I need to see to believe.
But who knows they are taking this long for the release so it must be something good.
Printable View
I need to see to believe.
But who knows they are taking this long for the release so it must be something good.
this might be with two CPUs.
I'm hoping it's with a single quad core CPU.
DAMN YOU AMD HURRY YOURSELVES UP I HATE THE SUSPENSE. I NEED TO KNOW IF I SHOULD BUY A PENRYN OR A K10 NOW.
I think you might be onto something there....Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
We will just have to wait and see, even if they match intel it will make for good competition, and makes it all better for us as well.
Im excited either way. When new cpus come out things get very interesting in the community (and my bank account)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Face
Horse :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: imo
Of course they will, and AMD will make a much better chip later on too, and back and forth. Nothing new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jass
From the way you put that though, it sounds like an intel fanboy statement to me...
I gotta say, i smell the BS.
Inq or no Inq.... Theo is a straight forward guy.
Do we need to debate this for the next 2 weeks? 100 people who don't actually know anything arguing whether or not someone else actually knows anything.
Kind of humorous if you ask me :D :rofl:
yesQuote:
Originally Posted by RyderOCZ
Either way, sept 10th and more so sept 11 things are going to explode. I wonder if this was intentional?
If that is true AMD has got a winner on its hands again!
Something to consider is that since Theo's laptop was stolen, perhaps AMD gave the Inq permission to post the numbers and be in control of it before whomever the thief was posted what they found. (provided the thief could access his laptop and had any idea what is happening in the tech world).
Not saying this is true or not but seems like you havent realized that this is a 3GHz part probably cherry picked from many and far from mass production speeds.
We dont even know if a Quad will overclock to 3GHz on air at launch.
This is what i know:
K10 was going to beat badly intel if:
1 AMD delivered it when they planed to that is at least 6 months befor the 10 of sept.
2 AMD didnt have so many leakage problems and could get the CPUs at a decent clock speed at launch.
So Intel have had 45nm CPUs for at least 3 months now if they needed to launch them and they are only waiting for AMD and not that worried because with 45nm and 8-10% performance increase from Penryn core Intel can lower prices a lot and push the clocks speeds enough then comes Nehalem the real K10 fighter / killer
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by RyderOCZ
you really should sig that cause i'm pretty sure i've seen you post it before :DQuote:
Originally Posted by RyderOCZ
me agrees with ya
plus Theo has given us most of the info needed to replicate these results when the CPUs come out so we will know for sure whether he lied or not soon
i doubt he's go shooting himself in the foot though :confused:
This looks doubtfull, as this is just a reincarnation of K8. But, then again, it could possibly be true as well.
The way that I look at it, is this. The Inq is already known for BS. But, I would think that if they already knew that the legitamacy of their claims was being questioned, that they wouldn't drop this big of a bomb, and not be right.
If these results are true, then it is possible that AMD is trying to catch Intel off guard, and knock them on their a**.
wait a second... they got 30k score using windows vista???
also DDR2????
Indeed I believe this is finally it. K10 is here and Intel are cooked :)
:up: AMD......I ****ING LOVE YOU :up:
Don't be so quick, I think we should wait for verification from another source.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
Also, intel won't be cooked, they've engrained themselves so deeply into the market (by whatever means necessary practically) that they aren't going anywhere. K8 whooped intel for 3 years and they easily survived it.
Theo was the guy who claimed AMD's 65nm K8s were going to launch at 3.2GHz, per "voices from the east". Never retracted.Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonelCain
The datapoints cannot both be correct, as 3dmark06 does not scale like that. (23.7K @ 2.5GHz, 30K @ 3GHz with 10% boost to GPU). That's a 26% score increase with 20% cpu freq boost and 10% gpu speed boost. Bzzzt. Wrong. So it calls everything into question.
Something else I picked out of this "article" to re enforce it's status as BS is...
Now, just how exactly is that possible? Anybody that knows how memory is handled will know. But is basically this: A 32bit OS only has 4GB total memory addresses. So with 2 512MB cards taking up the 1st GB that would leave Windows with an allocatable 3GB of system RAM, not 3.24GB.Quote:
the 32-bit version was installed in a system with 4GB of memory, needless to say the system detected 3.24GB, and benchmarketing commenced.
This is BS and it did exactly what the writer intended it to do: Stir up controversy and draw attention to their sad excuse of a site (the INQ that is)
Um, you obviously don't have 2900's. Nor do you know ANYTHING about how system ram is handled.:fact:
they take a mere 256mb of system ram, thanks. Vista Home premium, 32. Not EVERY memory address must be accounted for, really. Heck, 256MB 9800 pro's only used 128MB of vidram, at the beginning...
Guess you don't run dual cards, period, 'cause that's been the case for 512MB cards since day one.:fact:
Nevermind, my system right now has phys-X, 128mb, and removing it DOES NOT CHANGE THE AMT OF AVAILABLE SYSTEM ram. You gotta stop beleiving everything you read, man.
A 512MB card that windows only allocates 256MB of RAM to? I doubt it, and if that's the case then there is obviously something very wrong with them or the drivers. Because in order for windows to use or even know the memory is there, it has to assign it a memory address. If it's only assigning them 256MB each, then there is something clearly wrong with them. It is not possible for Windows to use un addressed memory, since if it's not addressed it doesn't exist to windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
And I do run dual 8800GTXs and in 32Bit XP it only shows a max of 2.5GB of RAM available when both of my GTXs are installed.
Sucks to be you, then i guess.
Open your MIND man.
(BTW, take no offense, none intended, however, i got 2900's, 6 of them, right here, and many systems w/ 4GB of ram. i know how things work, you, do not, as you have never had teh hardware)
Open my mind you say? I've run dual card setups for a long time, and every time in a 32bit OS windows allocates all of the memory that both video cards posses.Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
2 8800GTXs = 1.5GB of memory addresses
2 X1950XTXs = 1GB of memory addresses
2 7900GTs = 512MB of memory addresses
Or are you trying to say that only for me this is different?
Um, yeah, cause you aren't running 2900's, nor do you havea phys-X, and obviously you set up a system, and keep it going for long periods.
I rarely keep a build together for a week before pulling it apart.
I bench. I play games. But i'm getting old, and my hands can't handle the games any more, so now i bench more.
BTW, you got Vista? You know Vista can overstep the 2GB memory address limit for applications, by virtualization? Memory mangement is not the same as it was before.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105
(released today, BTW)
OK if you say so :rolleyes: So your 2900s are somehow able to overcome the very principles of the way memory is handled in Windows? BS.....Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
Since when can 32-bit Vista react any different than 32-Bit XP? its still 32-bit and it doesn't seem to be coded like 32-bit Server2003 which handles it fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
I deal with people every day that wonder where their ram went with 32-bit Vista.
Ryder, come now, you of all people should know that this is really dependant on the BIOS. PAE switch does nothing if you do not have bios support, correct? PAE oversteps the hardware system ram allocation, does it not?
Now, go get a P5K, dump in 4gb of your OCZ ram, load up vista with a single 2900, and tell me how much ram you have.
Now, add a second card.
Now, add a phys-X.
Still got 3070MB, don't ya?
:stick:
Just because things should be so, doesn't mean they are. Ideals almost never happen.
Also:
Quote:
To virtualize video memory, the video memory manager in Windows Vista assigns a virtual address range to every video memory resource. This range is conceptually similar to the copy that an application might create. However, the video memory manager manages the process more efficiently than the application might. The video memory manager uses the virtual address range to handle transitions or over-commitment of video memory. However, the virtual address range is typically unused on a system that has lots of video memory. As long as this virtual address range remains unused, no physical memory is allocated for it. In contrast, the system memory copy that is maintained in the older driver model is guaranteed to be fully populated with physical memory.
From the hotfix.
Yes, because it's the bios that assigns that physical ram allocation, not windows. Seriously dude, check for yourself, with someone who REALLY knows what they are talking about, 'cause your sources are flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
I will see what I can do Cadaveca.
Let's get back on Topic and not argue about where the ram goes ;)
Agreed. The point made by Theo is that the bios is not properly addressing the ram, and this in no way indicates that his info is false or fake, agreed?Quote:
Originally Posted by RyderOCZ
I am merely pointing out that Craptacular's logic here is flawed, the ram allocation part really has no importance as to how the system performs, nor does it indicate how many components are installed, and in no way affects getting a system to score 30k in '06.
I'm not saying that it how it "got" to 30k (which I still think is BS) in 06 or that it has anyrhing to do with the score itself but in every 32bit build I've had (and believe me I've had a few) there is a memory allocation that is identical to the amount of RAM on your video cards. I have only tested it with 32bit XP and not Vista since my Vista install is 64bit. If they have changed the way that the OS addresses memory in Vista 32bit then I was not aware of it. And I'm certainly not going to wipe my 64bit Vista install just to screw areound with a 32bit memory allocation issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
Also, f I'm reading that article correctly, they are circumventing the memory allocation in Windows but they are still unable to overcome it 2GB max allocatable memory to a single given process. So that begs the question: What's the point of even being able to see more RAM then if you won't ever use it on a single app?
There could be quite a loud thud on 9.10.07 if this does prove to be true... all of us fainting in concerted shock... and the price on everything that is Intel falling. :D
Nah, let's get real...
Thanks for the valuable comparison. This post brought me out of post hibernation because it gave me so much hope for AMD making a comeback :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
And so is the P4 vs A64. Fugger is probably right, however hardly anyone actually runs 3DMark05 in seriousness anymore. It's all 06 it seems. Inquirer is notoriously BS, so I'm not believing one bit. But no one should think for even a minute that its an impossible situation. Improbable, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by kemo6600
Let's just sit back and wait a couple weeks, shall we? ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
100% agree with you.... ;)
Maybe it was done at 800 x 600 or so.....just to see the cpu performance etc... :)
For example: a SINGLE VGA bench at 1150 x I don't remember :D , gained ~ 1800 more marks.....Now....IF we ran it at 800 x 600, I think that we will get WAY more marks...... ;)
Can someone test default bench and then again at 800 x 600?....
Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
At which resolution Charles?.... :)
I dont believe in this! I remember "magic scores" of HD2900 before official launch, and todays scores ... :D
It is only marketing massage, the same like with HD2900 ... nothing more ...
last time I checked all thsoe magic scores which were popping up two weeks before the DNA was up were WORSE than today's...Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
Nothing against AMD !
Its just about this thread, TEN PAGES arguments just about "vapour", unbelievable !
At least all this talk will end shortly...Quote:
Originally Posted by bing
What about all the more in-depth discussion/arguments about future architecture/marchitectures for CPUs and GPUs. Those seem to start at least a year or two before we will ever get the product.
well not exactly "vapour" however I do think we should speculate less until the NDA is lifted on September 10th...Quote:
Originally Posted by bing
I do like all the mystery that is shrouded upon K10. Hopefulle AMD will strike back and we'll have dirt cheap C2Q's for a change :p
well it is inherant that we make a big deal out of this until the NDA is over.
see some people bought c2qs and c2ds lately and don't want to feel like they got ripped off. Others are looking to buy soon and are hoping beyond hope that it kicks ass so they can brag over all the people with "lowly core 2s"
So let's repost the possible explanations.
It's all K10 and it is a :shocked: BEAST. (highly improbable)
RD790 + Pcie-2.0 (highly improbable)
3dMark05 scores. (highly improbable if Theo's email can be taken at face value)
Tri-Crossfire. (somewhat probable, rough estimates would put K10@3ghz around 6k CPUmarks plus Theo's email)
Not default resolution. (highly probable since no mention was made anywhere in the article)
Hey guys, be it true or not completely true...
it's still probably a much better sign compared to the news about k10 we had up till now: At least now it's very likely it won't totally suck really bad :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
You never stop making wasteful posts, first have you understood what he said?. He said the system had 4GB of ram and the Windows detected 3.24 now tell me what is wrong with that?. Sometimes windows does not recognize more than it was detected, because bios or config differs with amount of hardware ram processing, listen man he just told us the truth to what happened in that occasion, as I pointed earlier that 3D mark calculator I distrust at all because this system contained many new improvements, features never seen or benchmarked before. So probably they will update it later as for now I distrust it.
Please stop with the nonsense, double posts, wasted sentences, crap speaking and the most important have some education, read it before you reply, stop saying all the time it is a BS, looks like you got a day off to be trolling this thread.
hehe yep....Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostfaith
the problem is the comparison to current amd and intel cpu's....
k10 might even end up faster than whats around currently...
but...
(i'll just say one word i promise)
nehalem
shintai reckons that 32 bit vista can use all 4gb of ram (i think?). some other guy said "theo wasn't sure if it was tri-fire". and someone else thinks HD 2900s use 256mb of system memory.
so, the system was running tri-fire, with 4gb memory detected, and each 2900 using 256mb. usable memory = 3.24gb. plausible?
Video memory is different than system memory, but then who knows what really happened because many things are new at this very moment. It was a different config after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollo
Exactly, and from the Inq at that. We're from Xtremesystems, and we're taking :banana::banana::banana::banana: from a dumbass from the Inq who calls Vista Ultimate, "Windows ME2 (Vista) Ultimate)? Are you kidding me? Wtf is ME2? Let's wait for someone more reputable to get their hands on the chip before we start making assumptions. Personally, I would have to say 30k my ass if the graphic cards are in 2x crossfire, but we'll see. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. Can't really prove or disprove anything right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by bing
And I have to say, you should take your own advice. 3dmark is calculated using a formula. They don't pull the numbers out of their ass every time you benchmark. There are set formulas. What you're hinting at is that futuremark decided to hide a bunch of features that wasn't to be benchmarked till later? I don't know that much about futuremark's 3dmark calculation, but I highly doubt it. The numbers all just input into formula. Just as you calculate the pythagorean theorum by inputting the values of "A" and "B" from a diagram of a triangle, 3dmark inputs the numbers it receives from the testing into the equation, regardless. If it was as subjective as you do hint, we wouldn't use it as a general benchmarking tool becuase if there's no uniformity, how can you compare systems? Your own post is wasteful in itself and you continue to repeat that you distrust 3dmark when your logic doesn't make any reasonable sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
i am not talking about AMD vs Intel ,, i am talking about 2900 CF that wont break 30K on air ,, for me 30K on air is impossible even with Nehalem ,, much more CPU power will result in low gain in SM2/SM3 ,,, 50% more powerful CPU will only do 20% gain SM2 and 10% SM3 , slightly more slightly lessQuote:
Originally Posted by FlawleZ
So a 4.5GHZ Qx run with 2900CF will do say 21K
9K SM2
9.5K SM3
6K CPU
give it 50% more CPU power , better drivers , PCI-e 2.0
12K SM2 33% gain
12.5K SM3 30% gain
9K CPU 50% gain
so even that scenario wont break 30K ,,, it is just impossible to do it with 2900XT and i am not talking about K10
any way it is only two weeks and people will buy whatever perform better after OC with respect to price ,,, so if 2900XT and K10 can do 30K even if 05 imagine what a 9800GTX will do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well is up to you believe it or not. I said I distrust because I am a programmer so I know how things work, and you personal flame proves you are nowhere worth to talk about. It is better you take my advice because this is not the first time software or formulas were bashed off.
K10 will be successful. The Phenom will poison intel to the core.
DDR800 with a 3000MHz K8?Quote:
Originally Posted by theINQ
*cough* DDR750MHz *cough*
Are there non-integer dividers on K10?
Actually it would be located above the 4GB on Vista32. Both Vista32 and XP32 is artificial limited to 4GB. However they both support PAE (36bit).Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
The issue is with XP32 the artificial limitation is amde so these addreses have to be under the 4GB. On Vista32 it can be over gaining a full 4GB.
But yes, each GFX card on a PCIe port would allocate 512MB and PCI devices 256MB. People with 7950GX2 in SLI would also know they are down to 2GB approx on XP. So its not right in any way...looks like another RHT from Theo.
The inquirer does speculate sometimes, actually I think they pass on industry speculation..
But that is usually when a product is far from market. With the launch so close I doubt Theo would just pull numbers out of his ass.
Being as he did not have intimate knowledge of the system there may be more to this than meets the eye... Although I give him the benefit of the doubt for now and am happy for AMD and us, the consumer.
We will see how it performs soon enough.. Relax.
( I would grab some AMD stock if you have some spare change though . . If you didn't before ;) )
Is this with some Vista update? 'cause with the (non updated) Vista32 (all versions, excluding Longhorn enterrpise) I never gained 4GB on my systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Lets just hope it happens like this .
Just a thought i have seen no one mention, but what play would the L3 cache have in all this? Maybe its the way it uses the instructions that makes it faster??
NFI really just thinking out loud.
Your BIOS still need to support remapping.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
The idea that its 30K 3D05, not 06 seems to be feasible at least. No-one seems to be taking that idea on board though.
Well he confirmed the tests were ran on 3D mark 06. So probably he forgot his eye drops before the benchmarks. I wonder if somebody else was with him at that moment, that would enforce his article.Quote:
Originally Posted by K404
People trying to calculate 3D MARK cpu scores and SM2.0 and 3.0 scores from a cpu they know absolutely nothing about makes me cry with laughter.
PMSL I've watched for months as guys have bragged about they're C2D's and now these same guys are squirming like nobody's buisness about the fact that K10 is gonna render their C2D's extinct :rofl:
It's just a shame everything has to end like this...........who am I kidding, no it's not....
Muhahahahhahahahhahahahahaahahaaaaaa
:welcome: to a real QUAD-CORE ;)
I sure hope the info is correct, but,... with all this new, untested hardware, I fear a much sadder, banal explanation.... ...anyone ever heard of a 3Dmark glitch? :( :poke:Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
Even if it's true we are finally getting AMD back on the scene which is good, very good to my liking... though scores seem a bit exegerated...
Even if the scores are completely accurate, Intel got something to worry about. It troubles me AMD doesn't make it official as it will hold many buyers off to buying a new GO or even Yorkfield CPU and just await their beast...
Excellent fanboy stuff and to me another Inquirer myth launch... I would already be happy for AMD if they can get ahead of Intel at their current clockspeeds...
When will this monster be released ?
X7DAE/8/X7DAL-E? Would be strange if these boards don't support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Agreed. Well many things changed with the new hardware, maybe AMD developed it combined to give a super boost in performance, AMD has motherboard, CPU, GPU combined = boost up.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
I was thinking about that too. That would vastly increase its gains and many things in the article that he had written yesterday are not reliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbalaban
soon as they are able to, they better publish these results on 3dmark because otherwise its NOT verified.... I would love to see 30k verified, because then hipro and the others here have a new score to beat lol :)
Why don't someone who knows him, asks him what he show?......Quote:
Originally Posted by K404
It was airplanes flying?.... ONE small green fire(light) going here and there?....or deep freeze with plenty of snow?......:D
SO true i dont see any here that are cpu developers ???????
If so raise your hand please ??
12 more days my friends..
Just wait a few more days and we will see....
:rofl: :clap: this is funnies blah blah in this thread! only naive teenager can think like that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
So definitely you have a much better explanation for all of this, just show your thesis. Willing to share it?Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
Dude, that was a joke. remember windows ME? (Millenium)Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthyFish
that was like an updated w98, but way worse (worst windows version ever in fact :D )
He says vista is "ME2" because its pretty much to XP what ME was to w98 according to some people (I actually like Vista :) )
Anyway; I'm just going to wait two more weeks before calling this BS or saying thanks to god for this wonderful cpu.
edit.....Quote:
Originally Posted by largon
I think this thread break the record here in post per 1 day:p:
Anyway, 30k in 06 is very good isnt it? I know its INQ, but makes me dream a little
ROFL 30K AMD fanboys
keep dreaming
2 x 2900xt running on pci express 2.0 with 32lanes bandwith connected to 3ghz quad 10 via HT3.0 without any memory bandwith eating northbridge to cpu bandwitH.. wow.. 30k..
:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by kemo6600
Hummm and the same guy announced the reverse HT.... coincidence or not ??
If 30K is right, the reverse HT is OK now (Cpu-Z detects only one core actually). :D
Cpu limitation should be dead with dual gpu, so 30K wiil be possible.
What is wrong with this 30K 06 is a dream and what is wrong with dreamingQuote:
Originally Posted by Morais
And you never stop being a mindless troll. If you have any idea of how a system allocates memory addresses you would understand what I was talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
You are easily the stupidest person I've ever seen in all of XS forums. Now how about you go out side and play hide and go f@#k yourself"? :slapass:
I did not read any post, but from the last few posts I get the impression that there seems to be a rumour about a 30k 06 run with K10.
So here is my theory. In case K10 is faster than Conroe clock for clock, it would still need a K10 Quadcore at about 5 GHz to reach that score. K10 is still SOI, so most likely also coldbugged. Maybe it can run sub zero, but I think dry ice will be overkill for it. And I pretty much doubt K10 will clock that high at just -30C or something similar.
Because of that I would say 30k in 06 is pretty much impossible.
i was questioning the same thing: whats wrong with dreaming...but this isnt why i quoted you post
and you missed that this guy said that the run @ 3GHZ with 2900XT CF on airQuote:
Originally Posted by Fr3ak
and why you quoted meQuote:
Originally Posted by Morais
hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
So? Maybe K10 is more powerful than Nehalem is :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by kemo6600
See we do not and WILL not know for sure about this until the thing is released. That is the simple and plain fact. Assuming that Intel's newer chip is going to be better than AMD's new chip is a wrong move to make IMO since we don't know enough to say that.
Gotta wait to know, it isn't that much longer before we know.
QFT but no 30k with 2900CF :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
CraptacularOne, i recommend you to stop flamming...People like you closed the earlier AMD k10 thread.No need fanboysm here and if you dont want to get banned, leave Metroid alone.
Ps: Sorry for acting like a mod :yawn:
A classic thread mobbed by a bunch of Intel fanboys.
"OMFG ths iz fke C2D is teh ownz0r AMD Sux geif Kentsfield!"
Grow up.
Technology is moving so fast now that anything is possible.
This is not impossible.. and seeing as AMD own ATi now, it's highly possible that they can sinc they're cards with they're own processors better.
QQ Less, admit more.
Technology aint moving that fast. The performance needed if 2 cards is something like K12/Core 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Equil|briuM
Nobody really claimed it couldn´t be faster than a Core 2 Quad. But the difference here is not right.
Me stop flaming??? Leave him alone? He is an idiot. I'm no fanboy of either company, so stop making accusations that you have no idea of. I'm a fnaboy of one thing, and one thing alone: Performance. whoever has it is where I go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morais
And you said it yourself: stop trying to be something you're not. You are nobody here, remember that :slap:
mods please, do something.
So you need to be something here to express what you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
You do not really know what is the limit of you rude writing. You can not force anyone to think what you think by force or things like this. Probably you did not have any education to begin with.
I just hope you will get better after all you said. I will pray for you soul.
Thanks,
Metroid.
Wow....I'm speechless. Your ignorance is all consuming. You say "Force anyone to think what I think"? So according to you the way 3Dmark is calculated is just a "theory" and memory address allocations in Windows are a myth? ...You said you were a programmer?...um yeah OK, and I'm Bill Gates...:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
As my dad would say, "It takes two to make a fight."
I think both CraptacularOne and Metroid both need to cool it. It has gotten down to personal attacks, and lets face it it does nothing but get both even madder.
Here is my suggestion... Just leave it go. Neither of you are gonna get anywhere with the other so why not just drop it? If you really feel the need to keep fighting, there is the PM system. Keeps the clutter out of the thread.
Just my suggestion and :2cents:
I agree, and he is the one that has started the personal attacks. He just refuses to learn anything, despite many others telling him the same. There is a set formula to 3Dmark06's score tallying and there is in fact memory address mapping in Windows. These are not theories or beliefs, they are facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
Hi Mr No-Body! I'm Mr No-Body, how r u today? :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
Good, and yourself? I know I'm not a big shot here nor do I pretend to want to be. I was just making it clear for our little "mod" wanna be. :slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss
OK, if you agree, then ignore him. If you don't respond, he has no one to argue with, and the argument stops. Going on about it with me now won't help any ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
Though I do agree with you that the 3Dmark scoring doesn't change. But we'll leave it at that.
is this a rhetorical/sarcastic question?Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
dam man, u gonna get someone who works with RAM day-in day-out, to test? :rofl: GL! :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by RyderOCZ
I just think the Inquirer launched world war 3 or is it 4 already... but one thing : if the post was wrong or untrue by that journalist/reporter we are gonna spam his mail to death !!!!