pullo

Benchmark 3.0

Recommended Posts

Watercooling installed and  the processor is  running at 4.6 GHz

Mastercam 2019 of course, and a total time of 4 min 02 sec

 

Benchmark 3.0

 

link repaired by gcode  06/28/18

 

 

Gracjan

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also overclocked  the  memory  to  3066MHz and finally got a result  : 3 min  57 secs.   Easy to remember , under 4 mins.

 

 

5adc1253ca3ff_below4mins.thumb.png.5ec9d9aee455df4aa73fa46392714a10.png

 

Gracjan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.36c8efca90d8f229cad368fc652611ff.png

5m 11.941s adding up the times. 4m 46s if you go by the start/stop time stamps (since some processing is ran in parallel due to multi threading).

Second PC I built for work about 3-4 years ago.

I7 5820k @ 4.5GHz

32GB DDR3 @ 1866MHz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a copy of the benchmark file? The link seems to be broken. I'd like to see how my system stacks up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad ,  I removed the file from my uploads , as I ran out of space, did not realize that there is a link there ....

Gracjan

 

Benchmark 3_0 for 2017.zip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reported the first posting to the Admins , hopefully they will restore the link to the zip file , as it is much easier to find it from the first posting rather than to wade thru' the whole body of the thread.

 

Gracjan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pullo said:

I reported the first posting to the Admins , hopefully they will restore the link to the zip file , as it is much easier to find it from the first posting rather than to wade thru' the whole body of the thread.

 

Gracjan

This should be fixed now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laptop- Asus ROGGL702ZC

Ryzen 7 1700 8c/16t 3.7ghz

32Gb (2x16) DDR4 2400mhz (9 chome tabs open 😜  )

Samsung 970Pro 512gb

Samsung 850Evo 1tb

RX580 4gb 2000mhz

2019

6.09 min

5 min 38 second time stamp....

That OptiRest  kills me. I've been doing a ton of them recently too..

Mastercam 3_0 2019 Benchmark.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New work computer that I built the other day, about 4 mins 15 seconds to regen using a stopwatch.

This is with Chrome open and about a dozen tabs, and streaming SiriusXM radio. Not sure of the impact that has.

 

Capture.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to add all the times together , as some of the processes  run parallel .  So it's  4 mins and 42 secs . :) 

Gracjan

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, pullo said:

You have to add all the times together , as some of the processes  run parallel .  So it's  4 mins and 42 secs . :) 

Gracjan

True, but the ACTUAL time from when I hit regen to when it stopped was 30 seconds quicker than the parallel times :D

Either way, it's not bad for a $2300 home built computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4m10 start time to stop time.  I didn't bother to add it up.  Not bad for a $1600 computer I built a year and a half ago.  No overclocking.

Capture.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not matter which method of summing up we do as long as we use the same method .  One of the reason I made the Benchmark three was to reduce the ambiguities  concerned with  tweaking the file itself. 

I  think there was even at one time a link to an excel file which would add the times together as long as you saved the results in .csv ? 

But I remember that it was the sum  of all times we used for comparisons....

GRacjan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep  BenK , provided a link in Benchmark 2.0 to sum up all yhe times...

Gracjan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO it should be start to stop as that is actual performance.  What if they all take 2 minutes each but all finish in 2 minutes?  That computer would be twice as fast in the real world but would take 2.5x in added time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both methods yield the same result . i.e. a time that can be compared to somebody else's time.  

The thing with adding up the times is you don't have to be on the lookout  when do the calculations  stop.  Just run the benchmark and go away for a coffee or something :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, 7:08. I told them it would be slow but they wanted to try it and have proof. It was very expensive but now there is proof, don't do this.

Dual Xeon E5-2620 v3 2.4GHz

64.0 GB ram

Intel MVMe drive

Quadro K5200

Windows 10

 

Kevin K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pullo said:

Both methods yield the same result . i.e. a time that can be compared to somebody else's time.  

The thing with adding up the times is you don't have to be on the lookout  when do the calculations  stop.  Just run the benchmark and go away for a coffee or something :)

 

It's a different result.  All you need to do for the time is compare the first start time in the log to the last end time.  Only start to finish time will properly compare builds with different multithreading capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pullo said:

Both methods yield the same result . i.e. a time that can be compared to somebody else's time.  

The thing with adding up the times is you don't have to be on the lookout  when do the calculations  stop.  Just run the benchmark and go away for a coffee or something :)

 

The stopwatch is built in.  Just do the math from start time to end time:

capture.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4m9s that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kostiuk said:

Ugh, 7:08. I told them it would be slow but they wanted to try it and have proof. It was very expensive but now there is proof, don't do this.

Dual Xeon E5-2620 v3 2.4GHz

clock time trumps cores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK , so now we have two approaches  to  analyzing the results.  I'm glad both still agree that the shorter time wins ;)

GRacjan

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5:33 specs in sig

your link in the original post is getting 404ed

1107691530_Mcamlogfile.jpg.d5fce1de361ae12d2aba385c7c904f92.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Join us!

eMastercam - your online source for all things Mastercam.

Together, we are the strongest Mastercam community on the web with over 56,000 members, and our online store offers a wide selection of training materials for all applications and skill levels.

Follow us