AMD vs Intel dual cores?

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: n7
Rough order of performance best to worst for most common current dual cores (please check out the reviews here & elsewhere to verify)

C2D X6800
C2D E6700
C2D E6600
A64 FX-62
A64 FX-60/A64 X2 5200+
C2D E6400/A64 X2 5000+
A64 X2 4800+
C2D E6300/X2 4600+
X2 4400+
X2 4200+
X2 3800+
Basically all Pentium Ds

My brothers P4D at 4.3ghz will pwn my AMD X2 at 2.8ghz.. :X

Most P4D's can push 3.6+ provided its the presler core. Well the last 4 i was playing with 3 went past 4.0ghz and 1 capped at 3.93ghz. And yeah at 4.3ghz it will seriously pwn my X2 at 2.8ghz.

Well, I don't know what you are smoking either. My X2 @ 2.6 blows my old Pentiumd away so bad, I calculated it would take at least 4.3 (which is very hard to do, as in at least watercooling). At 2.8 the X2 should win easily. And my E6300@3.43 smoke all my poor X2's so bad it not funny.

Well mark i trust your reviews as i went by it to buy my X2, but from what im stating its all fact. My brothers 4.3ghz P4D scored 3 sec faster on superPI 32m. And benched higher on sysmark and 3dmark cpu test. The only way i won on 3dmark was due to my video cards. Theres a lot of reviews on the web on p4d's clocked 4ghz + pwning fx-62's. And if i remember correctly, you were messing with smithfields, or did u step up to the prestlers? because im talking about the prestler cores here..

 

[Markfw]

First, superpi and all those synthetics I dn't care about. I did encoding, rendering, and F@H times (real applications) and 3 seconds over more than 1/2 hour (X2 and PD times) is nothing, a tie. I can do it in 16 minutes on my C2D....and thats what this thread is really about, get an X2 or a C2D. I think the opinion is clear here....C2D rules.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: n7
Rough order of performance best to worst for most common current dual cores (please check out the reviews here & elsewhere to verify)

C2D X6800
C2D E6700
C2D E6600
A64 FX-62
A64 FX-60/A64 X2 5200+
C2D E6400/A64 X2 5000+
A64 X2 4800+
C2D E6300/X2 4600+
X2 4400+
X2 4200+
X2 3800+
Basically all Pentium Ds

My brothers P4D at 4.3ghz will pwn my AMD X2 at 2.8ghz.. :X

Most P4D's can push 3.6+ provided its the presler core. Well the last 4 i was playing with 3 went past 4.0ghz and 1 capped at 3.93ghz. And yeah at 4.3ghz it will seriously pwn my X2 at 2.8ghz.

Well, I don't know what you are smoking either. My X2 @ 2.6 blows my old Pentiumd away so bad, I calculated it would take at least 4.3 (which is very hard to do, as in at least watercooling). At 2.8 the X2 should win easily. And my E6300@3.43 smoke all my poor X2's so bad it not funny.

Well mark i trust your reviews as i went by it to buy my X2, but from what im stating its all fact. My brothers 4.3ghz P4D scored 3 sec faster on superPI 32m. And benched higher on sysmark and 3dmark cpu test. The only way i won on 3dmark was due to my video cards. Theres a lot of reviews on the web on p4d's clocked 4ghz + pwning fx-62's. And if i remember correctly, you were messing with smithfields, or did u step up to the prestlers? because im talking about the prestler cores here..

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300_9.html

2.94GHz C2D >>> 3GHz X2 >>> 4.2GHz P-D

A 4GHz P-D is about equivalent to a 2.4GHz X2 - pwning FX-62s? Unlikely, except in a select few benchmarks perhaps.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
First, superpi and all those synthetics I dn't care about. I did encoding, rendering, and F@H times (real applications) and 3 seconds over more than 1/2 hour (X2 and PD times) is nothing, a tie. I can do it in 16 minutes on my C2D....and thats what this thread is really about, get an X2 or a C2D. I think the opinion is clear here....C2D rules.

roflrofl mark... i hope your not angry.... i ment that a P4D should be given some respect because its not a bad cpu. To put it down at the rock bottom is not fair justice when you concider most of them oc pretty well.


And yes a C2D will pwn every last Personal CPU out there. There is no competition between a C2D vs X2. My next rig is going to be a based off the QX6700. I dont know if you can call that a C2D more like a C4Q = core 4 quadro

For buying bases, i wouldnt get anything besides a C2D. Its not worth it in the long run not to. But i just think the P4D should be given some respect. Its sad because the P4D prestlers people thought would be like smithfields, and believe me there not. My brothers 940 does a lot of justice and since its on water temps arent a concern.

But yeah... get a C2D, the AMD route is dead now and AMD is going to have to do some major remodeling with there CPU to keep up.

And Harpoon, i am speaking for tests i did myself. The PI times and 3dmark as well as sysmark run on both systems came out higher on my brothers. I ran the test twice, my system was clocked at 2.8ghz, and my brothers was clocked at 4.3ghz. Believe me i was a AMD person. But after i built my brothers system, i was extremely suprised at the P4D.

Also i need to go look up other reviews.. of course outside THG, because they tend to praise intel more then they should. But i remember seeing 4-5 reviews where a 4.3ghz was performing a tad bit better then the FX-62.

However most of the reviews were scores posts from member posts over at xtremesystems.org and overclockers cafe. And these were from guys that had been on the forum for a while.

 

[harpoon84]

How many benchmarks did you run? Both SuperPi and 3DMark are synthetic benchmarks. I suggest you go over the application benchmarks in the link provided. An overclocked X2 @ 3GHz is a good 10% faster than a PD @ 4.2GHz in overall application performance. Sure, the PD wins the occasional test by a small margin, but that doesn't make it a faster chip than an X2.

Hey, if you wish to believe a PD beats X2, thats your prerogative. Just don't expect most of us to agree with you.

 

[gplracer]

I am upgrading to a opteron 170. I know the core duo chips are better. I just did not want to buy 2 gigs of ram and a motherboard. Besides someone was buying my old processor so my cost was only $60

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: gplracer
I am upgrading to a opteron 170. I know the core duo chips are better. I just did not want to buy 2 gigs of ram and a motherboard. Besides someone was buying my old processor so my cost was only $60

Hey, I still have an Opteron 170, they are a fine chip, and require a cheaper motherboard and memory to OC due to dividers... Its just the C2D is unbeatable if you have a few more bucks, and have to buy memory anyway.

 

[gplracer]

I think the 170 is a great chip.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: OcHungry
I see my name is mentioned here.
Ok let me put it to you simply: All those show off's claiming stellar (=> 3.4 GHz) remind me of those self loved who buy corvette, Lamborghini or jaguar to compensate their short penis. They just drive around the block once in a while to just pumped themselves up and make them feel bigger. Why would they buy a 16 cylinders car and drive 55 is beyond me.
The point is- C2D is only a few percentage better performers in some benchmarks that aren?t really important. There is no denying that C2D is a great chip and beats AMD. But why would anyone want to OC it to 3.4 GHz when 2.7 GHz is more than enough for everything out there? Not only that, why do these people insist upon 3.4 GHz as the norm for this chip? Only a few were able to reach that speed but w/ top $$ components. Not everyone is interested in spending twice as much so to bench to show off. Those who play games know a 2.7 GHz AMD and a good vid card will do just fine without any fps penalty. Do you enjoy playing games in one hand but worry about Temp and instability on the other? It does not make sense.
Be practical and don?t be fooled by these wimps. Buy yourself a niceX2 AM2 (or C2D but don?t expect 3.4 GHz) enjoy the machine and keep your sanity. You can buy a good AM2 system reasonably priced and be ready for k8L, is what I would recommend. Don?t believe you can overclock that C2D to 3.4 GHz and know that good vid card is more important than that extra 100-300 MHz overclock.

Man... did you upgrade to AM2 a week before Core2 came out? While I agree with you that not everyone with C2D reaches 3.4 GHz, many, many, many run stably at 3.0GHz+ speeds. Even in games.

It seems you're praying for the K8L to be amazing. I hope it is better than the C2D, and anything else intel has out at the time, so you can cease making yourself look silly.

Also, you shouldn't be jealous that some people can afford nice cars

I am neither jealous nor praying for K8L as such. As long as my name gets involved in your poo conversation I will reply w/ full force. I have a great setup that does much better than 90% of you, but don?t gloat all over the net for it. Keep off my name if you don?t want to hear from me. As simple as that.

all i hear is blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah...:thumbsdown:

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: gplracer
I am upgrading to a opteron 170. I know the core duo chips are better. I just did not want to buy 2 gigs of ram and a motherboard. Besides someone was buying my old processor so my cost was only $60

Hey, I still have an Opteron 170, they are a fine chip, and require a cheaper motherboard and memory to OC due to dividers... Its just the C2D is unbeatable if you have a few more bucks, and have to buy memory anyway.

mark, what were you getting with 165 and 170s @ stock V?

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
I am neither jealous nor praying for K8L as such. As long as my name gets involved in your poo conversation I will reply w/ full force. I have a great setup that does much better than 90% of you, but don?t gloat all over the net for it. Keep off my name if you don?t want to hear from me. As simple as that.

OcHungry challenges 90% of AT to beat his 4ghz opteron or whatever it is he's using these days. Film at 11.

 

[gplracer]

Most of the opteron 170 chips from Newegg lately have been week 611. These chips are getting close to 3ghz and around 2800 on stock voltage. I hope to get one like that but who knows.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: OcHungry
I am neither jealous nor praying for K8L as such. As long as my name gets involved in your poo conversation I will reply w/ full force. I have a great setup that does much better than 90% of you, but don?t gloat all over the net for it. Keep off my name if you don?t want to hear from me. As simple as that.

OcHungry challenges 90% of AT to beat his 4ghz opteron or whatever it is he's using these days. Film at 11.

You do the math. All you do is show a worthless SPI 1M/32 score(s) ignoring the other factors and/or benchmarks (such as 3D Cinebench clearly shows X2 44 is faster clock for clock as I have shown in the screenshot(s)). If I said my system is better performer than 90% of you just correct me if I am wrong without sarcasm. Look at the ORB's 3DMark05 score below that clearly shows my system is within top 10% of all participants. I wasn?t making it up as you can see for yourself.

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4552/01022007213812go8.jpg

On another note: Intel knows that the chipset can only handle ~ 1400mhx (4 x 350 MHz FSB) after all the tweaking and vcore increases. If Intel could safely produce any faster FSB it would have gladly spec?ed a new chipset that could handle >1400 MHz FSB to prove the bottleneck is not a problem for Intel?s ?outdated? chipset technology.
What does this mean to you, an average Overclocker? It means sooner, but not later, you will fry the board (and CPU) if you overclock the FSB >1400. An E6300 safest overclock is then ~ 2450 (7x350) and E6400 2800MHz (8x350). You go over this limitation you will fry your system. I don?t care how high you claim your C2D can overclock, above figures are what any experienced and unbiased system builder will tell you to do and will do for his own.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: gplracer
I am upgrading to a opteron 170. I know the core duo chips are better. I just did not want to buy 2 gigs of ram and a motherboard. Besides someone was buying my old processor so my cost was only $60

Hey, I still have an Opteron 170, they are a fine chip, and require a cheaper motherboard and memory to OC due to dividers... Its just the C2D is unbeatable if you have a few more bucks, and have to buy memory anyway.

mark, what were you getting with 165 and 170s @ stock V?

I have one of the first 170's, and I didn;t even try at stock. Went stright to 1.45 (I think that was it)

and for OCHungry according to this, the 6600 is faster in cinebench than the 4600 X2 or the 5000

And as for that 90% you see on that screen, thats synthetic benchmarks, and no telling what the user base is. 90% of crap is still crap., but anyone with an OC'ed C2D beats your 2.8 X2 easily on every bench.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: OcHungry
I am neither jealous nor praying for K8L as such. As long as my name gets involved in your poo conversation I will reply w/ full force. I have a great setup that does much better than 90% of you, but don?t gloat all over the net for it. Keep off my name if you don?t want to hear from me. As simple as that.

OcHungry challenges 90% of AT to beat his 4ghz opteron or whatever it is he's using these days. Film at 11.

You do the math. All you do is show a worthless SPI 1M/32 score(s) ignoring the other factors and/or benchmarks (such as 3D Cinebench clearly shows X2 44 is faster clock for clock as I have shown in the screenshot(s)). If I said my system is better performer than 90% of you just correct me if I am wrong without sarcasm. Look at the ORB's 3DMark05 score below that clearly shows my system is within top 10% of all participants. I wasn?t making it up as you can see for yourself.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/805/01022007151450ph4.jpg

On another note: Intel knows that the chipset can only handle ~ 1400mhx (4 x 350 MHz FSB) after all the tweaking and vcore increases. If Intel could safely produce any faster FSB it would have gladly spec?ed a new chipset that could handle >1400 MHz FSB to prove the bottleneck is not a problem for Intel?s ?outdated? chipset technology.
What does this mean to you, an average Overclocker? It means sooner, but not later, you will fry the board (and CPU) if you overclock the FSB >1400. An E6300 safest overclock is then ~ 2450 (7x350) and E6400 2800MHz (8x350). You go over this limitation you will fry your system. I don?t care how high you claim your C2D can overclock, above figures are what any experienced and unbiased system builder will tell you to do and will do for his own.

Good god if ever there's a reason no to perform thread necromancy it's to spread FUD and call people out on a subject you've already trolled to the ground.

To answer your FUD, my E6300 is running at 3.22Ghz.

http://www.imagepup.com/up/EBep_1167776972_1.JPG Orthos torture test ran overnight, > 12 hours.

http://www.imagepup.com/up/ZioJ_1167777209_2.JPG CPU-Z clearly showing 460Mhz FSB

http://www.imagepup.com/up/9UFg_1167777270_3.JPG Super Pi 1M <19 seconds


Link me to the download for any other benchmarks you want me to run, and I'll run them in good faith.



PS: Ban OcHungry for FUD.

 

[Markfw]

I have 3 E6300's all at 3.4, but I am tired of making screenshots to prove OChungry wrong. I agree on the ban....

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: OcHungry
I am neither jealous nor praying for K8L as such. As long as my name gets involved in your poo conversation I will reply w/ full force. I have a great setup that does much better than 90% of you, but don?t gloat all over the net for it. Keep off my name if you don?t want to hear from me. As simple as that.

OcHungry challenges 90% of AT to beat his 4ghz opteron or whatever it is he's using these days. Film at 11.

You do the math. All you do is show a worthless SPI 1M/32 score(s) ignoring the other factors and/or benchmarks (such as 3D Cinebench clearly shows X2 44 is faster clock for clock as I have shown in the screenshot(s)). If I said my system is better performer than 90% of you just correct me if I am wrong without sarcasm. Look at the ORB's 3DMark05 score below that clearly shows my system is within top 10% of all participants. I wasn?t making it up as you can see for yourself.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/805/01022007151450ph4.jpg

On another note: Intel knows that the chipset can only handle ~ 1400mhx (4 x 350 MHz FSB) after all the tweaking and vcore increases. If Intel could safely produce any faster FSB it would have gladly spec?ed a new chipset that could handle >1400 MHz FSB to prove the bottleneck is not a problem for Intel?s ?outdated? chipset technology.
What does this mean to you, an average Overclocker? It means sooner, but not later, you will fry the board (and CPU) if you overclock the FSB >1400. An E6300 safest overclock is then ~ 2450 (7x350) and E6400 2800MHz (8x350). You go over this limitation you will fry your system. I don?t care how high you claim your C2D can overclock, above figures are what any experienced and unbiased system builder will tell you to do and will do for his own.

Ahhh you again...

First off you need to challenge me since I actually run real benchmarks...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1954416&enterthread=y

If you lok at this data you can see 2 things....

1) quad core QX6700 downclocked to 2.4ghz was faster then the 4 cores at 2.5ghz of my amd systems...Better by almost 10% still....

2) Also notice the 3.26ghz E6600 is faster then the dual 270's...That is collectively 6.52ghz versus 8ghz and yet it wins...

Go peddle you crap elsewhere...


You cannot compare use the clock for clock, mhz for mhz argument on differing architectures...

My stuff above matches the info mark just laid down...


You got a link to that last claim you make aout Intel and their chips not being able to go faster then 350???? You want to actual prove something you say? I would ban you for the FUD you spread. You are detriment to this forum as a place for information....

I know most every C2D ocer is doing at least 400+ and that makes 1600...so why dont we have a rash of dead cpu, mobo,s etc threads? because it is a bunch of crap like most of what you post...

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: gplracer
I am upgrading to a opteron 170. I know the core duo chips are better. I just did not want to buy 2 gigs of ram and a motherboard. Besides someone was buying my old processor so my cost was only $60

Hey, I still have an Opteron 170, they are a fine chip, and require a cheaper motherboard and memory to OC due to dividers... Its just the C2D is unbeatable if you have a few more bucks, and have to buy memory anyway.

mark, what were you getting with 165 and 170s @ stock V?

I have one of the first 170's, and I didn;t even try at stock. Went stright to 1.45 (I think that was it)

and for OCHungry according to this, the 6600 is faster in cinebench than the 4600 X2 or the 5000

And as for that 90% you see on that screen, thats synthetic benchmarks, and no telling what the user base is. 90% of crap is still crap., but anyone with an OC'ed C2D beats your 2.8 X2 easily on every bench.

No it does not. All you have to do is to show a screenshot of your Cinebech @ 2.9ghz (near the speed I am showing) to prove I am wrong.
Remeber? I said clock for clock, not how high you overclock.

 

[Markfw]

Can you see that Anandtech benchmark ???? An X2 5000@2.6 is SLOWER than a 2.4 Conroe, let alone the 2.4 ghz 4600. So why do I need to bench anything ? You can;t read ? You blind ?

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: OcHungry
I am neither jealous nor praying for K8L as such. As long as my name gets involved in your poo conversation I will reply w/ full force. I have a great setup that does much better than 90% of you, but don?t gloat all over the net for it. Keep off my name if you don?t want to hear from me. As simple as that.

OcHungry challenges 90% of AT to beat his 4ghz opteron or whatever it is he's using these days. Film at 11.

You do the math. All you do is show a worthless SPI 1M/32 score(s) ignoring the other factors and/or benchmarks (such as 3D Cinebench clearly shows X2 44 is faster clock for clock as I have shown in the screenshot(s)). If I said my system is better performer than 90% of you just correct me if I am wrong without sarcasm. Look at the ORB's 3DMark05 score below that clearly shows my system is within top 10% of all participants. I wasn?t making it up as you can see for yourself.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/805/01022007151450ph4.jpg

On another note: Intel knows that the chipset can only handle ~ 1400mhx (4 x 350 MHz FSB) after all the tweaking and vcore increases. If Intel could safely produce any faster FSB it would have gladly spec?ed a new chipset that could handle >1400 MHz FSB to prove the bottleneck is not a problem for Intel?s ?outdated? chipset technology.
What does this mean to you, an average Overclocker? It means sooner, but not later, you will fry the board (and CPU) if you overclock the FSB >1400. An E6300 safest overclock is then ~ 2450 (7x350) and E6400 2800MHz (8x350). You go over this limitation you will fry your system. I don?t care how high you claim your C2D can overclock, above figures are what any experienced and unbiased system builder will tell you to do and will do for his own.

Ahhh you again...

First off you need to challenge me since I actually run real benchmarks...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1954416&enterthread=y

If you lok at this data you can see 2 things....

1) quad core QX6700 downclocked to 2.4ghz was faster then the 4 cores at 2.5ghz of my amd systems...Better by almost 10% still....

2) Also notice the 3.26ghz E6600 is faster then the dual 270's...That is collectively 6.52ghz versus 8ghz and yet it wins...

Go peddle you crap elsewhere...


You cannot compare use the clock for clock, mhz for mhz argument on differing architectures...

My stuff above matches the info mark just laid down...


You got a link to that last claim you make aout Intel and their chips not being able to go faster then 350???? You want to actual prove something you say? I would ban you for the FUD you spread. You are detriment to this forum as a place for information....

I know most every C2D ocer is doing at least 400+ and that makes 1600...so why dont we have a rash of dead cpu, mobo,s etc threads? because it is a bunch of crap like most of what you post...

Intel's official chipset's FSB = 1066mhz
what is it I have to prove?

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Can you see that Anandtech benchmark ???? An X2 5000@2.6 is SLOWER than a 2.4 Conroe, let alone the 2.4 ghz 4600. So why do I need to bench anything ? You can;t read ? You blind ?

I am using s939 and I only trust my own system and my own results.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: gplracer
I am upgrading to a opteron 170. I know the core duo chips are better. I just did not want to buy 2 gigs of ram and a motherboard. Besides someone was buying my old processor so my cost was only $60

Hey, I still have an Opteron 170, they are a fine chip, and require a cheaper motherboard and memory to OC due to dividers... Its just the C2D is unbeatable if you have a few more bucks, and have to buy memory anyway.

mark, what were you getting with 165 and 170s @ stock V?

I have one of the first 170's, and I didn;t even try at stock. Went stright to 1.45 (I think that was it)

and for OCHungry according to this, the 6600 is faster in cinebench than the 4600 X2 or the 5000

And as for that 90% you see on that screen, thats synthetic benchmarks, and no telling what the user base is. 90% of crap is still crap., but anyone with an OC'ed C2D beats your 2.8 X2 easily on every bench.

No it does not. All you have to do is to show a screenshot of your Cinebech @ 2.9ghz (near the speed I am showing) to prove I am wrong.
Remeber? I said clock for clock, not how high you overclock.

Did I miss something? Where is your screenshot of cinebench 9.5 at 2.9ghz...

And remember it will scale pretty good to stock speeds, bandwidth has little effect on AMD systems with it, and cas latency has little effect on it at all period...

Based on that I can bet if you ran cinebench9.5 multi cpu you would get somewhere in the neighborhood of 802 using my numbers for my 270 at stock running 2 cores....811 if you extrapolate AT's numbers...

A C2D at 2.9ghz (preferably a 4mb cache model) looking to AT's number will get just below a 896 as the X6800 gets...Also notice the E6700 already beats the extrapolated numbers for a 2.9ghz x2 and it is only 2.66ghz

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Can you see that Anandtech benchmark ???? An X2 5000@2.6 is SLOWER than a 2.4 Conroe, let alone the 2.4 ghz 4600. So why do I need to bench anything ? You can;t read ? You blind ?

I am using s939 and I only trust my own system and my own results.

Post your pic now! I will run it on a 2mb cache model and a 4mb cache model....

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Intel's official chipset's FSB = 1066mhz
what is it I have to prove?

Intel's default FSB = 1066mhz and 1333Mhz depending on which Core 2 chip. I think maybe I should remind you that on locked multiplier chips the standard way to overclock is to raise the FSB. :frown:

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: OcHungry
I am neither jealous nor praying for K8L as such. As long as my name gets involved in your poo conversation I will reply w/ full force. I have a great setup that does much better than 90% of you, but don?t gloat all over the net for it. Keep off my name if you don?t want to hear from me. As simple as that.

OcHungry challenges 90% of AT to beat his 4ghz opteron or whatever it is he's using these days. Film at 11.

You do the math. All you do is show a worthless SPI 1M/32 score(s) ignoring the other factors and/or benchmarks (such as 3D Cinebench clearly shows X2 44 is faster clock for clock as I have shown in the screenshot(s)). If I said my system is better performer than 90% of you just correct me if I am wrong without sarcasm. Look at the ORB's 3DMark05 score below that clearly shows my system is within top 10% of all participants. I wasn?t making it up as you can see for yourself.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/805/01022007151450ph4.jpg

On another note: Intel knows that the chipset can only handle ~ 1400mhx (4 x 350 MHz FSB) after all the tweaking and vcore increases. If Intel could safely produce any faster FSB it would have gladly spec?ed a new chipset that could handle >1400 MHz FSB to prove the bottleneck is not a problem for Intel?s ?outdated? chipset technology.
What does this mean to you, an average Overclocker? It means sooner, but not later, you will fry the board (and CPU) if you overclock the FSB >1400. An E6300 safest overclock is then ~ 2450 (7x350) and E6400 2800MHz (8x350). You go over this limitation you will fry your system. I don?t care how high you claim your C2D can overclock, above figures are what any experienced and unbiased system builder will tell you to do and will do for his own.

Ahhh you again...

First off you need to challenge me since I actually run real benchmarks...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1954416&enterthread=y

If you lok at this data you can see 2 things....

1) quad core QX6700 downclocked to 2.4ghz was faster then the 4 cores at 2.5ghz of my amd systems...Better by almost 10% still....

2) Also notice the 3.26ghz E6600 is faster then the dual 270's...That is collectively 6.52ghz versus 8ghz and yet it wins...

Go peddle you crap elsewhere...


You cannot compare use the clock for clock, mhz for mhz argument on differing architectures...

My stuff above matches the info mark just laid down...


You got a link to that last claim you make aout Intel and their chips not being able to go faster then 350???? You want to actual prove something you say? I would ban you for the FUD you spread. You are detriment to this forum as a place for information....

I know most every C2D ocer is doing at least 400+ and that makes 1600...so why dont we have a rash of dead cpu, mobo,s etc threads? because it is a bunch of crap like most of what you post...

Intel's official chipset's FSB = 1066mhz
what is it I have to prove?

You have to prove that going over 350fsb will fry our motherboards...

The same flawed logic says anyone running greater then 200fsb on an X2 will fry their mobo chipset...HUH???? I will even give uyou one. A long time ago AMD said their systems were cable of 250fsb or 500ddr...So anyone running over 250fsb which is just about every 170, and 165 user should kiss their boards goodbye as well...

Very flawed logic....I think we should get the mods to give you the title of opposite of elite....to warn ppl that may read what you type.