Recent content by sunnn

prescott? :) sorry cant help. beginning to look like it. better spend money on new gpu and wait/use stream/cuda/badaboom w/e. then you address your gaming and media needs.

made more sense. however, i would like to point out, until these numbers on i920 are improved, we will just take them as they are (5 to 10% improvement on power efficiency over q9450). also, i double checked other numbers on q9770 and i965. here's what i got: POV-Ray5...

shud of run crysis on it. sry, bored.

just to caution you on throwing numbers out there. i965 data is hardly a representative of the whole nehalem family. tests were done with turbo on. WITH TURBO OFF , i920 power consumption is hardly (5-10%?) improved compared to q9450. also i failed to find power consumption for other tests...

try putting the bad stick back, or put in different slot. sometimes it just need reseating, as pointed out. saves you the hassle if it still works.

are these figures with turbo mode on or off? also, the way things re shaping up, cpu becomes less and less important, proven by the emergence of atom-based products. games are gpu bound and hpc, video encoding/editing, 3d rendering leaning towards gpgpu. soon we will have a chipset with...

guru3d's numbers are questionable at best. check anand's fc2 numbers for comparison. 965 is nowhere near the almost 2x performance over 9770 its trying to project.

ok i looked up anand's gaming review again. nowhere did he mention about turbo being off. i think turbo is on by default. if turbo kicked in during the test, then at stock voltages, anand wasnt really comparing them clock for clock. there might be a good chance that they have same ipc gamewise.

sorry quoting my own. on guru3d still, i noticed they tossed 9770 in there: @1024x768:FC2 965 139 fps 9770 79 fps anandtech: 965 115.1 fps 9770 102.6 fps something doesnt add up. how does adding gpu decrease 9770's performance? or even affect both cpu performance if its...

fc2 and crysis were tested at 1024x768 so?

okay check this out, this is based from anand's review: based on 5 games tested, phenom 9950be is roughly 20pct off compared to q9450 (hardly a news i supposed) and some ~28% off nehalem. so if deneb can come up with 20pct improvement...... now comes the interesting part, at ~2.6Ghz, nehalem...

hmm, so how you know its performance if you had a bad board from the start? btw, i came accross this, maybe first guy ever to buy nehalem. its like a soap opera or a suspense thriller hahahha. http://www.overclock.net/intel...06091-i7-out-wild.html

the point is that, playing games at very high resolutions, top of the line cpu's hardly make a difference, much less an 8-thread, tri-channel cpu. that's why upgrading from previous extreme to next gen extreme cpu is pointless for gaming. CPUs were already less important to gaming...

the point is that, playing games at very high resolutions, top of the line cpu's hardly make a difference, much less an 8-thread, tri-channel cpu. that's why upgrading from previous extreme to next gen extreme cpu is pointless for gaming. now to determine whether nehalem improves on previous...

re guru3d review: i don't know, they compared a ~$1000 monolithic-quadcore-with-imc-hypertrading-and-qpi-2nd-gen-45nm-process-with-triple-channel-memory-cpu to a ~$200-old-gen-and-dualcore-cpu and we can call it impressive? hah.