Printable View
@BeepBeep2
Sb will lose in 3ds
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/428...6191a20.th.pnghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/3...6191a21.th.pnghttp://img577.imageshack.us/img577/5...6191a22.th.png \
but in cinebench wins
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/472...6191a24.th.png
All tests have a 500MHz difference are here after OC
http://nvision.pl/Intel-Core-i7-2600...etails-17.html
Polish language - translate
hicookie hits 8GHz on LN2 with AMD Bulldozer
http://gigabytedaily.blogspot.com/20....html?spref=tw
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2040266
??Quote:
Originally Posted by wez
How exactly is he validating Flanker's claim ?
Beep: Thuban at 4300 MHZ (my) hit 7.72 points in R11.5, 2500k at 4.8 GHz has 7.65points, 3DMax2011 (I have here only this data): 4.05GHz 1100T 382s, 5GHz 2600k 316s (think 4c/4t 2500K at 4800MHz will be worse than 4c/8t 2600k 5GHz).
So, which shoes?:D
Those are pretty equal scores. I'm sure you can get 7.7 out of a 2500K at 4.8.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Besides, I don't think you can write a review based purely on Cinebench 11.5.
I can't run Cinebench 11.5 at 4.3 Ghz at even unsafe voltages on water. I haven't seen a 2500K that couldn't run Cinebench above 4.8 Ghz.
Not eating a shoe just yet, 0.8% win isn't really a win in my book.
3dsmax 2011:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/p...k_3ds_max_2011
... but if you use 3dsmax9 ... :
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/t...2100-tested/17
... and btw the current version for cinema 4d is R13!
Mine 2500K@5Ghz is doing 7,94 in CB 11,5.
CB likes HT so 2600K is much quicker even with lower clockspeed.
One thing to note is that C4D R13 makes significant changes to the renderer, as it does physical lighting now.
Whether BD renders fast in R13 is another thing, but I'm pretty sure almost everyone will be on the new version quite soonish.
Found this:
Quote:
I7 4.0GHz 4 core 12 gigs ram. All times in seconds, all files loaded into the full version of c4d, all renders done 3 times.
Cinebench 10 bike scene
R11.5: 19
R12.0: 19
R13.0: 18
Cinebench 11.5 Sponza scene
R11.5: 79
R12.0: 75
R13.0: 74
Look, I'm not trying to be a stickler here, but it disturbs me that you're discarding accuracy for consistency of your claim. Your claim made no mention of there needing to be a wide margin or a variety of tests. Your claim, as stated, has been successfully challenged. If what you said was not what you meant, you shouldn't have said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Maybe Microsoft is under NDA as well... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by undone
7 days late but this post is still relevant to me. Sounds like BD's going to be an encoding monster once x264 gets updated.Quote:
Originally Posted by undone
I'm not sure if you have answered this yet or not, but where are you going to post up your review at?Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
Talking about 3dsmax9??Quote:
Originally Posted by r.p
Attachment 121097
the performance of BD is here in this graph :D
It's the three at the top, do a better job at blurring next time. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by cesariuth
it's the first 3 result, it's easy to tell the difference from the leading letter, it's an F on the first 3 and a C on the other ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by cesariuth
I think that the FX line will be great for gamers...
For what i've been reading and seing ... if you're not a synthetic bencher and more of a gamer... the FX will give you top performance on par with more expensive rigs :)
the middle of the bottom 3 blurred lines looks like its 2600k stock
the chart does not give a great impression for BD, just an ok/sub-par impression
I don't think it is the 2600K :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
to me it looks like core i7-3XXXK maybe the i7-3930K model?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
the three FX one look like maybe
FX-81XX stock
FX-81XX(maybe FX61XX)
FX-81XX @ 4XXX MHz?
and the core i7's look like maybe?
core i7-3930K or 3960K
core i7-3820
core i7-920/870 or 750?
but its very hard to make it out exactly
Well dont be too optimistic, of course instruction set could do well in some code, but for other code is another story. Wait and see.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
according to the graph, 8150(415) is 8% slower than 980x(382). I could be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by cesariuth
my god iron....Quote:
Originally Posted by |ron
hwupg people drive me crazy...
all these benchmarks comparing cpus in various states of overclock = useless and confusing and harmful. we need stock vs stock. then overclocked vs overclocked. not this mixed up chit
we need all the results.Quote:
Originally Posted by bamtan2
confusing?! you cant distinguish numbers?!
if you dont want to see oc results just dont watch them, I want to see them :)
That version of 3dsmax use more than 8 threads like 2011 and 2011?Quote:
Originally Posted by cesariuth