Author Topic: Your system benchmark score (Using: CrystalMark2004) (Read 430930 times)

Computer Hope Admin · « **on:** March 03, 2009, 01:47:47 PM »

Thanks goes out to Broni for mentioning this benchmarking utility in the Reviews and Recommendations section. I'm creating this thread to see what everyone's computers benchmark score in CrystalMark is. Users who don't have their own custom built computer are also welcome to post in this thread.

Download for CrystalMark2004

My score for this system is: 80092

Broni · « **Reply #1 on:** March 03, 2009, 02:01:09 PM »

Not self-built, though....

computeruler · « **Reply #2 on:** March 03, 2009, 05:35:08 PM »

stupid hdd

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #3 on:** March 03, 2009, 05:43:39 PM »

Wow impressive!

What's the HDD you've got in there?

computeruler · « **Reply #4 on:** March 03, 2009, 06:11:39 PM »

thanks

some sorta 160gb ide 7200rpm drive. Weird model too. I really need to get a 500gb sata one. 160gb isnt enough for me

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #5 on:** March 03, 2009, 06:14:01 PM »

Pretty cheap now days especially for the system you have I'd definately a worthy investment. I'd imagine it's a pretty big drag on overall system performance in certain situations such as opening a program or game.

computeruler · « **Reply #6 on:** March 03, 2009, 06:19:27 PM »

yup but my mom wont let me buy one

I should show her this thread

Broni · « **Reply #7 on:** March 03, 2009, 06:23:30 PM »

Why did you waste your gift certificates?

computeruler · « **Reply #8 on:** March 03, 2009, 06:24:12 PM »

And buy a hard drive at best buy

ya right! it would still cost me more to buy it at best buy vs. newegg

Kurtiskain · « **Reply #9 on:** March 03, 2009, 08:14:58 PM »

Run on Windows 7 so not as fast as it could be...If I had the proper ATi drivers installed it would run the OGL test but I like my Aero

patio · « **Reply #10 on:** March 07, 2009, 05:40:52 PM »

No 64Bit ? ?

I could run a few individual tests but no results page.

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #11 on:** March 08, 2009, 11:32:13 AM »

Ohh that's too bad!

Calum · « **Reply #12 on:** March 08, 2009, 03:18:12 PM »

Little blurred but I reduced the quality so the file was fairly small. Hope the image isn't stretching the topic or anything.
Could have tweaked my system a little to get a better score - for example my RAM is running slower than rated, but ... it's only a benchmark.

I have a plan to dominate this benchmark though ...

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2009, 11:10:15 AM »

Looks good Calum and with that Mark score I do believe you're dominating.

computeruler · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2009, 01:34:32 PM »

no no, I am

Calum · « **Reply #15 on:** March 10, 2009, 03:15:41 AM »

Quote from: Computer Hope Admin on March 09, 2009, 11:10:15 AM

Looks good Calum and with that Mark score I do believe you're dominating.

I'm not winning ... yet. I believe CR's right, he's got the highest overall score so far.

computeruler · « **Reply #16 on:** March 10, 2009, 05:56:15 AM »

i have 166,000 or something like that calum got about 144,000

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #17 on:** March 10, 2009, 10:09:02 AM »

Ohh good point, guess you're dominating at this point computeruler

computeruler · « **Reply #18 on:** March 10, 2009, 02:22:03 PM »

Kurtiskain · « **Reply #19 on:** March 14, 2009, 03:20:24 AM »

Quote from: computeruler on March 10, 2009, 02:22:03 PM

wewt

Haha lucky aren't you?

I've been looking for a 8800GT for cheap for ages...cant find one anywhere here, they are so rare in NZ they are still around $180 NZD in the shops, which is I believe around $100 USD

Calum · « **Reply #20 on:** March 14, 2009, 09:32:46 AM »

As far as I was aware, $100 USD is cheap/average for an 8800GT ... if they sold here for £70-80, or whatever the equivalent of $100 is in GBP, I'd be ecstatic.

computeruler · « **Reply #21 on:** March 15, 2009, 02:33:03 PM »

that is an average price

Kurtiskain · « **Reply #22 on:** March 15, 2009, 09:52:36 PM »

Sorry...the cheaper 8800Gt's are the slower DDR2 versions, the DDR3 versions, which I would prefer cost $260 NZD here, $135.32 US dollars, and £96.44 GBP

Calum · « **Reply #23 on:** March 16, 2009, 05:04:03 AM »

Quote from: Kurtiskain on March 15, 2009, 09:52:36 PM

Sorry...the cheaper 8800Gt's are the slower DDR2 versions, the DDR3 versions, which I would prefer cost $260 NZD here, $135.32 US dollars, and £96.44 GBP

I wasn't aware there was a DDR2 8800GT produced

£96 would still be an acceptable price for the UK actually, I just checked and I can find a 9800GT (same card) for £87, but that's a fluke - usual price is £120 or more.

Edit: again, my 1337th post - I'm leet!

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #24 on:** March 16, 2009, 11:27:28 AM »

Hehe noticed that. Congrats.

Your the fist time I've even seen a user with it active.

Kurtiskain · « **Reply #25 on:** March 16, 2009, 01:10:07 PM »

Quote from: Calum on March 16, 2009, 05:04:03 AM

I wasn't aware there was a DDR2 8800GT produced
£96 would still be an acceptable price for the UK actually, I just checked and I can find a 9800GT (same card) for £87, but that's a fluke - usual price is £120 or more.

Edit: again, my 1337th post - I'm leet!

Wow ok, I might start putting some money away...

ImnoGuru · « **Reply #26 on:** April 02, 2009, 02:52:48 PM »

Someone needs their eyes checked, computeruler, is miles ahead.

computeruler · « **Reply #27 on:** April 03, 2009, 05:59:51 AM »

Tux2 · « **Reply #28 on:** April 11, 2009, 02:27:09 PM »

I got to watch in horror as my graphics card came to a screetching halt in the 3D test....

(At least I don't use my computer for gaming

)

[attachment deleted by admin]

paudashlake · « **Reply #29 on:** April 12, 2009, 07:53:26 PM »

Computeruler can be a showoff at times. Let him gloat for a little while. He'll settle down and soon figure out that nobody really cares what his score is, just that now we can all see what our own computers got on the test.

computeruler · « **Reply #30 on:** April 13, 2009, 10:09:17 AM »

I thought amd was better

paudashlake · « **Reply #31 on:** April 15, 2009, 07:21:46 PM »

No doubt in my mind..................... it is!

I have a 2.3, you have a 2.5! See the difference?

And my gpu is horrific!

computeruler · « **Reply #32 on:** April 16, 2009, 02:58:00 PM »

2.4 My gpu is horrific too!
Death to amd/ati!

paudashlake · « **Reply #33 on:** April 16, 2009, 03:00:24 PM »

ATI MUST DIE!

haha, hey it rhymed!

CaptainStickMan · « **Reply #34 on:** April 28, 2009, 09:12:46 PM »

hmm... maybe i should overclock...

and PS - AMD is NOT better...

Calum · « **Reply #35 on:** April 29, 2009, 02:00:38 AM »

Captain - could you post your specs, or even better, edit them into your profile, so we can see what hardware you have?

CaptainStickMan · « **Reply #36 on:** April 29, 2009, 05:31:37 PM »

XClio A380 Full tower ATX case (Black)
Enermax Galaxy EGA1000EWL 1000W ATX (80 plus) PSU
Intel DX58SO LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX motherboard
Intel Core i7 940 Nehalem 2.93GHz Quad-Core Processor
6GB (3x2GB) G.Skill 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM (PC3 10666)
ASUS NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 1GB 512-bit GDDR3
4x Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATA2 (all 4 drives in RAID 0 array)
Sony Blu-ray Burner BWU-100A
Samsung 22x SATA DVD burner SH-s223F
Hanns•G HG-281DPB Black 27.5" 3ms Widescreen LCD HDMI Monitor
Microsoft M54-00013 Blue Bluetooth keyboard
Logitech G5 Laser mouse
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate x64

<3 newegg.com

computeruler · « **Reply #37 on:** April 29, 2009, 06:58:03 PM »

I <3 newegg too! Very nice system you got there. Makes me feel old and outdated and I want a new one. Also, wouldnt it be about the same price to just gt a 2tb hard drive?

CaptainStickMan · « **Reply #38 on:** April 29, 2009, 07:35:38 PM »

probably right, but the transfer speeds are much faster with 4 drives on RAID 0. Also, I originally built my system two years ago, and have since replaced all but the keyboard, mouse, case, and... Hard drives

There might have possibly been 1TB drives available at that time, but if so were very pricey. 320s were the most bang for the buck at the time. Been serving me well or they would have gone the way of the EVGA motherboard that I quickly came to loathe which now sits collecting dust in the closet lol.

lectrocrew · « **Reply #39 on:** May 02, 2009, 06:28:38 PM »

Quote from: patio on March 07, 2009, 05:40:52 PM

No 64Bit ? ?

I could run a few individual tests but no results page.

Me too.

CaptainStickMan · « **Reply #40 on:** May 02, 2009, 07:51:36 PM »

hmm, i'm 64 bit and didn't have any issues.

lectrocrew · « **Reply #41 on:** May 03, 2009, 10:04:08 AM »

Ah, there we go. It will run on 64bit.

CaptainStickMan · « **Reply #42 on:** May 03, 2009, 05:24:46 PM »

This is with a slight overclock of the Host Clock Frequency, about 10 Mhz I believe. The results seem a little strange, mostly I guess the fact that the HDD score was down. Possibly related to major fragmenting from backing up and deleting files from computers that I have been working on... anyway, I'm sure this hardware is capable of much more, but I don't feel like risking blowing is all up, so that's good enough

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #43 on:** May 05, 2009, 11:17:59 PM »

Yeah definately not worth damaging the hardware, you're getting great results with what you're already doing.

patio · « **Reply #44 on:** May 06, 2009, 06:50:12 AM »

Bad DLoad...got it to run on VistaX64 and Win7X64...

Quote

CrystalMark : 161832

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #45 on:** February 04, 2010, 05:01:52 PM »

I'm making this thread a sticky since most new SBCC members miss it and it's always interesting to see benchmark scores (at least I think it is).

patio · « **Reply #46 on:** February 04, 2010, 06:02:32 PM »

Since i've got Win7 32bit now installed i can run it...
Wouldn't run on 64bit OS's so thanx for the reminder...

kpac · « **Reply #47 on:** February 05, 2010, 09:52:15 AM »

Seeing as this is now a sticky, I thought I'd try it out....and pass everyone else out.

Oh, and it runs fine on 64 bit.

alphanumeric · « **Reply #48 on:** February 11, 2010, 02:45:39 AM »

text doc says it all really!!

haven't O.C'd my system for this either I reckon if I put it back to 5GHz on the proc and 1600 for the RAM i'd be over 300,000 ~<400,000 (wishful thinking perhaps)

[Saving space, attachment deleted by admin]

alphanumeric · « **Reply #49 on:** February 11, 2010, 03:34:28 PM »

see attached jpeg

[Saving space, attachment deleted by admin]

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #50 on:** February 11, 2010, 05:28:49 PM »

Results look excellent kpac and Stats look.

mat123 · « **Reply #51 on:** March 29, 2010, 05:19:48 PM »

my newest sbc score
101665

camerongray · « **Reply #52 on:** April 06, 2010, 02:08:36 AM »

Here is mine (See Attachment)

[recovering disk space - old attachment deleted by admin]

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #53 on:** April 07, 2010, 04:10:55 PM »

Looks good camerongray thanks for sharing.

macabdul · « **Reply #54 on:** April 09, 2010, 04:11:33 PM »

Well for what it's worth here's mine on a 2 week old self build, 1st windows computer ever.

Any-good?

[recovering disk space - old attachment deleted by admin]

kpac · « **Reply #55 on:** April 09, 2010, 04:17:12 PM »

Nice. Specs?

macabdul · « **Reply #56 on:** April 09, 2010, 04:22:58 PM »

They are in there somewhere. I'm just trying to amend my profile so they show up under specs.

There we are. They show under specs now.

And thanks

If I over-clock they'll get better wont they?

Calum · « **Reply #57 on:** May 09, 2010, 06:38:24 AM »

Just thought I would bench my rebuild.
Not the best score in here by any means. My memory score could be higher if it was running at its rated speeds, also my CPU score could be higher as I can bench at a much higher clock than I currently run 24/7, but to get my system 100% stable at 3.2GHz requires a large jump in voltage, above that speed it will not pass Linpack but is stable for all other intents and purposes.
The rerun of the benchmark certainly shows the difference from my older build, but I'm really not sure why the OGL score dropped just over 10000, it may be that this test doesn't use my newer card to its full capabilities and perhaps benefits more from the higher shader clock of my older 8800GT - just guessing, as some apps are like that.

kpac · « **Reply #58 on:** May 10, 2010, 03:44:56 PM »

Who said you could back here and beat me?

Calum · « **Reply #59 on:** May 11, 2010, 12:47:23 PM »

Beat you?
With last-gen tech?
Nah ... that wasn't my intention at all

Now ... what I may have to do is see if I can somehow get the top score in the thread with this ol' tank ... I somehow doubt it but it might be fun to try ...

camerongray · « **Reply #60 on:** May 13, 2010, 02:01:54 AM »

grr - Calum beat me

I have upgraded the hard drive so I could probably improve with that. I really need a new Graphics card.

discboy321 · « **Reply #61 on:** May 22, 2010, 08:01:56 PM »

Does this support 64bit as well ? I checked the web site and it says it is a 32bit only

Calum · « **Reply #62 on:** May 23, 2010, 03:59:51 AM »

I ran it fine on XP X64, I believe others have run it under newer X64 OSes too.
Give it a try, it won't hurt

bloop · « **Reply #63 on:** June 08, 2010, 11:19:57 PM »

just tested my main computer i use for my projects.

its not over clocked yet and i know i can push it a lot more but just not worth the time right now...maybe when i get back into 3d rendering again i will.

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #64 on:** June 10, 2010, 03:31:45 PM »

Looks great bloob thanks for sharing.

Calum · « **Reply #65 on:** June 12, 2010, 11:51:32 AM »

bloop, could you post the specs of your machine so we can see what the scores relate to?

Calum · « **Reply #66 on:** June 25, 2010, 12:05:49 PM »

Benchmarks from a new PC I built for my uncle.
Specs:
Intel Core i3 530
2x2GB patriot Sector G 1333MHz DDR3 RAM
Gigabyte H55M-UD2H motherboard
OCZ StealthXStream 600W PSU (yes...not great I know, but I was reusing it...)
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB HDD
Samsung SH-S223C DVDRW
Xigmatek Asgard case

I spent a bit of time having fun with overclocking and testing this - did I mention hw much I LOVE i3? I got it much higher, even on the stock cooler, but without raising the graphics voltage a fair way the integrated graphics weren't stable under full load. 3.6 is a nice conservative clock, actually done on lower than stock voltage so the temps are still very cool.

Non-overclocked:

Overclocked to 3.6GHz

patio · « **Reply #67 on:** June 25, 2010, 12:11:04 PM »

Nice OC ! !

Calum · « **Reply #68 on:** June 25, 2010, 12:59:10 PM »

It's not bad for lower than stock voltage, and the stock cooler

Ignoring the onboard graphics instability under load, I pushed to 3.8 with the same voltage - this is a very good chip, and I know for a fact it could go further. If I'd used a separate graphics card, thus disabling the onboard graphics, it probably would have gone to 4.0 - with an aftermarket cooler, even a very cheap one as the i3's put out very little heat, I could have gone further, as I could with better RAM.
But, then I sat down and remembered the aim of this build was a cheap internet machine...

For reference, maximum temperatures after a full 12 hours of Linpack were 65C - this is way above any other load anyone can put on a processor, and while running CrystalMark's CPU benches it didn't break 50C. I love i3.

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #69 on:** June 26, 2010, 05:18:38 AM »

Very nice. Like the comparison pics. Gives a good comparison between them.

Calum · « **Reply #70 on:** June 26, 2010, 07:27:27 AM »

Thanks.
The results are somewhat strange, though - see how the graphics benchmark scores have increased, although the graphics core speed has remained the same? Shows that CrystalMark's graphics tests are rather CPU dependent.
Also, the memory score has gone up ore than I'd expect, for saying at stock clocks the memory is at 1333MHz and at the overclocked speed it's at something like 1396MHz, somehow this has given nearly a 4000 point increase. I can only assume the memory part of the benchark is also rather CPU dependent.
Just goes to show the relationship between the components I guess.

BluerjB · « **Reply #71 on:** June 27, 2010, 06:57:06 PM »

Idk what to say..

Oppps Double attach

[recovering disk space - old attachment deleted by admin]

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #72 on:** June 30, 2010, 02:15:01 PM »

Quote from: BluerjB on June 27, 2010, 06:57:06 PM

Idk what to say..

Oppps Double attach

Nice stats, look good. I helped you out and deleted one of your posts. Thanks again for sharing.

BluerjB · « **Reply #73 on:** July 12, 2010, 07:54:28 PM »

Quote from: Computer Hope Admin on June 30, 2010, 02:15:01 PM

Nice stats, look good. I helped you out and deleted one of your posts. Thanks again for sharing.

Thanks

harry 48 · « **Reply #74 on:** August 05, 2010, 03:24:18 PM »

this win7 is hard to learn , i'm having to write these results down until i get screen capture up and running

MARK 140666

ALU 49303

FPU 48390

MEM 19026

HDD 12579

GDI 6908

D2D 1913

OGL 2547

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #75 on:** August 06, 2010, 05:16:22 AM »

Quote from: harry 48 on August 05, 2010, 03:24:18 PM

this win7 is hard to learn , i'm having to write these results down until i get screen capture up and running

It's still PrintScreen or Alt+Printscreen (for just the active window), just as it's been since windows 3.1...

SilentAssasin64 · « **Reply #76 on:** September 10, 2010, 09:17:16 PM »

Any comparable benchmark tools for us Linux users?

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #77 on:** September 20, 2010, 10:50:14 PM »

Quote from: SilentAssasin64 on September 10, 2010, 09:17:16 PM

Any comparable benchmark tools for us Linux users?

That's a great question and sorry forgetting the Linux crowd. I hope to see more Linux related questions so I can amp up the Linux support on Computer Hope. I mainly focus on Windows since that's what most users have. I welcome any other Linux benchmark suggestions, but from what I've read HardInfo and Phoronix are the best.

http://hardinfo.berlios.de/HomePage
http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/

SilentAssasin64 · « **Reply #78 on:** September 23, 2010, 12:01:32 PM »

I'll give those a shot. In CrystalMark2004, I hit around 157,000. This was while having a few torrents, flash videos, and applications running, though. Will give these all a test later on an idle system.

Ryder17z · « **Reply #79 on:** December 25, 2010, 08:28:55 AM »

I'm running Firefox (+100 tabs), Winamp and a torrent client, so I dont know if these results are good/bad

CrystalMark: 117005

AMD Athlon II 250 3.0GHz
ATI 5670 1GB
4GB Ram
WinXP 32Bit
1280x1024 & 1024x768 32Bit

quaxo · « **Reply #80 on:** April 28, 2011, 11:35:34 AM »

Was curious how my latest build would do. (specs in profile)

Quote

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CrystalMark 2004R3 [0.9.126.452] (C) 2001-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World [http://crystalmark.info/]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalMark Result
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalMark : 198841

[ ALU ] 51854
[ FPU ] 52200
[ MEM ] 34016
[ HDD ] 10195
[ GDI ] 9951
[ D2D ] 4871
[ OGL ] 35754

Hairy Toenail · « **Reply #81 on:** May 20, 2011, 03:26:56 AM »

BisquitMaker · « **Reply #82 on:** June 24, 2011, 04:22:04 PM »

What benchmarks are used for SPARC64 and PowerPC systems running FreeBSD and OpenBSD?

Biker · « **Reply #83 on:** July 12, 2011, 10:37:09 AM »

is there a newer version for 64bit Quad Core

Ankylosaurus · « **Reply #84 on:** September 29, 2011, 05:12:43 AM »

CrystalMark 2004 Score 29.9.11 by pinzac55, on Flickr

This is my score with my current setup, core components being -
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme Z mobo
Intel i7 2600K CPU
XFX Radeon 6950 2GB GPU
8GB (2 x 4) G.Skill Ripjaws X 2133 Mhz RAM
OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD "C" Drive
WD Caviar Black 1TB HDD "D" Drive

All parts are at their factory setting, not overclocked and the GPU not unlocked (yet).

Here's a rather amateurish video of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ9xcFcezAU&feature=channel_video_title please thumbs up if you like!

kenbob2311 · « **Reply #85 on:** November 20, 2011, 07:57:46 AM »

mine is : 93331!!!!! YAH

10twenty · « **Reply #86 on:** April 24, 2012, 02:53:48 AM »

I got 204156. with load of apps running- I ran the benchmark on a whim.
I would probably see better marks if I didn't have anything running. certain programs such as Dropbox (for work) uses CPU/disk all the time. Bittorrent uses disk & network. Got VLC Media player running (watching Naruto), then there's Chrome, steam, log me in, and finally Vista's wasteful system resources hog. suppose if I took the effort and inconvenience to turn everything off, I'd probably get better scores.

Full size: http://i.imgur.com/hOyW1.png

Image shows all system specs as well as programs running in background @ time of test.
Computer name blocked out to protect my personal info.
Also system temps- either this benchmark isn't very heavy on resources or I've got excellent cooling that can handle all loads. when I first built this PC there were some temps concerns- at full load in stress tests CPU temps would hit 75C and IOH would top 90C. temps are much lower now... although I've yet to do a 100% load stress test.

Did I mention this is a silent/ultra low noise system? Its so quiet if it wasn't for one fan LED (I disabled the others since they're stupid) I'd probably forget it's even running...

em2000 · « **Reply #87 on:** April 21, 2013, 07:39:08 AM »

New computer

kyle_engineer · « **Reply #88 on:** October 08, 2013, 07:57:05 PM »

What's the most standardized for win7 ult 64?

And when I post my results, expect them to be photoshopped! LOL! Jk

camerongray · « **Reply #89 on:** June 14, 2014, 01:00:28 PM »

Although this is an old thread, I thought I may as well update it with the results for my current PC. Was thinking that it may also be a good idea to create a new thread like this with a newer benchmarking utility as I'm not sure how much CrystalMark2004 will take advantage of modern hardware.

Also note that although Speccy shows the CPU clock as being 3.5GHz, I actually have it overclocked to 4.3GHz with Turbo Boost up to 5.25GHz.

Computer Hope Forum

News:

Author Topic: Your system benchmark score (Using: CrystalMark2004) (Read 430930 times)

Computer Hope Admin

Broni

computeruler

Computer Hope Admin

computeruler

Computer Hope Admin

computeruler

Broni

computeruler

Kurtiskain

patio

Computer Hope Admin

Calum

Computer Hope Admin

computeruler

Calum

computeruler

Computer Hope Admin

computeruler

Kurtiskain

Calum

computeruler

Kurtiskain

Calum

Computer Hope Admin

Kurtiskain

ImnoGuru

computeruler

Tux2

paudashlake

computeruler

paudashlake

computeruler

paudashlake

CaptainStickMan

Calum

CaptainStickMan

computeruler

CaptainStickMan

lectrocrew

CaptainStickMan

lectrocrew

CaptainStickMan

Computer Hope Admin

patio

Computer Hope Admin

patio

kpac

alphanumeric

alphanumeric

Computer Hope Admin

mat123

camerongray

Computer Hope Admin

macabdul

kpac

macabdul

Calum

kpac

Calum

camerongray

discboy321

Calum

bloop

Computer Hope Admin

Calum

Calum

patio

Calum

Computer Hope Admin

Calum

BluerjB

Computer Hope Admin

BluerjB