God, those results are quite amazing if true.Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
Printable View
God, those results are quite amazing if true.Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
if this is true.. then Intel needs to get something fast..Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
my 4.6Ghz sandy 2600k does a wprime 32m at 6.25sek... 4/8 threads.
While I can hope it is real, at the same time, I'm trying to be real myself and not gonna get too hyped over a single screenshot that may or may not be fake :p:
I don't want to base anything I purchase on pre-release screens. I suggest others keep a cool head as well ;)
So @ Wprime, it's faster than the 2600K @ 4.8ghz and a bit slower than the 990X at stock speeds, according to that screenshot. Not too shabby!
That's called the 2800K, according to gigabyte_cpuz_readme.txt. Dunno if it will be enough tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by dpa
I guess we'll see much more stuff like this in the next two weeks..
well, phenom II x6 did well on wprime too and superpi is easy to excellerate.
No spuprise there, wprime scales good with cores and mem speed/timings. But results look good.
I done wprime at 3.9ghz thuban - 7.251sec(32M)
wprime 1024M - 227secs
superpi 1M - 17secs :D
SuperPi is easy to accelerate?Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Look at AMD's history with SuperPi from Athlon (XP) to Phenom II...
This is a 100% increase in efficiency compared to Phenom II in SuperPi :shocked:
RAM, uncore do nothing in wprime on AMD. Not sure about intel side but tuning ram for wprime doesnt gain much. ...not saying this arch cant be differentQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Yes AMD just upgraded x87 instructions. Got tired from being owned by Intel cpus :D
i wouldn't mind knowing the NB, HT, Mem speeds, and timings though.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
You can see HT 3.2hz
SuperPi Mod v1.5
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im...dge/chart8.jpg
wPRIME 2.03
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im...dge/chart9.jpg
this is completely insane if those results are true
1 ghz turbo is very impressive; additionally this is only a STOCK 95W chip beating sandybridge ocd to 4.5ghz?! :eek:
imagine what the 3.2ghz base frequency 125W chip does? i smell 4ghz+ turbo and performance higher than 990x on a significantly cheaper platform (cheaper socket + dual channel + weaker pwm + less layers)
first reviews will tell the truth about real world performance in application but this looks much better than the older leaks
and there goes not being too excited about this shot :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by generics_user
i smell fake btw.
Also, it would be safe to assume that during those tests chip was running at 3.8ghz all the time or most of the time with all cores, so if it is the case, then those results are not that impressive for those who do not oveclock. But in that case who would stop you from setting the multi at 19 and keep it that way all the time :)
yeah, when it is too good to be true, with amd it rarely is :)Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
I'm confident BD will turn out to be a good chip but I also don't trust anything coming out of Rumorpedia.
you missed the most important part: "if true"Quote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
i don't really trust this screen, the cpu-z screen lacks cache info despite supporting BD according to the readme, Interlagos Support is very unlikely because it's supposed to come 1 quarter after zambezi?
maybe this screen paved the way for some other leaks :)
That's not even the top binned chip, according to the earlier slide.
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4016/42398317.jpg
No comment on the validity of the benchmarks. I can believe the WPrime ones but that SuperPi one looks too fast for me to believe.
I call BS :yepp:
It would be good to know how come there is 3.8ghz shown - is something still running?Quote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
If it was at 3.8 for the benchmarks, then the improvments in wprime could be only assosiated with the 33% cores increase. But if we remember that the turbo for all cores running supposed to be 500mhz and wprime most likely doesn' t stress the whole cpu enough to disable turbo, then it was running at 3.3ghz during those tests... and that would mean over 50% improvment.... for 33% more cores, just like promised! :O
Hm, I remember John(JF-AMD) mentioning those 500Mhz with all cores active. But he was talking about Interlagos 16cores beast. I would think desktop Zambezi chips might have more of that turbo :)
guys, if u look at this ss u can find a few obvious errors -> fake.