AMD vs Intel dual cores?

[cmdrdredd]

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outdated?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.

you're full of it...here

This is my score at 3Ghz, DDR2-750 5-5-5-15 http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9131/untitledll8.jpg

here is YOUR score at 3Ghz as well http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6056/11212006183814pv8.jpg

Now what is faster? Yes...my C2D.


Seriously...get out, there's no need to make a new CPU to run higher fsb when they can just let people overclock.

 

[Bobthelost]

You can't ban OC hungry! He's the comic relief of this site, although some sort of moderator attached warning might be in order.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

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.

you're full of it...here

This is my score at 3Ghz, DDR2-750 5-5-5-15 http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9131/untitledll8.jpg

here is YOUR score at 3Ghz as well http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6056/11212006183814pv8.jpg

Now what is faster? Yes...my C2D.


Seriously...get out, there's no need to make a new CPU to run higher fsb when they can just let people overclock.

He is running 64bit...64bit scores higher in this test and he shoudn't be much above 830 with a 32bit test like you are running


http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=5

Check it out here....Leave it to him to try to skew the numbers.....He is likely 12% faster then what he would be in 32bit....

IN his defense he would be closer clock for clock at 64bit versus same C2D since they dont gain much with 64bit binaries....However INtel wins either way....


Take 12% off and he will get 826 or about 13% behind same speed C2D...

NICE TRY...PLEASE PLAY AGAIN!!!!!

 

[Roguestar]

Yeah, he often changes his arguments to "no I meant in 64-bit" and "no I said they don't scale lineraly" and various other nonsenses. I notice he hasn't responded to my posts at all.

Here's a screenshot of cinebench on mine, with temps, voltages, FSB speeds and Super Pi 1M results to boot.

http://www.imagepup.com/up/cefT_1167791906_cine.JPG

 

[n19htmare]

Why is Sharikou still spreading his fud around AT?

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

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.

you're full of it...here

This is my score at 3Ghz, DDR2-750 5-5-5-15 http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9131/untitledll8.jpg

here is YOUR score at 3Ghz as well http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6056/11212006183814pv8.jpg

Now what is faster? Yes...my C2D.


Seriously...get out, there's no need to make a new CPU to run higher fsb when they can just let people overclock.

He is running 64bit...64bit scores higher in this test and he shoudn't be much above 830 with a 32bit test like you are running


http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=5

Check it out here....Leave it to him to try to skew the numbers.....He is likely 12% faster then what he would be in 32bit....

IN his defense he would be closer clock for clock at 64bit versus same C2D since they dont gain much with 64bit binaries....However INtel wins either way....


Take 12% off and he will get 826 or about 13% behind same speed C2D...

NICE TRY...PLEASE PLAY AGAIN!!!!!

So?
Do yours in 64bit too. You know, Vista is a 64bit OS (aside from the 32bit version that no one will use because it's crap). And if AMD is better 64bit system why deny it? After all we want best possible way to run the programs don?t we?
For Duvei: I had posted the screenshot of Cinebench before (page 3 here). Below is that link to Cinebench screenshot. It's @ 2996 MHz and the scores are a lot higher than you guessed. So just show a screenshot of your C2D at same speed and 84bit if you like. But as you know C2D's 64bit results are only ~2% higher vs. AMD's 10-15% better.
I am positive w/ time just AM2 K8 architecture will improve as the memory latency shortens, 64bit fully implemented (by software engineers), and AMD's memory controller in 65nm refines. But AMD is not waiting and is not interested in K8 as much as getting K8L ready to demolish C2D. Those who have bought an AM2 system yesterday will just fit in a k8L and good to go for another 2 years. Those who have lavishly invested in C2D will want a K8L and have to spend more if want to compete w/ those w/ K8L system. You don?t care, I know, because you buy chips like it is potato and spend for another before consuming 1/2 of already bought. That won?t make you a smart consumer though, just wasteful and spoiled. Maybe in your town goodwill has electronic waste just as we do here. The funny thing is, I pay a visit from time to time to good will and find some good parts @ .10th of original value. I am hoping those a few duvies here in this town make a trip to goodwill and I can get my hands on some perfectly fine system(s) before others beating me to it/them.
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6056/11212006183814pv8.jpg

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

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.

you're full of it...here

This is my score at 3Ghz, DDR2-750 5-5-5-15 http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9131/untitledll8.jpg

here is YOUR score at 3Ghz as well http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6056/11212006183814pv8.jpg

Now what is faster? Yes...my C2D.


Seriously...get out, there's no need to make a new CPU to run higher fsb when they can just let people overclock.

He is running 64bit...64bit scores higher in this test and he shoudn't be much above 830 with a 32bit test like you are running


http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=5

Check it out here....Leave it to him to try to skew the numbers.....He is likely 12% faster then what he would be in 32bit....

IN his defense he would be closer clock for clock at 64bit versus same C2D since they dont gain much with 64bit binaries....However INtel wins either way....


Take 12% off and he will get 826 or about 13% behind same speed C2D...

NICE TRY...PLEASE PLAY AGAIN!!!!!

So?
Do yours in 64bit too. You know, Vista is a 64bit OS (aside from the 32bit version that no one will use because it's crap). And if AMD is better 64bit system why deny it? After all we want best possible way to run the programs don?t we?
For Duvei: I had posted the screenshot of Cinebench before (page 3 here). Below is that link to Cinebench screenshot. It's @ 2996 MHz and the scores are a lot higher than you guessed. So just show a screenshot of your C2D at same speed and 84bit if you like. But as you know C2D's 64bit results are only ~2% higher vs. AMD's 10-15% better.
I am positive w/ time just AM2 K8 architecture will improve as the memory latency shortens, 64bit fully implemented (by software engineers), and AMD's memory controller in 65nm refines. But AMD is not waiting and is not interested in K8 as much as getting K8L ready to demolish C2D. Those who have bought an AM2 system yesterday will just fit in a k8L and good to go for another 2 years. Those who have lavishly invested in C2D will want a K8L and have to spend more if want to compete w/ those w/ K8L system. You don?t care, I know, because you buy chips like it is potato and spend for another before consuming 1/2 of already bought. That won?t make you a smart consumer though, just wasteful and spoiled. Maybe in your town goodwill has electronic waste just as we do here. The funny thing is, I pay a visit from time to time to good will and find some good parts @ .10th of original value. I am hoping those a few duvies here in this town make a trip to goodwill and I can get my hands on some perfectly fine system(s) before others beating me to it/them.
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6056/11212006183814pv8.jpg

Um...yeah but you know that you won't get HT3 either.

It doesn't matter if 64bit is faster, I just proved that your AMD system was slower and I used a supposedly *gasp* slower version? OMG!

Seriously...nobody here believes your bull****

 

[Duvie]

Sorry I dont run that bugfest shite-hole called vista.....

I run 32bit like 80% of the ppl here and more then 95% of the world.....By the time I need 64bit I could be running a quad core K8L or octa core AMD system...

It is about now...And now the present says the AMD does not beat the INtel C2D in performance...

Clock for clock it is about 13% slower..However that 3ghz is where yours tops out....Mine goes another 400mhz...Some get even higher with their E6600's but I cannot. I will be testing it on a 975x chipset DFI board as well as a 965p chiopset Asus P5B deluxe soon..

In most apps 13% clock for clock would be a godsend for the X2 and AMD....

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

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.

you're full of it...here

This is my score at 3Ghz, DDR2-750 5-5-5-15 http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9131/untitledll8.jpg

here is YOUR score at 3Ghz as well http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6056/11212006183814pv8.jpg

Now what is faster? Yes...my C2D.


Seriously...get out, there's no need to make a new CPU to run higher fsb when they can just let people overclock.

He is running 64bit...64bit scores higher in this test and he shoudn't be much above 830 with a 32bit test like you are running


http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=5

Check it out here....Leave it to him to try to skew the numbers.....He is likely 12% faster then what he would be in 32bit....

IN his defense he would be closer clock for clock at 64bit versus same C2D since they dont gain much with 64bit binaries....However INtel wins either way....


Take 12% off and he will get 826 or about 13% behind same speed C2D...

NICE TRY...PLEASE PLAY AGAIN!!!!!

So?
Do yours in 64bit too. You know, Vista is a 64bit OS (aside from the 32bit version that no one will use because it's crap). And if AMD is better 64bit system why deny it? After all we want best possible way to run the programs don?t we?
For Duvei: I had posted the screenshot of Cinebench before (page 3 here). Below is that link to Cinebench screenshot. It's @ 2996 MHz and the scores are a lot higher than you guessed. So just show a screenshot of your C2D at same speed and 84bit if you like. But as you know C2D's 64bit results are only ~2% higher vs. AMD's 10-15% better.
I am positive w/ time just AM2 K8 architecture will improve as the memory latency shortens, 64bit fully implemented (by software engineers), and AMD's memory controller in 65nm refines. But AMD is not waiting and is not interested in K8 as much as getting K8L ready to demolish C2D. Those who have bought an AM2 system yesterday will just fit in a k8L and good to go for another 2 years. Those who have lavishly invested in C2D will want a K8L and have to spend more if want to compete w/ those w/ K8L system. You don?t care, I know, because you buy chips like it is potato and spend for another before consuming 1/2 of already bought. That won?t make you a smart consumer though, just wasteful and spoiled. Maybe in your town goodwill has electronic waste just as we do here. The funny thing is, I pay a visit from time to time to good will and find some good parts @ .10th of original value. I am hoping those a few duvies here in this town make a trip to goodwill and I can get my hands on some perfectly fine system(s) before others beating me to it/them.
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6056/11212006183814pv8.jpg

Um...yeah but you know that you won't get HT3 either.

It doesn't matter if 64bit is faster, I just proved that your AMD system was slower and I used a supposedly *gasp* slower version? OMG!

Seriously...nobody here believes your bull****

You are only 5 points faster but running cpu higher speed than mine and your memory speed is @ 375mhz vs. 250mhz (mine). I am waiting for a faster 2x512 DDR memory (PDP XBLK, TCCD) that can do 300 mhz. wait till I am benching w that memory then you will see. But just incase you dont want to wait, why dont you lower your memory speed a bit (to 300mhz if you like) and then bench the Cinebench. I am sure a lot of C2D and AMD users are interested to know (unless you already know the end result is in AMD's favor and you are not willing to admit and/or show it here).

Edit: Oh BTW, what vid card you're using, 8800GTX ?

 

[Markfw]

running AMD at a higher memory speed has many times shown virtually no difference.And our S3 motherboards don;t do dividers, so we can't slow down the memory without loosing the OC. The 680i chipset has dividers, but I don't want to pay twice as much. Besides, we are running at the same core speed, so who cares ? You are just a troll...You want us to slow down everything so you look better. Bottom line is, your best can;t even match us, while slowing ours down... Thats pathetic.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

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.

you're full of it...here

This is my score at 3Ghz, DDR2-750 5-5-5-15 http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9131/untitledll8.jpg

here is YOUR score at 3Ghz as well http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6056/11212006183814pv8.jpg

Now what is faster? Yes...my C2D.


Seriously...get out, there's no need to make a new CPU to run higher fsb when they can just let people overclock.

He is running 64bit...64bit scores higher in this test and he shoudn't be much above 830 with a 32bit test like you are running


http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=5

Check it out here....Leave it to him to try to skew the numbers.....He is likely 12% faster then what he would be in 32bit....

IN his defense he would be closer clock for clock at 64bit versus same C2D since they dont gain much with 64bit binaries....However INtel wins either way....


Take 12% off and he will get 826 or about 13% behind same speed C2D...

NICE TRY...PLEASE PLAY AGAIN!!!!!

So?
Do yours in 64bit too. You know, Vista is a 64bit OS (aside from the 32bit version that no one will use because it's crap). And if AMD is better 64bit system why deny it? After all we want best possible way to run the programs don?t we?
For Duvei: I had posted the screenshot of Cinebench before (page 3 here). Below is that link to Cinebench screenshot. It's @ 2996 MHz and the scores are a lot higher than you guessed. So just show a screenshot of your C2D at same speed and 84bit if you like. But as you know C2D's 64bit results are only ~2% higher vs. AMD's 10-15% better.
I am positive w/ time just AM2 K8 architecture will improve as the memory latency shortens, 64bit fully implemented (by software engineers), and AMD's memory controller in 65nm refines. But AMD is not waiting and is not interested in K8 as much as getting K8L ready to demolish C2D. Those who have bought an AM2 system yesterday will just fit in a k8L and good to go for another 2 years. Those who have lavishly invested in C2D will want a K8L and have to spend more if want to compete w/ those w/ K8L system. You don?t care, I know, because you buy chips like it is potato and spend for another before consuming 1/2 of already bought. That won?t make you a smart consumer though, just wasteful and spoiled. Maybe in your town goodwill has electronic waste just as we do here. The funny thing is, I pay a visit from time to time to good will and find some good parts @ .10th of original value. I am hoping those a few duvies here in this town make a trip to goodwill and I can get my hands on some perfectly fine system(s) before others beating me to it/them.
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6056/11212006183814pv8.jpg

Um...yeah but you know that you won't get HT3 either.

It doesn't matter if 64bit is faster, I just proved that your AMD system was slower and I used a supposedly *gasp* slower version? OMG!

Seriously...nobody here believes your bull****

You are only 5 points faster but running cpu higher speed than mine and your memory speed is @ 375mhz vs. 250mhz (mine). I am waiting for a faster 2x512 DDR memory (PDP XBLK, TCCD) that can do 300 mhz. wait till I am benching w that memory then you will see. But just incase you dont want to wait, why dont you lower your memory speed a bit (to 300mhz if you like) and then bench the Cinebench. I am sure a lot of C2D and AMD users are interested to know (unless you already know the end result is in AMD's favor and you are not willing to admit and/or show it here).

You don't know anything about Intel chipsets and it shows. The lowest ratio for memory is 1:1. Also, my core speed was the same as yours. Your board just underclocks by a margin and the Asus i have overclocks by a margin. It's within the margin of error.

Oh and this is like in auto racing, a win is a win whether you win by 20laps or 2 tenths of a second.

You do also realize that 50Mhz in memory will do nothing right? Nah I guess not because Monkeys don't plan ahead.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
running AMD at a higher memory speed has many times shown virtually no difference.And our S3 motherboards don;t do dividers, so we can't slow down the memory without loosing the OC. The 680i chipset has dividers, but I don't want to pay twice as much. Besides, we are running at the same core speed, so who cares ? You are just a troll...You want us to slow down everything so you look better. Bottom line is, your best can;t even match us, while slowing ours down... Thats pathetic.

Aye...I run 3.2Ghz 24/7 and he begs to see a equal Mhz. I oblige then he cries and wants it slower so it's "fair" well, you know what...life aint fair. It's not my fault mommy won't buy you a Conroe and your allowance doesn't pay for new hardware and you want to cry here and make yourself feel better.

That's all it is, you bought something not long ago thinking it was so good, then Conroe came out and you can't buy it.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Markfw900
running AMD at a higher memory speed has many times shown virtually no difference.And our S3 motherboards don;t do dividers, so we can't slow down the memory without loosing the OC. The 680i chipset has dividers, but I don't want to pay twice as much. Besides, we are running at the same core speed, so who cares ? You are just a troll...You want us to slow down everything so you look better. Bottom line is, your best can;t even match us, while slowing ours down... Thats pathetic.

Aye...I run 3.2Ghz 24/7 and he begs to see a equal Mhz. I oblige then he cries and wants it slower so it's "fair" well, you know what...life aint fair. It's not my fault mommy won't buy you a Conroe and your allowance doesn't pay for new hardware and you want to cry here and make yourself feel better.

That's all it is, you bought something not long ago thinking it was so good, then Conroe came out and you can't buy it.

In Cinebech memory speed matters if you dont know.
You run that chip @ 3.2 mhz and dont know how many errors are stored in your system and you wont tell us when you've fryed your system. But you are honest and tell people that you only bench @ that speed and your 24/7 is much below it.
Let's just ask Mr. Anand himself what speed an E6300 or E6400 is safest to run.

Edit:Below are 2 screenshots of Cinebecnh clearly indicate memory speed matters in AMD's case.
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7402/01032007013309yi7.jpg
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1199/01032007015911ga7.jpg

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Markfw900
running AMD at a higher memory speed has many times shown virtually no difference.And our S3 motherboards don;t do dividers, so we can't slow down the memory without loosing the OC. The 680i chipset has dividers, but I don't want to pay twice as much. Besides, we are running at the same core speed, so who cares ? You are just a troll...You want us to slow down everything so you look better. Bottom line is, your best can;t even match us, while slowing ours down... Thats pathetic.

Aye...I run 3.2Ghz 24/7 and he begs to see a equal Mhz. I oblige then he cries and wants it slower so it's "fair" well, you know what...life aint fair. It's not my fault mommy won't buy you a Conroe and your allowance doesn't pay for new hardware and you want to cry here and make yourself feel better.

That's all it is, you bought something not long ago thinking it was so good, then Conroe came out and you can't buy it.

In Cinebech memory speed matters if you dont know.
You run that chip @ 3.2 mhz and dont know how many errors are stored in your system and you wont tell us when you've fryed your system. But you are honest and tell people that you only bench @ that speed and your 24/7 is much below it.
Let's just ask Mr. Anand himself what speed an E6300 or E6400 is safest to run.

Huh? what part of 24/7 stable do you not understand? There are no damn errors. You're so full of crap..seriously. You should go back to kidnegarden because I know 5 year olds who can make a better argument than you. BTW: it isn't fried, won't fry, and won't overload/overvolt/burn out/explode/implode/melt down/ or cry like you do about the fact that AMD isn't as good as it was 8 months ago.

 

[Markfw]

cmdrdredd, small correction... AMD is slightly better than 8 months ago, as you don't need as much vcore to OC the new processors.

It's just that Intel released Conroe, and it kicks butt !

To OCHungry, I have THREE E6300's, all over 3.2 for 24/7 for 2 months or more now ! And nothing is melting and I have no errors, and you need to stop trolling.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Markfw900
running AMD at a higher memory speed has many times shown virtually no difference.And our S3 motherboards don;t do dividers, so we can't slow down the memory without loosing the OC. The 680i chipset has dividers, but I don't want to pay twice as much. Besides, we are running at the same core speed, so who cares ? You are just a troll...You want us to slow down everything so you look better. Bottom line is, your best can;t even match us, while slowing ours down... Thats pathetic.

Aye...I run 3.2Ghz 24/7 and he begs to see a equal Mhz. I oblige then he cries and wants it slower so it's "fair" well, you know what...life aint fair. It's not my fault mommy won't buy you a Conroe and your allowance doesn't pay for new hardware and you want to cry here and make yourself feel better.

That's all it is, you bought something not long ago thinking it was so good, then Conroe came out and you can't buy it.

In Cinebech memory speed matters if you dont know.
You run that chip @ 3.2 mhz and dont know how many errors are stored in your system and you wont tell us when you've fryed your system. But you are honest and tell people that you only bench @ that speed and your 24/7 is much below it.
Let's just ask Mr. Anand himself what speed an E6300 or E6400 is safest to run.

Edit:Below are 2 screenshots of Cinebecnh clearly indicate memory speed matters in AMD's case.
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7402/01032007013309yi7.jpg
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1199/01032007015911ga7.jpg

What 6 points in multi cpu? You really are not smart enough to make an argument...

I would ban you for being the worst person debating a point ever....brings me back to days of Intelia...

You are truly inferior for me to even waste my time talking to you anymore. I am done with this thread...

If the moderators have any sense of decency they would permaban you.

 

[OcHungry]

Yet another proof that clock for clock AMD is faster than C2D in Cinebench dual core 3D rendering, and further denial by you who resort to foul language and call for my banning because I proved you wrong.

mine @ 3ghz = 941
yours (C2d) @ 3ghz = 930
Your memory speed = 375 mhz
mine =273mhz. wait till I have the memory @ 300mhz. You will then beg for my banning mombling profanity.

mine:
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2735/01032007025503vc3.jpg

yours
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9131/untitledll8.jpg

 

[harpoon84]

OcHungry, take a read of this:

C2D is still superior in 64bit Cinebench:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=13

An X6800 @ 2.93GHz scores 943 points. Your X2 @ 2.97GHz scores 928 points.

Per MHz, C2D scores 0.322 points, X2 scores 0.312 points.

Conclusion: C2D is superior clock for clock in 64bit Cinebench.

How in the world are you going to compare with something like Duvie's E6600 @ 3.4GHz? You really think your super X2 can handle a Cinebench run at 3.5GHz?

PS. Here is an E6300 @ 3.36GHz scoring 1076 points.
http://hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=2014&pg=5

You can't even break the 1000 point mark! LOL

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
OcHungry, take a read of this:

C2D is still superior in 64bit Cinebench:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=13

An X6800 @ 2.93GHz scores 943 points. Your X2 @ 2.97GHz scores 928 points.

Per MHz, C2D scores 0.322 points, X2 scores 0.312 points.

Conclusion: C2D is superior clock for clock in 64bit Cinebench.

How in the world are you going to compare with something like Duvie's E6600 @ 3.4GHz? You really think your super X2 can handle a Cinebench run at 3.5GHz?

PS. Here is an E6300 @ 3.36GHz scoring 1076 points.
http://hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=2014&pg=5

You can't even break the 1000 point mark! LOL

I am using slower memory and my vid card is 7600gt vs. his much faster (don?t know if vid card can improve score or not, but I am guessing it would because of 3D rendering).
Also, my system is 1/3th of the cost of the techreport or hardware zone setups.
Even if C2D can match AMD's score (in Cinebench) or pass it by a few points, it is not that inflated 25% better performer. Not even 5% faster. In terms of cost and price performance, AMD is a better buy. Even Tom's hardware (who is always in favor of Intel) is admitting AMD's price/performance beats Intel?s

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/12/22/price_performance_analysis_12_22_2006/

Time to take out the trash. Folks, this is the former banned user, known as designit, who returned as SahebTech, and lately as OCHungry. We're sure there are more. Goodbye OCHungry!

AnandTech Moderator

 

[harpoon84]

I don't think the videocard has anything to do with Cinebench score, it's entirely rendered by the CPU.

I don't care what your system costs, everyones system is different, a high end GPU or multiple HDDs in RAID can make the system cost double instantly, but anybody can overclock their C2D to 3GHz+ and beat your X2. A $183 E6300 chip can get 1076 points, how many can your $200 4400+ chip get again? Oh, that's right, 930 points! WOW! So your CPU is 15% slower than a cheaper E6300 - how is AMD the better buy?

I'll agree that C2D is not 25% better in Cinebench, but it often is in other benchmarks and applications. Since when did Cinebench become the only benchmark to judge CPUs on? It's a synthetic benchmark as well, it's not even a real world application.

In real world applications, C2D is often 20 - 25% faster than AMD, clock for clock:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=12

As for the THG article, nowhere do they say AMD has better price/performance than Intel. I suggest you read the article again.

 

[vassalle]

Just to quote the article, page 3

"When we cut the Intel data into separate trendlines for the low-end and high-end groups, we really get to see what is happening between AMD and Intel as a result of the new FX processors. Unlike previous weeks, where this image saw AMD sandwiched virtually perfectly in the middle of the two Intel lines, it is curving drastically to the right with the addition of the FX-70 series. However, the Core 2 products from Intel still outpace AMD on an average performance-per-dollar scale."

Although English is not my first language, I believe the last sentence mentioned something about Intel delivering higher performance-per-dollar compared to AMD.

 

[Roguestar]

He's changing his arguments yet again.

OcHungry; you claim that it won't run stable and yet I still posted > 12 hour orthos screenshots at 3.22Ghz, and a screenshot beating your Cinebench result.

Any thoughts?

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: harpoon84
OcHungry, take a read of this:

C2D is still superior in 64bit Cinebench:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=13

An X6800 @ 2.93GHz scores 943 points. Your X2 @ 2.97GHz scores 928 points.

Per MHz, C2D scores 0.322 points, X2 scores 0.312 points.

Conclusion: C2D is superior clock for clock in 64bit Cinebench.

How in the world are you going to compare with something like Duvie's E6600 @ 3.4GHz? You really think your super X2 can handle a Cinebench run at 3.5GHz?

PS. Here is an E6300 @ 3.36GHz scoring 1076 points.
http://hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=2014&pg=5

You can't even break the 1000 point mark! LOL

I am using slower memory and my vid card is 7600gt vs. his much faster (don?t know if vid card can improve score or not, but I am guessing it would because of 3D rendering).
Also, my system is 1/3th of the cost of the techreport or hardware zone setups.
Even if C2D can match AMD's score (in Cinebench) or pass it by a few points, it is not that inflated 25% better performer. Not even 5% faster. In terms of cost and price performance, AMD is a better buy. Even Tom's hardware (who is always in favor of Intel) is admitting AMD's price/performance beats Intel?s

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/12/22/price_performance_analysis_12_22_2006/

You are an idiot again. By your own link, Toms may say OVERALL AMD was better, but after dropping the Pentium4 and comparing C2D, Intel wins. And in your latest benchmark, you leave out all the other windows. What did you do, up the cpu speed, run the bench, then lower it, and take a screen shot ? This is so lame, I am done with this thread, it should be locked. And you keep talking about your memory speed being lower is why you are loosing. You can't compare DDR to DDR2, there is a difference in the way they work. DDR2 has a higher latency that the A64 doesn;t like, check the benchmarks that compare A64 939 to A64 AM2, you need more MHZ for the same performance.

 

[lopri]

Hey, OCHungry - I respect your position and opinion but disagree with the methodology of your defense of A64.

For instance, E6600 can do the following:

1153 Cinebench X CPU

In case you're wondering, the rig was completely stable. (P5W-DH. I've switched to 680i ever since and my interest has also switched to memory, so currently I'm back and forth between 3400/8x425 and 3600MHz/9x400)

Orthos Running
Orthos Finished

Cinebench is one of the few tests A64 comes very close to Core 2 Duo, but so what? Cinebench isn't your everyday app just like Super PI isn't your everyday app.

 

[Roguestar]

What cooling are you using on that, Lopri?