Thanks for deleting the most stupid ad hominem post. :)
I might try getting the GPU in question and check the 2k6 scores when I do with Phenom (if they tie in with macci's). Can do for Q6600 too but not Yorkfield. I doubt it.
Printable View
Thanks for deleting the most stupid ad hominem post. :)
I might try getting the GPU in question and check the 2k6 scores when I do with Phenom (if they tie in with macci's). Can do for Q6600 too but not Yorkfield. I doubt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
Mayby time to delete all posts exept Maccis first post? Me and other have gotten this thread on the wrong foot so to say, IŽ did not mean to start an new AMD Vs intel sand box dissusion. Again sorry macci! I hope you macci can maka e new thread or continue in this because I and others are very intrested in youre setup\results! Over and out!
he he that made me smile :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MexxT
i know this is 3d but i have just one question. is their is a bigger point difference with intel going from xp to vista then phenom?
@ knightwolf654, I compared with a friend of mine. He uses a Q6600 @ 3,285Ghz and windows XP Pro score: 5188 . I use a Q6600 @ 3,6GHz with Vista, and my score: 5211 :x
Huge differance!
Oh, and I ran 3Dmark again, with Vista, and Bios clock + compairable memory speed.
http://www.techzine.nl/f/g/35530phpU0A99m.jpg
Q6600 is A LOT faster..
My advantage is:
-8MHz more memspeed.
My Disadvantage is:
- 5MHz less corespeed
- Cl5-5-5-15 VS CL4-4-4-12
- Vista VS XP
So, it looks clear to me :)
haha nice! 10 more points in cpu test, eh but vista in use :/
Vista = Crap with benchmarks ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by KeZzZu
If you search ORB for the highest vista score (3DMARK06), it will show something arround 20K LOL!
[]'s
Simps
Now search XP ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Simps
Ok, I found a 512MB 2900XT.Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
so, how much over 20k? :D
20k seems to be quite easy with 860/990 setting already - didnt need to push NB / RAM at all. Actually this was the first run I did with this config so far.
first run at 20k
edit: OK, just to be fair - here is a better run with higher NB / MEM
http://img.techpowerup.org/071213/20429.png
more details:
Vista ultimate 32bit, Catalyst 7.11 driver
Wow,:D. Waiting Mr Hipro5.:D
Thanks Macci.
http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/...es/popcorn.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by linhvndiy
This looks like its going to turn into a fun thread!
Should be renamed
'3Ghz challenge of the titans, Macci V Hipro'
:D:D
Heh, heh, heh.......In a minute..... :D
......and the 2k6 one?..... :p:
Going to be really cool :).
Keep pushing it guys.
@macci Why don't you run the default benchmark(Game and CPU, without feature)?
It would be easier for us to compare the score with many others. Also, since the thread is about 3D Mark, it would be nice to run the rest of the 3D Marks.
You are evil. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
lol it seems like Hipro can't cutt it at same GPU, CPU en MEM clocks :D
that minute was two hours ago
Yes, looks like a minute is very long in Hellas ;)
LOL hipro
you just got owned by macci dude
killer result there man wow :D
i hear a mate is running a phenom 9900@3Ghz ..... he'll be testing the coldbugs soon :) should be interesting
Very nice Macci! You put a smile in my face ;)
macci it be freakin sweet if you could do a write up on how to overclock phenoms. :)
thanks for posting the phenom results, really interesting. seems AMD are on the right track at least... keep em coming....
Macci, has you already tested for signs of coldbug?
people usually run ONLY the Game tests for 3Dmark05. that is considered as default by many. the CPU Score in 05 doesnt affect your overall score and as mentioned is not a stable or realistic benchmark anyways.Quote:
@macci Why don't you run the default benchmark(Game and CPU, without feature)?
It would be easier for us to compare the score with many others. Also, since the thread is about 3D Mark, it would be nice to run the rest of the 3D Marks.
so the numbers you see in the screenshots are very easy to compare with others.
the reason I ran the feature test (mainly the fillrate) is to just show the theoretical GFX speed. Fill rate only depends on your GFX power (certain clock speeds can produce only certain amount of fillrate). it can be used as a verification of your GFX clocks (or GFX power in general).
Single fillrate = Memory bandwidth of the card (e.g. memory clocks and memory timings affect this one)
multi fillrate = GPU bandwidth (e.g. GPU clocks, this is a test that is only affected by the GPU clocks, so its easy to compare and verify that the other guy was running the same GPU clock)
(now if someone is paying a very close attention - comparing the 20k score vs the 20429 score you'll see that the fillrates are very different! I dont know what went wrong there!! :D , need to retest both settings again today, it seems that only the fillrate test is screwed since the Pixel shader test is the same, GT3 is different too but that could be because of higher PCIe clock and higher overall system performance in the 20429 score)
such pointless arguing. the thread shows me that summer '08 may be a fun time :D
massman, with the production parts: NO
with earlier parts: YES
it would boot up fine at -80C
I have a plan for the weekend ;)