bp9801 Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 This is pretty much the one time I'll be a jackass and tell them otherwise. While my chip was a dud from the start, the voltages I was running absolutely should not have killed it. I'm hoping it wasn't something else with my system because if my Phenom II dies in the next few weeks I'm going to break something. Good thing you have an abundance of gear laying around. I think it is safe to say Waco is nearly cursed when it comes to hardware. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm_freek Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 1.45V's is way too much for 4.5GHz. You should easily get stable at 1.35V's or even less at that overclock. +1 i get 4.8 on 1.35 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boinker Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 Last year and this one have just not been your year have they Waco.... Sorry about your luck dude. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 Good thing you have an abundance of gear laying around. I think it is safe to say Waco is nearly cursed when it comes to hardware. No kidding. Hardware hates me...I think the parts I have learned I was in school to learn how to improve them...and they're rebelling. Last year and this one have just not been your year have they Waco.... Sorry about your luck dude. I tend to agree. Between randomly dying hardware, randomly dying hardware, and randomly dying hardware, I think I've had it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d6bmg Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 1.45V's is way too much for 4.5GHz. You should easily get stable at 1.35V's or even less at that overclock. +1 which also suggests that by committing suicide Waco's chip actually have done a favor on him. He will get a better chip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporX Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 Apparently about 50%. http://3dmark.com/co...31/3dmv/3924163 ~31K versus ~19K Anyway - the point of this thread is to laugh at just how much of a difference there is between a decent Phenom II quad and a Sandy Bridge quad. I honestly didn't expect to see that much of a difference in FPS. But come on seriously you are talking about a well overclocked i7 vs a stock speed Phenom II, that is a pretty seriously lopsided test and BTW makes the title and your first line very inaccurate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
XtremeDS Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 And the Phenom II X4 was released 2 years earlier than the SB, in January 2009. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 But come on seriously you are talking about a well overclocked i7 vs a stock speed Phenom II, that is a pretty seriously lopsided test and BTW makes the title and your first line very inaccurate. That's as far as it will clock. Stock is 2.8 GHz. This thread is more of a joke than a real objective test so don't get your panties in a bunch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulktreg Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 I think it is safe to say Waco is nearly cursed when it comes to hardware. .. either that or he's just crap at overclocking? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 .. either that or he's just crap at overclocking? It's definitely that. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_Jim_* Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 That's as far as it will clock. Stock is 2.8 GHz. This thread is more of a joke than a real objective test so don't get your panties in a bunch. Unlocked 720 right? Mine shows up as a Phenom II x4 20 too. I also have it at 3.4 GHz, but I think I could go further with a different/better motherboard, or maybe just some more tweaking on this one. Happy where I am though. Back on topic, do you know what the 2600 got with Hyperthreading turned off, or does 3D Mark not use the 4 extra threads? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 I never turned it off. It does use as many cores as you give it though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now