if u check out the cpuz speed that i benched the superpi @ u will see that its 3.1+GHz and in my jsig ive slowed it down cos i have each core F@H similtaneously and dont want to drop any half WU's :banana:Quote:
Originally Posted by Budwise
Printable View
if u check out the cpuz speed that i benched the superpi @ u will see that its 3.1+GHz and in my jsig ive slowed it down cos i have each core F@H similtaneously and dont want to drop any half WU's :banana:Quote:
Originally Posted by Budwise
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/9756/x2fh1xt.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by PiNh3aD
Nice chip you got there PiNh3aD! Why dont you post your settings in the other X2 sticky.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=73800
wasnt referring to your 4800. was referring to a stock speed 4800. Someone posted earlier that my 2600Mhz would be equal to the 4800 speeds and i was just clarifying.
ya pinhead that is sick fast.. what are you cooling it with, and is it naked?
i seriously doubt a 3800x2 at 2400mhz is clock for clock to a 4800x2 at 2400mhz let alone "way faster" at 2600mhz if anything you would need 2600mhz outa the 3800x2 to match the 4800x2 at its defualt speed. not trying to start a war here just making an observation as a ex-owner of a 3800x2 running 3000mhz ....
peace perc,
it might be faster perc, the added memory speed might make the diff against a stock 4800....the cache is maybe 100Mhz on synthetic tests...
Here's Mine... sorry i will be updating it throughout..
this is just the first of many testing sessions.. to begin after Oct 12th due to d2ol'ing like mad
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...id=37475&stc=1
apologize if this isnt in the format..
i will work on getting dual 32m's going.. i couldnt find the "target" to change to A0 or A1... will work on it...
the 2600Mhz 3800+ would outperform the 4800+. Remember the tests done comparing the 3700 San Diego vs 3800 Venice, the Venice won in pretty much all benchies.
Wake up! This is not "Fantasy Systems" : :banana: :banana:Quote:
Originally Posted by Budwise
like my sig says "chilly1'dGT" and no its not naked, the wife wont let me after i killed a '57 cutting off the IHS, so ive only had the x2 about 3 days now.Quote:
Originally Posted by halcy
first day and a 1/2 burnt in @ 55C on stock air then just stuck it under the chilly1/507 mach2GT.........i can almost squeeze 39k on 3D01SE and im waitin on 2x512 pc4000 mushkin redline :woot:
90% of people here agree that the 200Mhz clockspeed will be superior to the extra cache. Its like comparing the 4400 to the 4600, less cache, higher clockspeed, hence higher rating and performance. Im wide awake, how are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdoc1
ur probs right d00d but i still dont get it........i av more cache......im clocked higher........tighter ram timings......and runnin 1:1 FSB/HTT :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Budwise
x2 3800 @ 2.6mhz with 512kb x 2 cache is better than x2 4800 @ default with 1mb x2 cache.Quote:
Originally Posted by PiNh3aD
But if u oc ur x2 4800 surely it's better than that x2 3800 :P
The keypoint here is the extra 200mhz can beat x2 4800+ at 2.4ghz with 1mb x2 cache.
I'd have to agree with you pinhead, clock for clock, your faster. There's no way clock for clock even a 3800 will beat a core with twice the cache and clocked the same. I don't buy that half the cache is better junk. Benches are cool and everything, but real world is where it's at for me. In the real world, 2 cores at the same clock, the one with more cache is king. Also Budwise, where do you get that 90% agree with your statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by PiNh3aD
now im with u d00d, so what ur saying is if i leave mine @ stock 2.4GHz with 1mb x2 cache and u clock urs to 2.6GHz with 512kb x2 cache then urs will be faster.......ok d00d got it loud and clear........only thing is im @3GHz for F@H x2 @ the mo and clock up to nearly 3.2GHz to run benchies :banana:Quote:
Originally Posted by irenic
yeah.. mathematically x2 3800+ users need to oc their cpu to 3.4Ghz to beat ur 3.2ghz in benchies.. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by PiNh3aD
My god where does some of this crap come from.... Ever wonder why the 4600 is the poorest selling chip in the X2 line, it's not just the price, it's because the 4400 has been spanking it since the release. Believe whatever you like but you can’t remove half the cache and then claim better performance. This argument has been going on forever, remember the Celeron 300A? It overclocked like a banshee and you could buy it for a fraction of the price of its Pentium brother, people were attempting to make the same argument then. Unfortunately that dog didn’t hunt then, and it still doesn’t! There’s nothing wrong with these 512 cache chips, they represent great value and people are pulling big OC’s from them, but let’s move past this less is best theory, it’s just not reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Budwise
you just cant generalise how much difference cache makes. In some stuff, no difference at all. In others, massive difference.
????Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdoc1
The cache is really not that big a deal. All things being equal, some proggy's sure benefit from it. Does my daily useage? no. I'll take a couple extra hundred Mhz any day...but again if I get the same clocks with the bigger cache, performance will be better of course, but not by much and not enough to justify the price difference.
Anyhow, buy what you like, vote with your wallet!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdoc1
the reason i think people buy the 4400x2 over the 4600x2 is the price. who wants to pay 700 bucks for a 4600x2 when they can buy the 4400x2 for a less money and in the long run the 4400x2 will oc past the stock 4600x2 specs plus you get a full 1mb of L2 per core its a win win situation. i never heard of the 4400x2 spanking the 4600x2 i dont think thats the reason the 4600x2 isnt selling as good. hell you want to put it that way then the 3800x2 is spanking ALL of the x2's and for a fraction of the price of the topline x2's.
peace perc,
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiNh3aD
yes, i was only comparing to a 4800 at default speeds... As for the 4400 spanking the 4600 at stock speeds, someone is mistaken. The big seller for the 4400 is the cache and the price. Not because it is faster than the 4600, but you can always overclock 200Mhz, but cannot make more cache. But ifyou put them up together at stock speeds, the 4600 wins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkid32
Is there any way to make the affinity change permanent?
Not for each service. You would have to do that each time you boot or run it. Now with applications you can just make a shortcut and edit the target with a space then -A0 for core 0 or -A1 for core 1. Just like you would do for super pi or prime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Budwise
Will my 90c work for a 3800+ also where has everyone been getting theres from?
if 90c will work ima get oem version if now ima buy retails, where would be est bet for good steppings as of lately?