• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FX55 Prelim Results

WOWOWOWOW!!!!

What are you using for cooling? Have you considered jacking up the memory speed and lowering the multi?
 
I had a XP-120 with a Panaflow M1A, but I found the heatpipes sat too close to the Vid card, and was causing artifacting even at stock speeds, so I put a Zalman on, and it appears to be in better shape now.

I haven't had much of a chance to play around with the box yet, so the quick OCs were to play with the multi and slightly with the FSB.
 
Originally posted by: ca1n
I still beat you on 2001 @ 2.75 score of 31271
Click to expand...
Did you get a free bowl of soup or something for doing that? :laugh:

 
Buwahahha

Not that 2k1 is really a good indicator of much of anything. You should be more concerned about 2k3 and 2k5 (if you really want to use a synthetic benchmark as a reference point). 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Ronin
Buwahahha

Not that 2k1 is really a good indicator of much of anything. You should be more concerned about 2k3 and 2k5 (if you really want to use a synthetic benchmark as a reference point). 🙂
Click to expand...

Actually your wrong.
3Dmark2001 is a much better indicator of the performance of the machine than 2003 or 2005, which are GPU dependent.

But I agree, ca1n intervention was out of order.
 
Originally posted by: Stormgiant
Originally posted by: Ronin
Buwahahha

Not that 2k1 is really a good indicator of much of anything. You should be more concerned about 2k3 and 2k5 (if you really want to use a synthetic benchmark as a reference point). 🙂
Click to expand...

Actually your wrong.
3Dmark2001 is a much better indicator of the performance of the machine than 2003 or 2005, which are GPU dependent.

But I agree, ca1n intervention was out of order.
Click to expand...


Wrong. 2k1 is 90% CPU, 10% GPU anymore. Do some research before posting such crap, please. You might also note that 2k3 is more CPU dependent than GPU dependent, and 2k5 is where you were closest to being right, where it is mostly GPU dependent, and CPU plays a much smaller role.

Thanks for playing, but don't muck up my thread with crap.
 
Originally posted by: Ronin
Originally posted by: Stormgiant
Originally posted by: Ronin
Buwahahha

Not that 2k1 is really a good indicator of much of anything. You should be more concerned about 2k3 and 2k5 (if you really want to use a synthetic benchmark as a reference point). 🙂
Click to expand...

Actually your wrong.
3Dmark2001 is a much better indicator of the performance of the machine than 2003 or 2005, which are GPU dependent.

But I agree, ca1n intervention was out of order.
Click to expand...


Wrong. 2k1 is 90% CPU, 10% GPU anymore. Do some research before posting such crap, please. You might also note that 2k3 is more CPU dependent than GPU dependent, and 2k5 is where you were closest to being right, where it is mostly GPU dependent, and CPU plays a much smaller role.

Thanks for playing, but don't muck up my thread with crap.
Click to expand...


I think he woz tryin to say that 2k1 is the better synthetic bench as a overall measure of you're machine than 2k3 &5...rather than just the GPU...which it is isn't it?
 
2k1 nowdays is NOT used as a graphics benchmark. its just an indicator of how fast your cpu/memory is. nothing to do with gpu really, at least on the current gen cards.
2k5 on the other hand really pushes the GPU and will rape ur system if u dont have a 6xxx/x8xx card. its almost completely GPU limited. for proof, look at the SLi benchies where 2x 6800Ultras score like 10,000 and 1 ultra on the same system scores like 5,000.
 
ie so 2k1 is a better synthetic bench program-as an overall measure of your machine, which is what i meant & what i think stormgiant meant...
 
Originally posted by: dug777
ie so 2k1 is a better synthetic bench program-as an overall measure of your machine, which is what i meant & what i think stormgiant meant...
Click to expand...

Yes, that's true. But some people with lots of money and dunno what they are running, seems to lack either inteligence and education to be on public forums.... my 2 cents.

Now let him brag about is fx55 some more...
 
Just pissed that you were wrong? Yeah, thought so.

I don't need to brag about the system, and where I get my hardware (which does NOT cost me a dime) has no bearing on the results. It's my my fault you're pissy, and insulting my education, which I suspect is better than yours, again, has no bearing on this discussion.

If you're going to attempt to insult someone, make some sense, and at least have some information to back up your original claims. You were wrong, end of story.
 
I'm sorry for letting you down, but everybody says i'm right, except you....

But, then again, English isn't my first language so I may be reading wrong... lol

Keep telling to youself... i'm the greatest, i'm the greatest, i'm the greatest... sometime along the line you will see the light.

Actually, make me a favour. Bench your machine with this parameters :
- FX55 @default and video card @default
- FX55 @default and video card with OC
- FX55 with OC and video card @default
- FX55 with OC and video card with OC

Than come back here with the numbers, and you will discuss them.

Peace dude,
 
Originally posted by: Ronin
Just pissed that you were wrong? Yeah, thought so.

I don't need to brag about the system, and where I get my hardware (which does NOT cost me a dime) has no bearing on the results. It's my my fault you're pissy, and insulting my education, which I suspect is better than yours, again, has no bearing on this discussion.

If you're going to attempt to insult someone, make some sense, and at least have some information to back up your original claims. You were wrong, end of story.
Click to expand...

Dude, did someone piss in your Cheerios this morning? 😉
 
Not at all. I have serious issues with people posting misinformation, and then not being able to read that their opinion is *not* held by others.
 
Originally posted by: Ronin
Not at all. I have serious issues with people posting misinformation, and then not being able to read that their opinion is *not* held by others.
Click to expand...

If you could enlighten us with your wisdom, and tell me what misinformation i'm telling, i would be greatfull.

Also, here's my info from my current PC ( don't have a better video card right now ) :

A64 @1800 FX5500 @270/400 = 7878 marks
A64 @2683 FX5500 @270/400 = 8073 marks

A64 @1800 FX5500 @331/449 = 8851 marks
A64 @2683 FX5500 @339/451 = 9450 marks


I'm waiting for your coments on these numbers...
 
im guessing thats with 03? your ram speed is totally insane btw storm, i have a feeling thats why u get 31 in superpi and i get 33 haha.
 
No, actually it's 3Dmark2001 scores.

I have a shi*** card right now, and only allows me to play games at medium resolution. Waiting for better card again... ( 9800XT I miss you 🙂 )

Also, yes, the ram has some effect on super pi crushing.

I'll get back to your PM later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top