There is something wrong with the AMD dc scores too. 2.5 GHz seems to be the sweet spot...:D
Printable View
There is something wrong with the AMD dc scores too. 2.5 GHz seems to be the sweet spot...:D
Of course it doesn't produce meaningful results for intel CPUs. You'd have to be a biased idiot to believe that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
And I am 99% sure that he did not code it that way. Like I said earlier, I had the same problem with a benchmark that I wrote. After some research, it turned out to be how the program was compiled. I ran in a DOS window, which use both 16-bit and 32-bit instructions. For whatever reason, AMD CPUs are tons faster at processing 16-bit instructions. Although it's fairly interesting, that shouldn't be for a reason to say that AMD is better than intel mainly due to the fact that 16-bit CPUs and OSs are obsolete.
??? :eek: WTF, how is that possible :slapass: :confused: :slap: :toast: :stick:Quote:
Originally Posted by derektm
This is my score :fact:
http://img435.imageshack.us/img435/814/37119wv.jpg
heh - inetresting benchmark, here is my score -
A64 2800+ (s.754) - 2000MHZ - OCZ Gold DDR500 512 (2*256 mb, single channel) - ddr500 - 1555 XCPUM - 108 sec
think that score is normal, but time? :confused:
Sticky?
I want to see a conroe on this! ;)
It would be interestimg to see how deep the bias goes!