Well I guess we'll find out soon enough, won't we? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by integral
As for the overclocking potential of Conroe, it should be very good. At 2.4 GHz it only needs passive cooling and it's a 65 nm part.
Printable View
Well I guess we'll find out soon enough, won't we? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by integral
As for the overclocking potential of Conroe, it should be very good. At 2.4 GHz it only needs passive cooling and it's a 65 nm part.
redpriest quote "What I am perplexed about is why Conroe bombs on the encryption code"
Does this mean Conroe will not be as strong in video encoding as it is in other areas?
Thanks
You cannot draw that conclusion for high-quality video encoding.Quote:
Originally Posted by automagic
Most one-key encryption schemes and low-quality video encoding have a tendency not to care about the L2 CPU cache at all because they rip through so many data blocks (or frames squares) that memory bandwidth counts a lot. Things are either in the L1 cache or they go right through the L2 cache. Conroe is probably weaker here because of the lack of internal memory controller.
However, high-quality video encoding spends so much time on each frame that memory access doesn't play a big role. Same if you don't only encrypt the data but you do something with the data before encryption. Only "pure" encryption is subject to this.
The benchmarks in my signature illustrate that, too. It is clear that memory bandwidth and latency is most worthwhile with low-quality video encoding. But for high-quality video encoding even a stupid Celeron with no memory bandwidth and small L2 cache can be very fast.
In regards to SM2 and Video Coding:
SM2, as redpriest stated, is a work of enthusiasm that begain when I was in college with version 1.0. Version 2.0 has Alex and I working collectively upon it. As Alex, redpriest, stated, we purchase hardware and software out of our own pockets and do not recieve support from Intel or AMD. Case in point, I just purchased for 400$ the Intel MKL library for hoisting the DGEMM and SGEMM testing currently done with my own code out of SM2 and leverage Intel's MKL and AMD's ACML. Soon, in a new release, SM2 will test FFTs, Linear Alegebra, be multi-threaded and have support for new bnechmarks from a vectorizing compiler.
In regards to media and encryption. Encryption is very tightly bound by dependencies, SHA1, SHA256, RC4, etc. The greatest optimizers achieve almost 1.5-nearly 3 IPC presently upon their algorithms. Like Alex, I had expected more from Conroe upon this benchmark with it's 4 way issue of ALU ops. In media, SIMD vector instructions are heavily utilized, in MP3 popularly with MMX while video codecs use SSE2 and soon MNI. These vector instructions will run +2x better upon the "core" arch. What is witnessed in the BLAS benchmark results of SM2 will also hold true in Media apps with SIMD vector optimizations.
my 2 cents for what its worth..
english pls :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by White Wizard
Thanks for the SM clarifications guys ..appreciated.
Regards
Andy
I believe he said Conroe will excell at video encoding, which is the only benchmark I care about.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Thanks
Anyone tried Conroe with ASUS P5WD2-E Premium board yet?
http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/r...2694&forumid=1Quote:
Originally Posted by White Wizard
You guys, more than most folks know the difference between any processor doing better or worse can easily depend on software.
Good link Donnie, and I'm glad to see that there are people to do more than blindly slander and slash people's reputations with little or no evidence to the contrary. Alex and I have worked hard on our own times, and monetary budgets, to maintain integrity in SM2. To Conroe's credit and desgin it does well in SM2 because of it's balanced architecture.
What will be more interesting, is someone running the 64-bit version of SM2 upon a Merom, Conroe, or Woodcrest upon 64-bit Windows-XP. Also, Alex and I are preparing to build with compilers other than Microsoft, who do not have vectorization support in their compiler. More importantly, we will be utilizing Intel's and AMD's high performance math libraries to measure not only linear algebra but also signal processing (FFT) performance and utilize multiple cores as well. I think with these improvements, as well as integrating my Quantum Monte Carlo code SM2 will be greatly improved and offer people a better picture of performance.
Does somebody has a price list of all models when conroe hits market?
edit: got it
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/1...oe_pricing.jpg
Nice pricelist, but do you really think Intel is going to sell it's top-model for just $530? I don't think so, if you ask me it is more like 700/800 maybe even 900.
I guess that means you're still w/ AMD?Quote:
Originally Posted by White Wizard
The top model is the Xtreme edition and costs 1000 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vassili
Yes The XE will be the 3.33 Ghz with 1333 mhz fsb, it will comand the big price, it remains to be seen if it launchs at the same time, there will also be a 2.93 Ghz model again maybe not at launch. I think intel will make tons of money even selling the 2.4 for $316 the margins will be sweet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waus-mod
up up :DQuote:
Originally Posted by WoD
I am sure either Fugger or FCG tried it. If it didn't work on the WS that we KNOW FCG tried it on, it won't work on the -E either.
Yes, I believe FCG posted in here somewhere that it didn't work at this time, needs a Hardware revision I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by WoD
It is in this thread, or the one FCG/Fugger started.
Current WS boards with beta bios are still not working with Conroe.
I guess you missed this little bit from the demo/bench/report:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vassili
From:http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=7Quote:
On the Intel front, there is a lot of time for performance optimization with regards to Conroe and its platforms. It’s also worth noting that the 2.66GHz E6700 we previewed here is simply a high end mainstream part, it is not an Extreme Edition flavor of Conroe. At 2.8 or 3.0GHz, a Conroe EE would offer even stronger performance than what we’ve seen here.
Whatever hapenned to Mr. VW?
why hasnt he posted any results lately?
did we see any AM2's SPi 1M/32M.
any prim95 for conroe(even if it is at stock)? or any stability tests?
I would like to see as many tests, benches, and tweaking as possible, on both platforms. Is there something wrong w/ the mobo he has?
This thread was about conroe results, but I see it drifting to no usefull info (about conroe). Dont let this thread die Mr. Wang.
He has the 32M results on his web blog .. 21 minutes I seem to recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by RimRam
Regards
Andy
Thanks for the info guys! :)
He's out of town on a business trip. He'll be back on the 23rd ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RimRam
P95 on a stock processor? :D I don't think there's anything wrong with the board perse, but it may be a reference board and there are no overclocking capabilities in the BIOS right now either, which is why we haven't seen any from him.Quote:
any prim95 for conroe(even if it is at stock)? or any stability tests?
I would like to see as many tests, benches, and tweaking as possible, on both platforms. Is there something wrong w/ the mobo he has?
I can't wait to see what happens when a BIOS gets in there that allows some tweaking. OCing aside, he's stuck with DDR2-533 (266FSB @ 1:1) and 5-5-5-15 because of the timings BySPD that he can't alter along with the rest of the stuff. It doesn't get any worse than that on DDR2 and the system still has amazing results.
Hopefully he'll have some new stuff coming up with the Conroe soon. Just be patient, he's obviously got a lot of stuff going on ATM.
Yes, but the XE doesn't come until Q4 2006, so the 6700 wil be the topmodel when Conroe wil be introduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waus-mod
Who talks about retail haha :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Vassili
Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
Update info with OCZ EB at 3-3-2
4400+ @ 249.7*10=2497mhz
winrar3.61
multi=1238
single=713
-------------------
Conroe E6600 @ 266*9 =2400mhz
winrar3.61
multi=1120
single=675
Your clock speed went down and still the results are better.
Apparently WinRAR is quite memory dependant.
Let's wait and see what Conroe can achieve with faster RAM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
I read this thread for Conroe results, not AMD results. For AMD results I go to the AMD section.
Showing results of an overclocked X2 that you`ve had a year to tweak and play with is redundant. These Conroe results are from a chip that isn`t even for sale yet, and no one has proper hardware to truely support it.
If you want to show off your X2 ...start your own thread in the AMD section please. :nono:
Let us see some results when we have a board which can be tweaked and doesn't have a bugged bios ;)
But the E6700 model isn't the Top Model. It's just listed as the fastest for that first shipment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vassili
he doesn`t surrender .....Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
and so
my respect ..what a brave amd fighter
Thanks man! I like it when you guys take the time to try help folks understand. If you guys are convinced Conroe is Strong, Balanced and etc.. then that's great! It's you guys' version I wished they'd used and I don't truely expect the House version to be fair if it were made or sponsered by Intel or AMD. I don't really trust either to be fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by White Wizard
The Conroe Demo was different IMHO! They didn't want these Webmasters coming back to clobber them. That is if Intel Hoodwinked or tricked them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mine
Hehe :)
True true you have to admire that :p:
Hes setup is shy 3mhz of running 100Mhz faster than the conroe. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket
This thread is to show how good Conroe is and Iam showing where Conroe has certain advantages. I never said who is better or faster since by his 2.4 vs my AMD having to run above his clock means is more eff.
Cinebench is very fast on conroe and yes timings on winrar could be hurting its showing.
as far as tweaking I put BRAND NEW ocz-eb ram in and reset my 11 multi to 10 and ran the test I don't think 5 mins with the new ram and running my X2-4400+ at 2.5ghz when I can run the CPU over 2.9ghz would be considered "showing off".
Just giving a comparison between the two units is all.
and why would I surrender my AMD when Conroe isn't due out till July/aug. and we haven't seen any OCing ablility yet. If Conroe responds like the mobile units then Conroe will be the CPU of choice this fall and maybe even for 07 if AMD doesn't respond with some improvements.
***looks in AMDs direction***
The Winrar Benchmark is HEAVILY dependant on ram...
for an old CPU she does ok :D
Not sure exactly what this say's but looks like its for sale in Japan.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBar
Always a good sign it might be coming to U.S. soon.
http://shopping.itmedia.co.jp/PriceL..._ID=1060407244
Seems 38,480 Yen=About $324 usd
Nice thread crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
Victor is a pioneer of sorts and is nice enough to display his results of the Conroe in a thread about the Conroe. The first guy to actually have a working Conroe on this forum.
You on the other hand are doing what`s already been done.
My guess is you saw what others could do with an X2 and purely copied it.
Spamming here only shows what an AMD troll you really are. :slapass:
Calmn down, it's not a thread crap, he's just overclocking his 4400+ for comparison #s on the Winrar bench.
Absolute I posted that OC just for Rocket's benefit.
He is a noob and can't take a joke so let him call me names all he wants since I like to contribute to the forums unlike the Conroe noobs who flocked to the forum to worship the comeback of Intel to the highend market.
but you are correct Absolute I wasn't thread crapping but giving comparison info for people when I updated my info on the last page.
I really am getting sick and tired of these type of posts, maybe a little editing/deleting would be in order :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket
nubs :DQuote:
Originally Posted by LOE
OO I cannot wait to see how the 3.3Ghz 1333FSB 85w chip is gona do. I think its gona fly ! Victor plz tell me you are getting one next week :p:
I saw FCG posting his getting that Albatron board. Then we can see some Conroe OC benchies ;)
Albatron sure did a good job with that board. On paper anyway ^__^
I guess I'll help Victor out as he's probably not going to be able to post here until he gets back from out of town. He's told me that nothing of that caliber is available quite yet...Expect to see the 2.66 Conroe next ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ORCBEAST
Hmm, I wonder, how the heck can we get 500-600FSB on a mobo???
good cooling + 3.33ghz 333FSB @ 600FSB 6ghz - And YES I LOVE TO SEE THE PERFORMANCE of such :P
Stephen, 1 week, 1 week mate, then the x850 series battle continues :p:
That's impossible right now I think as I haven't seen a PLL chip over 450MHz in a board yet. I was/am hoping the Conroe boards will step up with a 500MHz+ PLL or clock generator, but I guess we'll have to wait and see what they come out with. Right now I'd still consider 450FSB max and that would be on some pretty good NB cooling. Most people probably won't even be in that ballpark.
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by CanadianTSi
4-4-4-12 @ 667 mhz is crap anyway
You're waaaay too uptight. Please just relax. (all due respect).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket
I have been lurking here for a short time and just wanted to say thanks to Victor, Fugger & FCG for all this. I am really looking forward to the Conroe launch. I actually just sold my entire desktop system to raise cash for my next platform upgrade. Looks like it just might be a 2.4 Conroe rig.
Keep up the good fight gents!!
Keys
for the record my 4400+ clock for clock is NOT faster than Conroe.
That should make Rocket feel all warm and fuzzy inside :D
Even if the max FSB is going to be around 400-450MHz.
That's 4-4.5GHz on a chip with x10 multiplier. I don't think Conroes on regular cooling will be able to go much further if even reach these speeds at all.
I`ve been around for quite a while. I just don`t make a habit of spamming threads with unrelated and totally irrelevant info.Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
This thread is a "Breif test of the Conroe". Which, like I said is not even fully supported by any hardware yet. It wasnt started for compairision at all. It`s just here to show the base of what to expect from the Conroe.
Even Victors own compairision with the AM2 was moved by the mods and everyone was told to only post about the Conroe in this thread.
You want to show me your X2 results then make you own thread in the AMD section.
I can see the headline already ..... "MY X2 Beats a Conroe" *Film at 11* :clap:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket
since you want to be an a$$ about this your wish is my command
4400+ @ 254 *9=2286mhz
winrar3.61
multi=1179
single=676
-------------------
Conroe E6600 @ 266*9 =2400mhz
winrar3.61
multi=1120
single=675
Regardless of his intention (which was as a comparison), it IS a very good comparison. At 2.4GHz, with bad timings, on premature hardware (not quite sure if that's true though....the BIOS definitely needs refining, but the hardware itself isn't premature), it does throw it down with an extremely well-tuned 2.3GHz X2 (which, due to its IMC, is insanely great in WinRAR compression).
Well, what to expect is all relative. Yes, it can get 4202348234 marks in Imagiveyoumarks '07, but how useful is that without reference? Iboomalot has given reference. Frankly, WinRAR numbers aren't something the majority of us know the significance of off the top of our heads...Quote:
It`s just here to show the base of what to expect from the Conroe.
If you only wanted Conroe results, you should have stopped at the first post.
On a side note, Victors AM2 results were moved because they deserve their own discussion.
EDIT: NiCKE^: you're kidding, right? *Below \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ post*
EDIT2: apparently not....wow apparently I'm the only one who finds comparisons between existing hardware (whether it's AMD or Intel, no matter) presented in this thread as useful......though I would bet that if Conroe were >25% faster that there would be more positive discussion
Seriously, your AMD results don't belong in the Intel section.
Nicke Iam only showing how WinRar is ram based results not CPU and Since I don't own an Intel to show this I used my AMD rig since that all I have.
Cinebench results didn't change much with the better ram which shows the Conroe Core vs AMD to be more eff. and a more reliable test even if it show Intel to be in the lead.
This isn't a thread crap or comparison between CPUs its to show that certain tests favor certain parts of the computer.
But I will not be posting any more AMD results as per your request Nicke^
Thank you ;) Maybe you and Vic could do a AMD and Conroe comparison thread when he comes back instead of posting it in this thread ;)
Isn't Cinebench a little "AMD:ish" or am I wrong?
Iam not sure which is favored if at all.
only true comparison would be taking his conroe with good DDR2-800 ram and using something similar to my rig for comparison sake.
not everyone has SLI or Crossfire setups. I think single card comparisons would be more inline with the general public.
what would be really really reallly scary would be Conroe design with AMD hyperthreading and DDR2-1000 3-3-3 ram :)
Oh I have to go un-tweak my rig and change the multi from 9 to 11 :D
Well I don't know a jack about Cinebench so I won't say anything.
What would be fun to see is a real Conroe board without bugs and such, maybe then we will have some true results for once.
I got a little burnt out on the Conroe review, hype, and speculation so I took a hiatus for a while. I checked in once in a while just to see what was up. Victor deserves our appreciation for his benchmarks. The fact that he tried to accomodate all the requests people made needs to be acknowledged. I know he's away for a while. What I was wondering was what specifically makes the motherboard he was using different than any other besides the chipset. Can Victor comment on any differences no matter how small which separate his Dell G965 motherboard from others? What makes it work on his Dell board and not on others? Is it just the chipset or are there other factors. VRM, Phaze, ect.....
Thanks Victor!:clap:
P.S. Is it possible to look up the specs for the board he used somewhere?
comparisons are good. comparisons are what we need to see how something performs.
But I don't really see any comparisons going on here. boomalot's one post comparing scores was a good reference for anyone reading this thread to see. But reiterating it and talking about the same AMD setup, how its tweaked blah blah blah isn't comparing anything and really doesn't belong here. Its VW's thread on his tests. He hasn't posted for 4-5 pages.
So how has the past page and a half been relavent?
not much more relavent to be said, already hundreds of posts and VW is off on buisiness, so nothing new for awhile. Maybe FUGGER or FCG gets theirs working this weekend, but otherwise not much new.
anything new about the albatron mb ,has anyone tried it yet?this thread is starting to get boring .we dont even know if conroe oc at all? since we havnt seen anyone oc it on a decent board. wasnt there someone who got hold of an albatron board?
freecableguy got ahold of an Albatron board, we're just waiting for him to update us with some testing info.
yeah, he got ahold of a Conroe too, but we all see how that went...;)
hopefully it works, if not im not gonna be too surprised, given that i though the other boards he tried were gonna work and they didn't...:(
Dont want to be a jerk here, but my CPU score on 3DMark06 is kinda high 200 points of diference compared to the Conroe 2.4, ofcourse Conroe is stock and this one is overclocked, BUT is it actually comparable? If I can reach a higher overclock could I expect my CPU to be at the performance of a 2.4 Conroe? Thanks.
http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?i...owscore3kq.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket
What :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing good do conroe numbers do when they are not compared to what we are sitting on today?
Numbers aren´t worth :banana::banana::banana::banana: until they are compared to something, are they?
IE. weee.... the conroe breaks the 100 milestone. Uhm.. what milestone, and what are we at now? What would we get with a Pentium D @ 4Ghz?
I dont know how the Pentium D or a X2 for that matter, does in imaginaryMark06, but 100marks must be awsome, right? :slap:
How do you know that this tread wasn´t for comparison? Is this your tread? Did Viktor Wang as you to play admin?
---------
Again, thanks for the effort put into getting the good news out to us. Conroe looks promising :)
Keep up the good work :toast:
CPU scores in 3Dmarks dont mean anything... I have had higher FPS with he CPU tests and still get lower scores than when I was at certain OC configuration and even lower clock speeds.... and the overall 3Dmark was higher.... So I dont really use it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragex
Alex
Thanks, thats all I needed to know, I found it quite odd, thanks :toast: .Quote:
Originally Posted by AgonxOC
No pons intended.
What I dont understand is-why Intel giving conroe such a short life.
According to latest Intel's news on roadmap, it appears that 1Q 0f 2007 we will see yet another change. according to this article a newer architecture will be introduced in early 2007 leaving "core architecture" behind. The newer architecture will have 2m L2 instead of 4m as is conroe. This is how I read it: conroe appears to have short life if this roadmap is true.
But why? "core architecture has'nt even hit the market.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/04/14/intel_quad_core/
So Alandale will be a Conroe with 2MB L2? I wonder if they will use shared L2 cache or if they will have L3? Seems a little blurry to me.
"Core" isn't going anywhere. Cloverton and Kentsfield are basically 2x Conroe dual cores for a quad core proc. Not all Conroes are 4M L2 anyway...only 2.4GHz and up. There may not be enough room for 8M L2 in there or maybe they want to keep heat & cost down. AFAIK, the quad cores were originally supposed to be released in the middle of '07 on 45nm, but they moved them up to Q1 on 65nm for some reason.
Its just the usual Intel marketing BS trying to justify its own existence :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RimRam
Oh I didnt know that. I guess I better do my homework then :slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by boostedevo
? A new microarch is prepared for late 2007/2008 , called Nehalem , designed by Intel Oregon , 45nm and the cake on top : it has an IMC.Quote:
Originally Posted by alpha0ne
:woot:
Where did you get that info from?
Calling something a new micro-architecture isn't the right term, the Core Microarchitecture most likely will last a few years but it will be evolved in the same way the P6 microarchitecture covered the Pentium Pro through to Tualatin Pentium 3's, or Netburst covered the range of Pentium 4 designs.
Hehehehehehe, come and get me....these are default settings and both the cpu and card have MUCHMUCH more ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Beier
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1953943
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1243/923dr9ll.jpg
Oh, BTW, I forgot to tell you: I'll have a t2600 yonah and aopen board within 2 days for testing :hehe:
Sorry for the OT :p:
Maybe people should do a little more reading and a little less posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formann
If you dont know what decent to good benchmark numbers are then you simply haven`t read enough.
Placing X2 benchmarks in a Conroe thread makes it harder for people to find out how an X2 performs...
When I look for AMD info, I look in the AMD or O/C forums, and when I look for Intel info, I look in the Intel or O/C section.
Go figure :stick:
Sad to see common sense illudes people that think they are so damn smart.
Time to unsubscribe, this thread has become a bad joke made so by a very few :rolleyes:
Hmmmm........:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket
BTW, this thread won't be updated by Victor until the ~21st of this month anyways as he's away on business.....
I had a dream last night...:stick:Quote:
Originally Posted by NiCKE^
The stuff is like this :
Intel Israel designed Banias( 1999 ) ,then Dothan ( 2001) and started Yonah.
Intel Santa Clara took over Yonah and Intel Israel was given a new job : Merom ( all this happened in early 2002 )
Intel Oregon ( which designed the P4 ) had its Nehalem project based on Netburst killed in late 2003 , together with Tejas.In early 2004 they started a new Nehalem , a brand new microarch which is set to arrive in late 2007/early 2008 and replace Merom 2 ( 45nm )
In late 2005 Intel Israel started to work on another new microarch called Gilo which will arrive around late 2009-2010 timeframe and supplant Nehalem.
Basically Intel will have 2 design bureaus fighting each other and bring new stuff every 2 years.I hope AMD can sustain the pace , altough they look very confused right now ( killed K9 , K10 , stopgap K8L, new microarch in 2007 which I hope it is not K8L :nono: ) not knowing which to target : Merom 2 on 45nm or Nehalem ?
If this new architechture has an internal memory controller then it won't need 4mb L2. L2 cache makes up for high external memory latencies, and I think Conroe still hurts when it hits system ram, the fsb bottle necks it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RimRam
But 4mb shared should be more than enough to overcome this problem in the short term, and the transistors are cheap for Intel.
More cache always helps , especially in commercial aplication and for servers where you need scaling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
How much it helps when you increase its size depends on how well you implemented it.
For example , it is possible that AMD's poor results with DDR2 are a combination of the modified IMC* ( 2x8 wide data buses vs 1x16 on 939 ) and its L2 line size.
*It isn't yet clear they took the 2x8 way like Intel 9xx, but it looks like it.
I came to this conclusion, after witnessing AMD's tactics with their switch to socket 939. Their 512k's did indeed perform close to the 1mb's on the 754 socket. The performance gap was very almost identical to 512k vs 1mb on the 754 at the same clocks.
I'm not saying I'm right, after all I joined this forum to learn more, and it would be foolish of me not to take each post with a open mind. There's a great depth of knowledge around here that I'd like dip into.
this thread is 99% spammed...:nono: :nono:
why the :banana::banana::banana::banana: are you talking about amd in intel section if noone didn't ask for it..
open new thread "flame one amd vs intel" and post there
Look at the voltage on that beast, 3volts.
Yeah , and it pulls 119Amps.Can you believe how hot it must be ?Quote:
Originally Posted by P8baller07
1.2 volts, not 3 volts.
And your purpose for even posting this bs was what again? You are grouped into the small few that have ruined this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rovtar
Seriously mods, erase the bs posts in here or just close it.
Ok guys this thread has gone waaay off topic.. So now its closed..