Super pi problem on my Macbook Pro

[vapnik]

My Macbook Pro has a 2.16Ghz Core 2 Duo with 1GB RAM, 120GB Hard drive and 15" inch screen.

When I ran the super pi on my Macbook Pro, it costs twice as much time as it does on other mbp machine. That is 160 seconds for a 2M test. What's the problem?

This is my result:


Version 2.0 of the super_pi for Mac OS/X
Fortran source program was translated into C program with version 19981204 of
f2c, then generated C source program was optimized manually.
gcc-3.2.2 with compile option of "-O3 -ffast-math -finline-limit=1000" was used
for the compilation.
------ Started super_pi run : Fri May 4 02:26:31 PDT 2007
Start of PI calculation up to 2097152 decimal digits
End of initialization. Time= 2.600 Sec.
I= 1 L= 0 Time= 7.147 Sec.
I= 2 L= 0 Time= 8.035 Sec.
I= 3 L= 1 Time= 7.981 Sec.
I= 4 L= 2 Time= 7.983 Sec.
I= 5 L= 5 Time= 8.005 Sec.
I= 6 L= 10 Time= 7.975 Sec.
I= 7 L= 21 Time= 7.972 Sec.
I= 8 L= 43 Time= 7.984 Sec.
I= 9 L= 87 Time= 7.931 Sec.
I=10 L= 174 Time= 7.970 Sec.
I=11 L= 349 Time= 7.937 Sec.
I=12 L= 698 Time= 7.947 Sec.
I=13 L= 1396 Time= 7.957 Sec.
I=14 L= 2794 Time= 7.949 Sec.
I=15 L= 5588 Time= 7.949 Sec.
I=16 L= 11176 Time= 7.884 Sec.
I=17 L= 22353 Time= 7.833 Sec.
I=18 L= 44707 Time= 7.759 Sec.
I=19 L= 89415 Time= 7.534 Sec.
I=20 L= 178831 Time= 7.070 Sec.
End of main loop
End of calculation. Time= 165.363 Sec.
End of data output. Time= 1.089 Sec.
Total calculation(I/O) time= 166.452( 29.799) Sec.

 

[deadpixels]

for ref, here's mine on a MBPro 2.16 2gb ram 120gb

Version 2.0 of the super_pi for Mac OS/X
Fortran source program was translated into C program with version 19981204 of
f2c, then generated C source program was optimized manually.
gcc-3.2.2 with compile option of "-O3 -ffast-math -finline-limit=1000" was used
for the compilation.
------ Started super_pi run : Fri May 4 12:54:39 CEST 2007
Parameter(%i) to super_pi is missing. Parameter value ? 21
Start of PI calculation up to 2097152 decimal digits
End of initialization. Time= 1.182 Sec.
I= 1 L= 0 Time= 3.284 Sec.
I= 2 L= 0 Time= 3.761 Sec.
I= 3 L= 1 Time= 3.751 Sec.
I= 4 L= 2 Time= 3.747 Sec.
I= 5 L= 5 Time= 3.741 Sec.
I= 6 L= 10 Time= 3.742 Sec.
I= 7 L= 21 Time= 3.728 Sec.
I= 8 L= 43 Time= 3.734 Sec.
I= 9 L= 87 Time= 3.730 Sec.
I=10 L= 174 Time= 3.715 Sec.
I=11 L= 349 Time= 3.750 Sec.
I=12 L= 698 Time= 3.733 Sec.
I=13 L= 1396 Time= 3.724 Sec.
I=14 L= 2794 Time= 3.751 Sec.
I=15 L= 5588 Time= 3.726 Sec.
I=16 L= 11176 Time= 3.739 Sec.
I=17 L= 22353 Time= 3.686 Sec.
I=18 L= 44707 Time= 3.631 Sec.
I=19 L= 89415 Time= 3.555 Sec.
I=20 L= 178831 Time= 3.332 Sec.
End of main loop
End of calculation. Time= 77.539 Sec.
End of data output. Time= 0.496 Sec.
Total calculation(I/O) time= 78.035( 14.537) Sec.
------ Ended super_pi run : Fri May 4 12:56:11 CEST 2007
logout
[Process completed]

77' with safari, azureus and mercury running, i checked the proc usage with istatpro while runnig the test and it was always under 60% usage (me and system)

 

[kellah]

I don't have a MBP (yet!), but were you running it off the battery when you did the test? I'm not sure about the MBP, but my computer clocks its CPU down while running on the battery. Could that maybe explain why yours took twice the time as the other MBP?

 

[deadpixels]

I don't have a MBP (yet!), but were you running it off the battery when you did the test? I'm not sure about the MBP, but my computer clocks its CPU down while running on the battery. Could that maybe explain why yours took twice the time as the other MBP?

i'm curious about that too, and that's a very good point. let's see if the OP confirms ...

 

[vapnik]

It's strange. I was running the test only with the DC IN plug(no battery) and the result was 160 seconds. When I ran it with DC IN and battery, the result was normal: 78 seconds.

Why does it make the difference with and w/o battery in MBP?

I don't have a MBP (yet!), but were you running it off the battery when you did the test? I'm not sure about the MBP, but my computer clocks its CPU down while running on the battery. Could that maybe explain why yours took twice the time as the other MBP?

 

[Infinity]

It's strange. I was running the test only with the DC IN plug(no battery) and the result was 160 seconds. When I ran it with DC IN and battery, the result was normal: 78 seconds.

Why does it make the difference with and w/o battery in MBP?

I read somewhere that intel CPU's a forced to run at 1Ghz when running without the battery inserted and powered by mains only. This could explain your dodgy results?

 

[deadpixels]

I read somewhere that intel CPU's a forced to run at 1Ghz when running without the battery inserted and powered by mains only. This could explain your dodgy results?

yep, the OP confirmed the battery was removed, so the cpu was @ 1ghz.