Bosco Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 I think those two have a direct number for that kind of stuff. I think you guys are living in a fantasy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_bowtie Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 I think you guys are living in a fantasy I'm sure and Waco's World that he knows what he's doing and his stuff just doesnt mysteriously blow up and it works.... sadly thats just not the case... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp9801 Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 I think he's just poking fun at my terrible luck. Well, you do have a great track record. Plus the more times we can talk about you setting a motherboard on fire, the better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 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. Here you go: http://3dmark.com/3dmv/3930369 Quad versus quad at 3.4 GHz. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_Jim_* Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Here are the AMD and new Intel scores compared: http://3dmark.com/compare/3dmv/3930369/3dmv/3924163. Waco, why does it still say there are 8 threads for the 2600, which is also at 3.6 GHz instead of 3.4 GHz? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Waco, why does it still say there are 8 threads for the 2600, which is also at 3.6 GHz instead of 3.4 GHz? I didn't turn off hyperthreading or turbo. I can run it with them off later if anyone cares. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_Jim_* Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 I didn't turn off hyperthreading or turbo. I can run it with them off later if anyone cares. Okay. It's fine if you don't. I think those scores are close enough now to show that at the same thread count and clock speed, the two processors are not going to be terribly far a part. Still may be some distance between them, but I would guess closer to just 2000-3000 at most, instead of the 6000 currently. Of course, that is just a guess and I probably haven't any clue what I'm talking about Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Okay. It's fine if you don't. I think those scores are close enough now to show that at the same thread count and clock speed, the two processors are not going to be terribly far a part. Not in overall Vantage score - but definitely in something more CPU-constrained. Note that the CPU scores are wildly different. 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