CPU Speed Professional for Windows

User Reviews

• A waste of time

  sw1jmsJuly 6, 2013

  Pros

  Nothing I can think of

  Cons

  They present you with a screen and you wonder where to go and what to do and there is no explanation. Finally you work out you must press the "exit" to get to the next screen. From there I again could not work out if it did the test or how to do the test if it did not do it. If it did do it automatically then it was very quick, but I could not understand all the numbers anyway. I just gave up as it was not worth the bother when there are so many other better and simpler ones out there.

  Summary

  Don't bother, get something that is easier to work with

  ---

• Real Tech-Head stuff.

  MrTootlesSeptember 26, 2012

  Pros

  Has everything.

  Cons

  Didn't know how to use it well enough to benefit from all it's options.

  Summary

  Not for the novice for sure.

  ---

• Hardly any features

  BartalAlexis1983August 23, 2012

  Pros

  Has only one working feature

  Cons

  But that's all, not worth installing, CPU-Z does the same and more.

  Summary

  Just instant skip...

  ---

• reads base clock only which does not account for OC'n

  ooostephenJuly 17, 2012

  Pros

  it did not install bloat ware, when i deselected that option. other apps ignore that setting and install it anyways.

  Cons

  reports base clock only. multiplier is not accounted for.

  Summary

  meh...pass on this one, unless you don't believe the specs from dell on your stock machine.

  ---

• The program is not terribly useful; needs improvement.

  RightWingLunaticNovember 17, 2011

  Pros

  It is free, and it might entice some folks. For serious over-clockers (which I am not), it is neat if it would only tell you the actual speed. For instance, it reads my CPU speed at 2660MHz, which is the published speed, but CPU-Z list the speed at 3.06GHz (or 3060.2 MHz) First, we will go with the Intel i5-750. It is great processor, and I used it to build my grandfather's computer. It has a base clock of 2.66GHz, with a maximum turbo-boost speed of 3.2GHz. It has 4 cores/4threads with no Hyper-Threading. It has 8 MB of L# Smart Cache, and one QPI link. There is 4GB of dual channel DDR3 memory installed.

  Cons

  Next is the Intel Xeon X5650. It runs at a base clock of 2.66 GHz, and a maximum turbo-boost speed of 3.06GHz. It has 6 cores/12 threads with Hyper-Threading. It has 12MB L3 cache. It too is very nice indeed. I used two of them in my server, along with 48GB of Triple Channel DDR3 ECC Registered Server Memory. The X5650 cost $1019.00 in February of 2011, and $1004 in October 2011 (I started with one, and added another later). We have two physical processors, 12 cores/24 threads with a total of 24MB L3 cache. Which do you think would perform better? If you were going to go strictly by the processor speed as a ranking tool, such as CPU Professional does, then the i5 750 should win. After all, it has a max turbo boost speed of 3.2GHz, whereas the Xeon X5650 only has a top turbo boost speed of 3.06GHz. In reality though, the program only reads the base clock it seems, so the single $159.99 processor should be equal to 2 processors, which come to a grand total of $2023 for both.

  Summary

  It does not mention that the single X5650 has 2 more cores, and 8 more threads, with a grand total of 8 more cores, and 20 more threads in my server. It also lists online as having 4GB of memory. I do have 4GB of memory in EACH of my 12 slots, for a total of 48GB. I don't know how they figured that one. Due to the fact that this program only reads the base clock of my processor, and the graphics are cut off, I find it lacking. If it would put a full load on the CPU and get the results, it would be much better.<br /><br /><span class='notifyMsg'> Updated </span>on Nov 18, 2011<p/>Under Pros, it should have read: It has 8 MB of L3 Smart Cache, and one QPI link. Under Cons, it should have read: It has 12MB L3 cache and 2 QPI links. Under summary, it should have read: It does not mention that the single X5650 has 2 more cores, and 8 more threads, with a grand total of 8 more cores, and 20 more threads with both processors combined.

  ---

• one time use

  HaydnLoverAugust 31, 2011

  Pros

  it worked fine

  Cons

  it didn't mess up my computer

  Summary

  meh

  ---

• Handy utility - shows promise

  JEfromCanadaAugust 31, 2011

  Pros

  Free utility to benchmark your computer and compare it against others

  Cons

  The display of information is a bit faulty

  Summary

  I like the user interface and the ability to go online to view the results of other testers. However, there is one nit-pick that I need mention. On the results panel, when I click "Show CPU Details", the value that gets displayed in the "Published Speed" area changes each time I click! For example, for my AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+ processor, the "Published Speed" changes randomly from 4,294,967.2 GHz to 3.0 GHz to 6.0 GHz, each time I click! In all cases, the "Actual Speed" remains consistent at 3.0 GHz

  ---

• CPU-z is more BETTER!!!

  faustolgAugust 30, 2011

  Pros

  well is a rip off of the migthy CPU-Z, so it works like CPU-Z.

  Cons

  Is a rip off(stolen code) of CPU-Z, but it's bloatware, so much of installer, CPU-Z doesn't need an installer.

  Summary

  Do yourself a favor and get CPU-Z, No Installer.

  ---

• Slowed computer down

  lmanlo09August 30, 2011

  Pros

  Nothing to say here.

  Cons

  Slowed computer down.

  Summary

  Maybe it was this program or whatever cnet has been putting so I don't really recommend this. A quad core i7 with ATI 6770 and 6GB memory. So was fast and then installed the program and slowed down the computer. So there's something wrong with the program I had to restore the computer to an earlier time loosing programs that are only able to install the day they are given out.

  ---

• Did not live up to it's self written hype.

  Jack2JohnAugust 29, 2011

  Pros

  Worth a try...maybe you'll like it....

  Cons

  See my summary above...

  Summary

  ---