Cinebench is gonna be fun on the Thuban! Already looking real good for just 3.5GHz and a 32bit OS, 7 points should be easy. :D
Please show 06 cpu score now. ;)
Printable View
Cinebench is gonna be fun on the Thuban! Already looking real good for just 3.5GHz and a 32bit OS, 7 points should be easy. :D
Please show 06 cpu score now. ;)
i think people dont realize it took a bit for the images to be uploaded to the site. i was on when you first posted and it didnt show the images just the text in the post. now finally it is showing the imags though. thanks for the updates, keep them coming.
Thanks for posting that onTOP, didn't see his images right away either. Looks like I'll get the 1055T since I can't justify the extra funds for the 1095T.
why have you posted the 3dmark start screen and not the result? :/
It takes some time to upload the images...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtemel
what can you tell us about overclocking and turbo working together?
i agree, i'll be getting the 1055T this week :D it's only S$309 :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by richierich
3DMark 06 CPU Score @ 3.6GHz doneQuote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
I am trying to upload it but the file size is too big
I have to upload to local server (Hong Kong) and forward the image link later
Sorry for waiting so long :(
IIRC it should kick in(HTT OCing on regular models,BE model i don't know),but imamage can verify this first hand in no time ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Well from my testingQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
- The "Turbo" still works even you adjust the HTT up
- You can Enable / Disable it in BIOS
- If you want the "Turbo" mode work and overclock , watch for the "Max" clock
For Stock voltage / default it works fine
- CPU Usage don't require > 3 core , you will have Turbo up to ratio 200x16.5 , which is 3.3GHz
- If you got application full load > 3 core together, the Turbo won't kick in
For Overclock situation, this maybe good or bad things
The "turbo" will automatic boost up the VCore when running as "Default"
( Default VID = 1.32V , Turbo mode => Some core got 1.476V )
When I got this 1055T run at 245 x 14 ( 3430 MHz ) ,
the "Turbo" state will push the ratio to 16.5 (4042.5)
the system crashed as it's much higher clock without increasing needed Vcore :(
I haven't try changing the Clock ratio (to see if it affect the Turbo) , but surely will try to see if it affect the Turbo function
Thanks imamage for your report :up:
thanks imamage! thats kinda how i figured turbo would work. people that have their cpu clocked to its limit for 24/7 will have to keep turbo disabled
thanks for all the info. basically its identical to OCing while using CnQ. so every voltage level needs to be tested. i think this might be very worth it to adjust all the Pstates, as long as they load automatically with windows (i havnt used that program yet)Quote:
Originally Posted by imamage
i wonder with the BE chips u can adjust the multi for P0(turbo)?
Yeah, first thing to do : Disable C'nQ and Turbo mode then push this beast up :DQuote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
http://universitypharmacy.ca/shoponl...h_liquigel.jpg
MUST.............NOT..............BLINK !!!!!
Too much awesomeness :woot: Show us 3.8Ghz :p: But yea see if you can turn off Turbo :)
Perkam
Keep em coming imamage. thanksQuote:
AMD (161 Viewing)
Intel (126 Viewing)
Large image file warning !
LinX run @ 3.6GHz (as requested)
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...322e3b6443.jpg
MaxxMem
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...c4a4840a78.jpg
CineBench R11.5 @ 3.6GHz
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...749da4103a.jpg
Cinebench R10
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...09b243e434.jpg
Fritz Chess
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...0f49d7ebbe.jpg
3DMark 06 CPU Test (As Request)
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...d1326bd376.jpg
wPRIME 32M
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...889f6ea9cd.jpg
Enjoy
I am trying to hit 4GHz w/Air now
wPrime 32M stable , but having a hard time running 3DMark 06 CPU / Cinebench bench .......
Large image file warning !
LinX run @ 3.6GHz (as requested)
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...322e3b6443.jpg
MaxxMem
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...c4a4840a78.jpg
CineBench R11.5 @ 3.6GHz
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...749da4103a.jpg
Cinebench R10
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...09b243e434.jpg
Fritz Chess
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...0f49d7ebbe.jpg
3DMark 06 CPU Test (As Request)
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...d1326bd376.jpg
wPRIME 32M
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...889f6ea9cd.jpg
Enjoy
I am trying to hit 4GHz w/Air now
wPrime 32M stable , but having a hard time running 3DMark 06 CPU / Cinebench bench .......
Thanks for the screens man, this is what we've all been waiting for! :up:
Good luck pushing for 4GHz.
lol double posted huge images ...
Nice results waiting for 4Ghz :D
Thanks for the info.
Keep it coming.
If you get a chance throw it in the M3A79-T.
Looks like the 1090T is gonna hit 4.2g easy
This is gotta p1ss0ff the guys that are under NDA. I wonder if amd will let them post sooner.
Thanks for sharing this! Can't wait to see more :)
1.536v is a little high for these things, your temps on air must be 70C unless u have a serious fan on it.
And are you also interested to run this Chess test!
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=202139
This will give me a lot information how strong this cpu is!
more results please... ^_^
this will sell like hotcakes for sure.
IMAMAGE, VERY important question for you.
Can u use higher than stock multipliers up to the end of the turbo range , or just x14 ?
Try setting it manually with and without turbo, use base 200mhz HTT in this test please :).Its very important question for all the peeps that wont buy BE version of this :-)
Try,bios and software like K10stat and AMD Overdrive.
Oh, and second thing, is your bios officialy certified with X6 ? Im wondering because there is high probablity that even the not certified ones could work with X6 no problem, just maybe without turbo feature.
FYI , I have paired the HSF with Delta 12cm fan (2500rpm),Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Even under full CPU usage 100%
It's not as hot as you think
The voltage seems not right all the time
i have a delta fan myself, might as well hook up the vacuum cleaner to the PC its that freaking strong. (except i have 2, so i should get a TRUE and put them in push/pull, lol)Quote:
Originally Posted by imamage
and i do know the voltages fluctuate, what did u actually set it at? 1.5?
For Biostar TA890GXE , it's officialy certified to support X6 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
I will get more done tomorrow
Have to wake up early tomorrow at 8 AM (for work)
It's 2:15AM now, I barely have enough sleep :(
what is the power consumption at that voltage?Quote:
Originally Posted by imamage
wow thanks imamage!
:confused::confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
edit: double post fail :shakes:
i know this may sound noobish, but are all the BE heatsinks the one with heatpipes? do all thuban's come with it? are they any good?
just wondering because i remember all the old FX's and opteron's came with heatpipe heatsinks and they were almost on par with the thermalright xp-90s.
sleep now imamage. We will be waiting for the 4Ghz results ^_^
Thanks for sharing.
AMD (247 Viewing)
CPU's & Motherboards
Intel (105 Viewing)
CPU's & Motherboards
Seems when imamage comes the no of people in AMD section gets boosted... Imamage Boost hehe
not sure what your confused about. if the voltage really is 1.53, thats way higher than ANY 45nm Phenom needs for 3.6ghz, even my PII940 dinosaur. which is why i didnt believe that to be the actual voltage. and if you look at power envelopes, 1.53v would be over 200W im sure. to get peek OCing 1.45v is typically the top for air cooling, since as you go any higher, your temps get too high and its unstable. but as we can see hes got his built for benching, so he should be ok for some some 1.5v suicide runs, but that voltage is for water cooling generally.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
OK before I head for bed, last treat for tonight :)
Phenom II x6 1055T @ 3.9GHz
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1132656
- wPrime 32M
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...4d6edd10ff.jpg
- 3DMark 06 CPU only
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...ac3c3d2ec5.jpg
- Everest
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...57684a41d3.jpg
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...eb941b25a5.jpg
- SiSoft Sandra
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...476d2b0a9e.jpg
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...eaac8b01d0.jpg
http://www.hkepc.com/forum/attachmen...b7eafb58df.jpg
For 4GHz....I guess I need better luck + time to deal with
eeek so close to 4Ghz :D should have just tried 4Ghz instead of 3.9Ghz :)
Thanks for reply IMAMAGE, when you wake up tomorrow and have some time, please check this multiplier thing, and also i see in your sig you have M3A79T, pop in thuban there without upgrading the bios ;-).THX AGAIN ,its nice to see again someone with balls to do pre release benchmarks on XS :-D
i think the ram might be a limit, its 50mhz faster than your previous runs, might wanna drop that down if you were shooting for 4ghz only.
still 40% OC on a top end cpu is sick
i just think 1.5v is perfectly save for air cooling w/ good airflow, even up to 1.55 w/ push pullQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
air - s1283 w/ ultrakaze 57c max on cores
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i8...minprimeC3.jpg
water - loop in sig 47c max on cores
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i8...imeC3water.jpg
PcCI2iminal has one and did not even come here to give a review :(
sending angry PM now :P
ohhh, preliminary benches look good, its safe to say 4ghz is doable for most people on air.And thats with 2 cores more and on same procution node.
GOOD JOB AMD.Its good that turbo feature works with overclocking also.
When i buy 1035T its going to run at 12x256=3.3ghz for all cores and 4.1ghz with 3 cores.What a nice F-g upgrade for a 3 year old mobo ;-D
Double fail post, XS is hammered by peeps looking at this ;-)
From HWBOT:
wPrime 32m - 4sec 727ms - Luca (no team) - (AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE @5808MHz [#1 Phenom II X6 1090T BE in wPrime 32m] )
wPrime 32m - 5sec 320ms - Luca (no team) - (AMD Phenom II X6 1035T @4960MHz [#1 Phenom II X6 1035T in wPrime 32m] )
Thanks a lot Imamage!!! :up:
Can you run this video encoding benchmark? (x264 rules!!)
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520
Thanks and GO!!! :D
http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread...=236011&page=6
AMD 1055T 4.2Ghz Cinebench R11.5 hit 7.38 :clap:
WOW :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by moonhunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonhunter
:up::up:
I misread that and what i saw was 1055T hits 7.38Ghz :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by moonhunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
Ermm.... :D :up: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by moonhunter
those are quads. and safe vs recommended is different, as temps go up, stability goes down, and most 24/7 people i think run 1.4 or 1.45v, because that last bit gained by 1.5+ is usually small and comes with alot of heat dump. i remember people who pushed 1.7v for a quick run without killing the chips. and my point still was right, 1.53v for 3.6ghz is not whats needed i hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
Manicdan: watch for AMD documents...really, 1.55 with good temps is safe. We talking about 45nm AMD SOI, not about Intels high-k. Its so diferent...
lol again, im not saying its not safe, im sayin its not needed for 3.6ghz, thats it, i just said people have pushed 1.7v without extreme cooling. do that in intel and kaboomQuote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Manicdan is correct that 1.53v for 3.6ghz is not needed or required. These chips can do 4+ Ghz with 1.5+v
they are quads but 1.5v will be same wattage/heat output regardless of # of cores, right? im not sure but thats how i have understood it
edit: correct in saying 1.5+ is overkill for 3.6ghz but he needed same voltages for 3.9ghz. 1.5+ was not the minimum needed for 3.6ghz he could probably do that w/ ~1.47v w/ some tuning i think
we all have to remember that its the same 45nm node that x4 uses.Its 50% more cores! So i would not expect HIGHER than C3 overclockability (and not every c3 chip does 4gz stable)
low-k dielectricQuote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/18731
What makes me smile is that it's done in 64bit mode :DQuote:
Originally Posted by moonhunter
I truly can't wait to get one for myself!
I see, thats good to know.However its still 45nm.Getting SAME overclockability and 50% more cores is mindblowing already ;-).If it will overclock even higher ,that would be da bomb.It would mean that with turboing 3 cores could go past 4ghz pretty easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Just a reference:
http://benchmarkreviews.com/images/r..._Benchmark.jpg
he also said it was reading voltages wrong. so its very possible his bios isnt perfect and he tried it with 1.4x and it comes out 1.5x. i know my bios hates amd overdrive voltage tweeking, so i only do that in the biosQuote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
this is getting better and better...........My wish for 4.2ghz looks like it may come true and then some......this cpu looks like a hit for the price!
I also wish your wish comes true :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Titan7171
It looks great because in performance it seems to perform almost same as bloomfield's c2c and when you add in that 1090T is suppose to be $300 its pure pure win because i7 950 is 3Ghz and i7 930 is 2.8Ghz.
That only leaves i7 980x on top and from my est. AMD will need really fast chips to reach that. So Thuban ~ Bloomfield and Gulftown for the rich and famous :yepp:
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
I can see AMD taking the $200-300 segment with Thuban soon. :up:
I wanted Thuban to equal deneb in clockability and it looks like its happening......this is a good time for AMD:)Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
What i find is very interesting is the fact that Bloomfield actually needs HT to keep up with Thuban so this is a very positive sign indeed.
What this means is that in real world tests Thuban may actually do quite good, bench's are more dependent on HT than real world tests.
True to that. Just the fact that Thuban can smash i7 930/860 in Cinebench and 3DMark06 CPU, these were indeed a very good signs of what will happen in real-world scenarios. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Manicdan: yes, right, my example lower:
profile 1: 1.35V (undrevolted) 3718Mhz/2620Mhz
profile2: 1.375V (undervolted) 3825Mhz/2550 MHz
profile3: 1.44V 3950MHz 28xx NB
profile4: 1.5V 4010MHz 28xxNB
max stability 1.536V 4032MHz
As i see, efectivity going up profile 3, others MHz are not good for increase voltage (for 60 MHz i need +0.16V)
Quote:
Originally Posted by imamage
Congrats dude from Argentina!!
I canīt wait to get one! Finally I will be able to render faster!
Thx!
Man these are some good initial results. 7.38 Cinebench score?? Wow, lovin it!
Yes its 45nm, but as stated above with ultra low k. Think about 45nm v2.0 ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
Less power is leaked, thus less heat is produced, thus people could use higher vcore, because the heat/power limit is not reached as early as with the old 45nm process.
Very good indeed ... I wonder how the 1090Ts will perform. 4.5 GHz ? :up:
Is it possible to do a x264 bench test?
Iīm wondering if the 785 mobos from the actual generation will support all the features of this CPU, like the "Turbo" mode..
Thx!
Looks like efficiency is up a good 5% too :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan7171
It's actually the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opteron146
Some impressive numbers indeed. I still think low end bloomfield aka i7 930 would edge it out though. I'm on the fence about building a dedicated media encoding rig and it's between the x6 or the i7 930. It'll all boil down to whichever of these is $200 or lower and how well it competes against the bloomfield. I have a Microcenter near me so I'll be factoring in the fact that I could pick up a i7 930 for $199.99.
Exactly :). The low-k dielectrics prove to really help quite a bit in low rc wire delay and less leakage power(a strong point for Thuban turbo mode implementation!). Practically what AMD achieved with Thuban (same power envelope or better-140W 965BE- while adding 50% more cores along with Turbo Core ability) almost equals intels 45->32nm transition since intel added 50% more cores and more cache and stayed roughly in the same power envelope of 130W the older QC top of the line bloomfiled chip at the same clock had! The difference is that intel expanded L3 cache in Westmere design ,but their cache is inclusive and they just didn't want to go lower with cache/core ratio when compared to Bloomfield. AMD's L3 cache is exclusive spill over cache and increasing it over 6MBs for 6 core chip wouldn't make much difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opteron146
So chips with ultra-low-k will run hotter :ROTF: ?Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-KQuote:
Replacing the silicon dioxide with a low-κ dielectric of the same thickness reduces parasitic capacitance, enabling faster switching speeds and lower heat dissipation.
dont waste your time Opteron146, this is the same guy that said these chips would be better off with no turbo
One thing it doesn't allow is higher voltages though...
You're talking about two different things. A high leakage chip (leaks power) and therefore runs cooler, whereas the opposite is true for a low leakage chip. It is about efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opteron146
Also, low heat dissipation = means a hotter chip; no? The heat generated from current has to go somewhere.
Edit: Did you realize I highlighted a particular portion of your post? Don't try to throw blinds here.
That's one argument, the other argument is that the Nehalem's L3 cache is kind of a L2.5 Cache.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Each core has its 2MB L3 slice, which could be accessed faster than the other 2MB slices. That's also the reason why overall L3 cache latency is higher for Gulftown, I guess the cache slices are connected through a ring bus. With 6 cores you'll get 2 more stops -> higher latency.
Why is everyone trying to do cpu technology 101 here?..........what is it thats trying to be explained here? This is the same technology as Deneb basically. Please take the Intel tech talk/ somewhere else
High leakage means more power is turned into heat.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
High leakage chips are more suited for LN2 because they are leaky transistors and like to use more voltage.
Low leakage is more efficient but less tolerant to voltage and puts out less heat in general.
Will you guys stop argueing and babbling like idiots and acting like you know everything now? I mean everyone.
You seem to be a funny guy .... did YOU see what I quote above and which part was highlighted ?Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
Quote:
lower heat dissipation.
LowER means less heat dissipation than without low-k.
If you do not know what's heat-dissipation is ... please google it ;)
@crazydiamond:
I guess you are right ...
@BeepBeep2:
Why not ?Quote:
One thing it doesn't allow is higher voltages though...
@ Opteron146
It's pointless to argue with him since he actually believes (shock ensues!) that a high leakage chip runs ,wait for it,wait for it, cooler .The dude just redefined physics laws :p: .
Oh BTW, I guess he didn't hear of AMD Tweaker Edition either :p:. Those were some great clocking high leakage chips,but they ran hot as hell and consumed A LOT of power/heat. That's why AMD never intended to sell them in the first place,they were bad for retail since they were actually a lot less efficient than regular Denebs...
Its gonna be one long intel visit in the AMD section.........Dont they have another new expensive socket coming out that they can talk about,lol.
It probably just won't scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opteron146
Core i7 uses high-k and is pretty power efficient, and on 45nm they use no more than 1.3v on avg.
AMD's TWKR 42 CPU was a Deneb CPU that did not meet any power requirement or thermal requirement for their lineup. It runs really hot at the same voltages as normal CPU's and sucks way more voltage (want) and power (need). This made it suitable for LN2 cooling where an air or water cooler won't be a limitation and you can feed it insanely high voltages. C2 TWKR's ran almost as fast as good C3 retail CPU's under LN2.
Lower leakage means low heat and more efficiency but less scaling with voltage. Of course, if it runs faster anyway it won't matter. Some CPU's on air/water won't scale much over 1.48v, some 1.55v. It's all different and there is a sweet-spot. My CPU runs hot under stability testing and loves to take 1.55v all day and 1.6v+ for validations. While some people hit my speeds at ~1.45v
Contradictions galore! Since you insist on me spelling it out in layman terms, let me oblige.
A high leakage chip is very inefficient at utilizing power (because of the leaks) so at say 1.20v, a high leakage chip will generally run cooler (than the more efficient, low-leakage chip). The low-leakage chip, because it utilizes power more efficiently also generates more heat because you have to realize that: input power = output heat. What you're describing is a process improvement, not a high leakage chip characteristic. The reason why high lekage chips are suitable for ln2 is simply because they can take more voltage; more voltage=more power=more heat <- needs to be cooled by ln2. Makes sense?
Benches that show greater improvements from HT are also the same ones that show greater improvements from extra cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
It won't run cooler... A high leakage chip will run hot as hell,but it WILL scale with voltage and you WILL need to cool it to the extreme since the leakage current will then SKYROCKET with more voltage you add. You can see all this with TWKR edition chips,these are great examples. You need to understand that less leakage means less wasted power and less heat,period. Leakage current is a bad thing,a big problem in process tech. business.
How much do I have to dumb this downQuote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
A fluorescent light bulb is like a low leakage transistor. Light represents work being done and heat equals the heat from a transistor.
An incandescent bulb represents a high leakage part, in which more energy is converted to heat and work per watt efficiency goes down.
You don't make sense and you contradict everything anyone has ever tested or seen or proven. :ROTF:
no, leaky chips are hotter, hence they are less efficient ( electric wise )Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
Let's take two chips; one with leaky transistors and one with not so leaky transistors.
the chip with not so leaky transistors consumes 125W under load. That 125w is converted to heat.
the chip with leaky transistors consumes the 125W plus more (let's say 140W) because some power is being lost due to the leaking. that 140W is being converted to heat.
The leaky chip is outputting 140W of heat compared to the 125W of the not so leaky chip. It runs hotter.
OhNoes! has just self-destructed in a bad way... One thing is being wrong,whole other is digging your self even deeper with even bigger nonsense.
Now back to Thuban 1055T OCing fun :). We need imamage awake and testing that bad boy ASAP :)
Maybe he is Bizzaro Superman where everything is opposite:rofl::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
I guess I'm lost here
I thought this thread was about the Phenom II x6 1055T
oh well....
@OhNoes
Watts = Voltage times Amps. In a computer, the voltage that the cpu gets stays pretty much the same, it draws on the 12v rail. Given that at least one variable in that equation is a constant, the power that a chip draws is proportional to the amps, the amount of current. In a high leakage and low leakage chip voltage is applied and stays the same, but the current is different for each chip. Let me explain this by the following example. You and your friend are in an open flat meadow standing 30 yards apart. If you try to whisper to your friend of course he cannot hear you, if you yell he can hear you, but he can hear you best if you cup your hands around your mouth and yell. In this example, voltage is the distance the sound has to travel, it is constant, amps is how loud you have to yell to be heard, and watts is how loud you sound to your friend. If you just yell at your friend, he will hear you (high leakage chip), but if you cup your hands around your mouth and yell, he will hear you better and louder since you are directing the sound at him instead of just in his general direction (low leakage chip). So the more and more you have to yell, the hoarser your voice will get due to strain. When you have to give more current, you produce more watts. In a cpu this extra current that is being applied to make the chip work, alot of it is wasted energy, and that is heat. Heat is a byproduct of wasted energy since the foundation of physics is based on the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed. For the same voltage, if you have to put in less amps(current) into the chip to make it work, it will of course have lower watts than a chip that requires more amps to run. Leakage is the term being used for requiring more current and thus also creating much more heat. So when someone says high leakage chip that means that particular chip requires more amps to run than a low leakage chip. When applied to the formula W = V x A where in computers V is a constant and doesnt change, the more amps, the more Watts that will be produced.
The reason the rev C2 Phenom II X4 965 were 140w and the rev C2 Phenom II X4 955 were 125w is due to the fact that the 965s required more amps to operate at their stock speeds, and thus drew more watts. It isnt rocket science, but pure and simple Physics.
^all i see is blah blah blah, ohnoes needs to stay out of the amd section blah blah blah