Picard's forum?

Actually I did, but seing as I had 213.76 cs WUs aplenty, my brain refused to cooperate.

Interesting to see the different output from the different credit WUs, unfortunately as I mentioned in my last post here the 'long' 213.76 credit WUs that I was using for the benchmark are no longer being released*. And I'm pretty sure the 213.76 times your showing are for the short versions, so sadly your too late & I can't use your data for the table :(.

If the run time comparison needs WUs no longer available, isn't that a bit like judging which dinosaur meat tastes the best? (Not that I wouldn't like to know;)

I thought I'd found a bunch for your 6970 but their seem to be some larger fluctuations in times their, were you altering clock speeds or playing a game along side those longer time WUs? Or watching videos? Anyway the WUs I was looking at run from 133-148s (mostly 140-145s). Visually I'd say the average was ~143s but I'd like to hear your answer before I commit to that time ;).

That particular computer does nothing else while crunching, except the odd Windows update, and it has been running at 950/900 for years now. But the first 3 WUs after a logout or reboot may be interrupted and restarted once or twice, not only due to the logout, but sometimes again because the memory clock is too low for the driver to remember and must be manually retrieved from a preset.

Lol, bash brain with brick! ;)
Re using a nearly extinct WU, well this has only just happened in the past few days & I warned everyone as such in this forum on the 18th (just 2 posts before you posted your times), Picards, AnandTechs, KWSN & even the dead thread in OcUK. You just hadn't read it properly it seems :P.
Anyhow their were still a few coming through last night as I mentioned in my previous post.

Mmmm would love to try some T rex stakes ;)

Not sure what to do with your 6970 time, I'm going to look again at your results to see if anymore long 213.76s have come through with a more consistent time. Well the last 4-5 long 213.76s have taken your 6970 ~148s so I'll take that time, don't know why some of them were done more quickly earlier.
Btw you could underclock your 6970s grx RAM & it would hardly affect WU times if at all.

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

So please share your new scores for old & new GPUs & CPUs alike! :)
I will update the table as necessary.

Requirements for benchmark, validated 213.76 credit WUs only, average of 5 WU times, dedicated CPU core for the GPU, please state clock speeds if overclocked (including factory o/cs) or state 'stock'. It would also be handy if you could state your BOINC & driver version & OS, incase it does make any odds.
[update] It seems MW@H have now (20th Feb. ish) released new faster 213.76 credit WUs along with the previously 'standard' speed WUs, so going by the benchmarks gathered upto the 17/2/14, you need to average 5 of the longer 213.76 credit WUs only. Each 'speed' WU should only vary by a few seconds or so where their is nothing else working the GPU.
[update2] As of 21/4/14 the long 213.76 credit WUs are extremely rare now so dig deep to find them! The 2 times I got today I found 5 in 307 & 5 out 1020 results!! Once these WUs are gone it'll be the end of this benchmarking run.

Oh & for the benchmark please only crunch 1 WU at a time per GPU otherwise it will massively increase WU time, naturally! ;) (even if it does increase output), and the WU times seem to fluctuate much more than singly crunched WU so you can't 1/2 the time either. For CPUs you'll want to crunch 1WU per real core.

Current GPU statistics ~ Average Time to Complete 1 'long' 213.76 credit WU :-

HD 7970 (GPU 1150 MHz) ....................................... 75s Sunny129
R 280X (GPU 1100 MHz) ......................................... 75s Mumak
R 280X (GPU 1030 MHz) ......................................... 77s Dunx
HD 7970 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 77s Sunny129
HD 7970 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1400 MHz, Cat 14.1) .. 78s Mesyn191
HD 7950 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 80s Leonheart
HD 7950 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 81s Mumak
HD 7970 (GPU 1050 MHz) ....................................... 81s Sunny129
HD 7950 (GPU 900 MHz) ......................................... 82s WES
HD 7970 (stock) .................................................... 83s mikey
HD 7970 (GPU 1000 MHz) ....................................... 85s Sunny129
HD 7950 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1500 MHz,Cat 14.1 b) . 87s Leonheart
HD 7970 (GPU 950 MHz) ......................................... 90s Sunny129 (same time when RAM u/c to 800 MHz!)
HD 7950 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1500 MHz) ................ 95s Leonheart
HD 7870 XT (stock) .............................................. 120s Matt
HD 7950 (GPU 850 MHz) ....................................... 121s salvordorhardin
HD 6970 (GPU 950 MHz, RAM 900 MHz) .................. 148s Brickhead
HD 6990 (stock) .................................................. 165s Alez [TSBT's Pirate] (dual GPU card)
HD 6970 (stock) .................................................. 165s Mikey
HD 6950 (stock) .................................................. 176s Icecold
HD 5870 (GPU 868 MHz, RAM u/c 900 MHz) ............ 187s Brickhead
HD 5870 (stock) .................................................. 192s mikey
HD 5850 (GPU 850 MHz) ....................................... 210s Assim1
HD 5850 (GPU 850 MHz, RAM u/c 500 MHz) ............ 211s Assim1
HD 5850 (GPU 775 MHz) ...................................... 231s Assim1
HD 5850 (GPU 750 MHz) ...................................... 245s salvordorhardin
HD 5850 (stock) ................................................. 246s Assim1 (1st post)
HD 5850 (GPU 800 MHz) ...................................... 246s petrusbroder
HD 5830 (stock) ................................................. 282s Pheonix
GTX 780 Ti (stock) .............................................. 403s ... Linux - 395s biodoc
R9 270X ............................................................ 407s Alez [TSBT's Pirate]
GTX Titan .......................................................... 414s Yankton (GPU load only 18% despite a free CPU core)
HD 4870 512 MB (stock) ...................................... 444s JumpinJohnny
GTX 560 Ti 448c (GPU 880 MHz) ........................... 471s GleeM
HD 4870 1GB (stock) ........................................... 503s Assim1
GTX 570 (stock) .................................................. 520s - Linux biodoc
GTX 480 (GPU 750 MHz) ...................................... 520s Dunx
HD 7970M .......................................................... 525s Spencer
HD 4850 1 GB (stock) .......................................... 553s wayliff
GTX 770 (GPU 1333 MHz) .................................... 609s Stojag
HD 4830 512 MB (GPU 670 MHz) .......................... 615s Assim1 (1st post)
HD 7770 GHz ed. (GPU 1100 MHz) ........................ 724s Mumak
HD 7770 GHz ed. (stock) ..................................... 807s Deerslayer
GTX 660 Ti (GPU 1046 MHz) ................................. 816s - Linux biodoc
GTX 560 Ti (stock) .............................................. 836s Deerslayer
HD 7750 (GPU 900 MHz, RAM 1300 MHz) ............. 1096s branjo
GTX 460 (GPU 750 MHz) 768 MB ......................... 1127s - Linux Ken g6

Current CPU statistics ~ Average Time to Complete 1 'long' 213.76 credit WU :-

Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3 (Turboing to 3.7 GHz) ...... 9881s Stojag
Intel Core 2 Q9550 (3.6 GHz, 424 MHz FSB) ..... 12,532s Assim1
Intel Core i7-3612QM ..................................... 13,068s mikey
AMD Phenom II X4 965 (3.41 GHz) .................. 13,774s JumpinJohnny
Intel Core 2 Q8300 ........................................ 14,949s mikey
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T ............................... 14,950s mikey
AMD FX 6300 ................................................ 15,521s mikey
AMD FX 6100 ................................................ 17,449s mikey
Intel Core 2 Q8200 ........................................ 19,542s mikey
AMD Phenom 9850 ........................................ 25,844s mikey

OS Windows, unless otherwise stated. CPU at stock clock where no speed shown.

Sorry for the busted links but it's the poor software this forum uses!
You can manually edit the url in the address bar or just go to the AnandTech thread & click on the linked names there.

KWSN forum thread http://www.kwsnforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=204042#204042
AnandTech forum thread http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2366988

********************************************************************************

Just to re-iterate :-

For anyone else considering submitting a benchmark please be aware that the benchmark WUs (the long 213.76 credit ones) are becoming very rare now .
If your lucky & you dig deep into your sep mod fit valid tasks you may find a handful!
If you find that all your 213.76 credit tasks are near enough the same time (varying by only a few seconds or so) then it's very likely you have no long 213.76s at all.
Once those WUs have all gone this benchmarking run will be over.

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

Whoops :$ , I've just noticed that I hadn't clarified which time column should be used, whilst it was obvious for the GPU it wasn't for the CPU!

Going back over my posts in the MW forum I see I chose the run time, but on further investigation it looks like I should of chosen the CPU time for more accurate CPU comparisons (what do you guys reckon?).

Aarrrgg nightmare! I would have to re-calculate mikey's times (fortunately he posted both) & I think for the rest of the CPU times I will just have to put a footnote about it as it will be almost, if not totally impossible to get enough long 213.76 times for CPUs now (unless that WU makes a come back which seems unlikely).

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

Btw you could underclock your 6970s grx RAM & it would hardly affect WU times if at all.

I know, and I already have - that's why I need to manually apply a preset after each reboot. Stock clocks for those cards are 880/1375 (as opposed to my 950/900).

---

Ah ok, missed that, lol.

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7