Just a little bit of fun

GunJack

Toxteth_OGrady wrote: »

So who's got an oc'ed i7-990X?

think I can safely say .........it's NOT me !! :rotfl:

andy2004

1.85ghz AMD Althon processor, 3gb memory on a 2002 i think ECA kt600-A motherboard,
130.687sec. lol, 33processes running cpu usage 8%

spud17

spud17 wrote: »

Not tonight, going to dig out the AMD K-6(?) or try an HP5520 thin client, if WinCE 5.0 will run WPrime.


Got the calender to time it.

The HP 5520 (WinCE 5.0, 64MB flash hd,128MB ram) wouldn't run it.:p

I dumped a PII 333MHz (?) with 64MB ram just before Xmas,(couldn't give it away), that would have been a record breaker. :rotfl:

flossy_splodge

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Its only a bit of fun Flossy. Mines a quad core 3.3Ghz processor. I would expect the average user here to get something between 20 and 40

That said, if you think it 'should' be faster, maybe you have an issue somewhere?

Could be! Any thoughts on what I should run to find out?

I keep SAS and Mbam up to date and run regularly also CCleaner.

Firewall and all those basics all in place and seemingly ok.
????

Nice to see you, by the way Rik, haven't come across your posts for a while. Mind you, I've been fairly submerged in DD's wedding so am only now coming up for air!

flossy_splodge

GunJack wrote: »

think I can safely say .........it's NOT me !! :rotfl:

Ooh, does this list carry on into the realms of equipment held by mere mortals?
Love to see where mine figures in the overall scheme of things.:rotfl:

Ximian

Slow day at work
New figures: 6.509 sec
Overclocked to 4.2 Ghz system is stable, I might push close to 5 GHz

Ximian

5.961 sec Overclocked to 4.6 GHz
Bluescreen @ 4.8 (stock voltages though)

GunJack

flossy_splodge wrote: »

Ooh, does this list carry on into the realms of equipment held by mere mortals?
Love to see where mine figures in the overall scheme of things.:rotfl:

if you look back through the thread, you'll find I manage to exist quite comfortably on (and not the quickest processor at the time, either) 6-y-o hardware

but read back and you'll see the results others have posted.....

GunJack

flossy_splodge wrote: »

ooh, 41.578! that doesn't look good!
Now I'm not happy.

why not happy ??? what spec is your machine?? You'll probably find it's about right for your hardware......my 107 seconds is about right for mine

callistris

Got 46.796s on my works intel dual core 2GHz running on 2GB of Ram:)