But we do know i7 actually has performance issues with high(++) settings in Far Cry 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontl1ne
At first I thought it was a single reviewer's anomaly, but I'm seeing more sources being coherent in this one.
Printable View
But we do know i7 actually has performance issues with high(++) settings in Far Cry 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontl1ne
At first I thought it was a single reviewer's anomaly, but I'm seeing more sources being coherent in this one.
Mind if you show us the sources... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
This one http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...-core-i7-920/7 contradicts with the so-called (fishy/dodgy) "benchmarks" http://www.freeimagehosting.net/imag...a4e1257410.jpg :down:
Note its using the same graphics card also, GTX280, and same resolution 1680x1050. ;)
just out of interest, are these shanghais for SpecInt?
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...110-05957.html
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
Well, blame me for being gullible!Quote:
Originally Posted by lo squartatore
Nehalem also has a TLB bug :rofl:
more details: http://download.intel.com/design/pro...pdt/320836.pdf
they don't even look like graphs. they look like someone drew boxes. but why would someoe fake those graphs? the data is rather tepid and inconclusive.
I think the word you are looking for is naieve...:shrug: I can't believe the two of you actually argued over those fake numbers with reasoning.:ROTF: Hell, I was beginning to think I should just buy a 9950 looking at those fake numbers when I first saw them.:rofl: BTW, the keyboard comment was a tad immature. Makes me wonder where the mods are at. A little order is due in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Already "old" news here http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=209479 :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Non-event anyway.. ;)
Why?....Because ignorance has no bounds.:shakes:....and some people have no life so they put their efforts toward BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slovnaft
Massive gains clock for clock in single threaded spec int testswhen compared to 65nm Agena: 23% and 20% for int2006 and int_base2006.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
I still remember the words of savantu who said 3-7% improvement per clock at most... Now we know how that ended up.
Sorry, I couldn't find that in the standard english dictionary; what does it mean? Stop throwing words around, Throwed. :slapass:Quote:
Originally Posted by Throwed
I'm sorry...one too many e's in my spelling as I was posting. Maybe this will help....Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
naive-Lacking worldly experience and understanding.
-Simple and guileless.
-Synonym: Unsophisticated
BTW, I will "throw" a million words if it stops this useless bickering. This is a community. Lets respect one another better.:up:....or I will pop your mouth. ;)
I hope this doesnt go on until release........i was spending lots of time here untill 4 days ago, these arguments are really boring. Most of us hope for a better cpu than Phenom 1 and it looks like we will get it. Please ignore all those fake results till we get some official info from people we can trust?......Peace!
I have to concur with this. There just aren't enough games at the moment which use it, though there does seem to be evidence that this might be changing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Throwed