Very nice. Your 9700pro is actually running faster than my 9800np. Mines at 460/320
Printable View
Very nice. Your 9700pro is actually running faster than my 9800np. Mines at 460/320
it was an 9700np at 497/344 ;) she's dead now :(
I saw that, very nice oc.
I think you're stoned, but like pkrew said, time will tell.:toast:Quote:
Originally posted by misteroadster
if opp or macci had a good couple FX53 939 + good sticks they broke their records , for sure.
But they don't have this.
I think opp can beat his FX with his 3500+ already with about 500 pts more.
i had tested 3800+ 200X12 5/2/2/2 19450 on NF3
and FX53 940 200X12 5/2/2/2 19000 on NF3
With 9700 pro stock.
I don't understand why you think the S939 stuff (especially the Newcastles) would be faster than the S754 or S940. It's the same exact A64 technology. Same chipsets, everything but the number of pins. Those of you who really understand the A64 know that doubling the bandwidth of an A64 does not help in 3D gaming and 3D benching. The A64 can only utilize so much memory bandwidth. That's why the socket 754 stuff is competitive with the dual channel A64s. This has been proven time after time.
I am building an FX-53 socket 939 to test next week. I'll do a real comparison between the FX-53 and the 3700+, with identical hardware except for the CPU and motherboard. Then I'll know for sure what the true expectations of the S939 are. I expect the S939 to be faster (although there's been little evidence in support of this). We'll see if this is realistic.;)
OK, but then why do all those STOCK benchmarks show FX/939 is about 1000-1200 pts. faster than FX/940 at defult?Quote:
Originally posted by StormPC
I think you're stoned, but like pkrew said, time will tell.:toast:
I don't understand why you think the S939 stuff (especially the Newcastles) would be faster than the S754 or S940. It's the same exact A64 technology. Same chipsets, everything but the number of pins. Those of you who really understand the A64 know that doubling the bandwidth of an A64 does not help in 3D gaming and 3D benching. The A64 can only utilize so much memory bandwidth. That's why the socket 754 stuff is competitive with the dual channel A64s. This has been proven time after time.
I am building an FX-53 socket 939 to test next week. I'll do a real comparison between the FX-53 and the 3700+, with identical hardware except for the CPU and motherboard. Then I'll know for sure what the true expectations of the S939 are. I expect the S939 to be faster (although there's been little evidence in support of this). We'll see if this is realistic.;)
C
I don't know which stock benches you are looking at, but even if that's true it doesn't mean much. A stock X800XT will kill a stock X800 Pro, but push both to the limits on stock cooling and you're lucky if you see an 800 point difference on 2k1.
All (CPUs/GPUs etc...) have limits as to how much work they can do in a certain amount of time. Architecturally and process wise there is LITTLE difference among the three A64 platforms. For this reason I say there is no difference between them as far as extreme overclocking is concerned. They are ALL capable of doing about the same amount of work. I believe it all boils down to which CPU came from the better wafers and process. A good clocking A64 will always beat a $hit clocker no matter how many pins you have.:D
Quote:
Originally posted by StormPC
I think you're stoned, but like pkrew said, time will tell.:toast:
I am building an FX-53 socket 939 to test next week. I'll do a real comparison between the FX-53 and the 3700+, with identical hardware except for the CPU and motherboard. Then I'll know for sure what the true expectations of the S939 are. I expect the S939 to be faster (although there's been little evidence in support of this). We'll see if this is realistic.;)
Storm,
Please keep us posted on your results when you have that new box built. I'm VERY interested to see what you find out in relation to the performance of the two platforms.
John
Didn't Op just score 36,826 with his sk8v?Quote:
Originally posted by charlie
OK, but then why do all those STOCK benchmarks show FX/939 is about 1000-1200 pts. faster than FX/940 at defult?
C
Actually he had one higher than that. S940 though. I will be comparing S939 and S754.
I don't know WHY 939 is faster...maybe becasue of the reduced latency of non ecc mem. Remember 2-2-2-5 on a reg sk8v is the same as 3-3-3-5 with non reg DDR, IIRC
When is FX55 supposed to hit the streets?
FX55 is expected to launch in the fourth quarter. It will likely use the current 130-nm fab process. FX57 is supposed to launch in the second quarter of next year and will use the 90-nm core. This is the chip that's code-named San Diego.
LOL...that's just what I expected you'd say. I figured you had nothing to refute the facts with.Quote:
Originally posted by StormPC
mdzcpa
Request denied.;)
But, hey, posting in total ignorance is your right to free speech. And you seem comfortable enough in doing so. So...carry on;)
Forgotten in this "discussion" is that with locks memory will be able to run at a higher fsb, which should add a few hundred points in itself.
very easy to know , remove one stick of an FX53 939 @260 and you'll see the difference immediately.Quote:
Originally posted by StormPC
I think you're stoned, but like pkrew said, time will tell.:toast:
I don't understand why you think the S939 stuff (especially the Newcastles) would be faster than the S754 or S940. It's the same exact A64 technology. Same chipsets, everything but the number of pins. Those of you who really understand the A64 know that doubling the bandwidth of an A64 does not help in 3D gaming and 3D benching. The A64 can only utilize so much memory bandwidth. That's why the socket 754 stuff is competitive with the dual channel A64s. This has been proven time after time.
I am building an FX-53 socket 939 to test next week. I'll do a real comparison between the FX-53 and the 3700+, with identical hardware except for the CPU and motherboard. Then I'll know for sure what the true expectations of the S939 are. I expect the S939 to be faster (although there's been little evidence in support of this). We'll see if this is realistic.;)
here's the difference between FX53 940 14X200 dual Ecc and 14X200 single ECC(By Me):
http://pageperso.aol.fr/misteroadster/SingleVsdual.JPG
and here is 3200+ 10X260 1:1 Vs FX53 940 13X200
http://pageperso.aol.fr/misteroadster/3200FX55.JPG
Ouch! Where is the love????:buddies: :shrug: :ROTF:Quote:
Originally posted by mdzcpa
LOL...that's just what I expected you'd say. I figured you had nothing to refute the facts with.
But, hey, posting in total ignorance is your right to free speech. And you seem comfortable enough in doing so. So...carry on;)
misteroadster:
Still think you're stoned.:banana4:
You see, ALL of the benches in your bargraphs are nearly identical with the exception of the Sandra Memory benches. Your evidence supports my theory that there isn't much difference between single channel and dual on an A64 in real world performance, which is why the S754s are hanging on the front page of the ORB quite well!:D
If Sandra memory benches are the center of your universe, by all means get the S939. If not it's really not worth it.
yes , but there is a gain when you increase FSB With a FX , and you forget the bad effect of ECC reg.
i don't have a stick of 3200 ECC reg but it run on 754 , if anybody can do this test ; i had done it , there was a serious lost of point at 3DM2K1 about 800 and about 1 sec superpi
i agree , i'm stoned , but not enough to say nothing .:banana:
i'm actually testing my 3800+ with 9700 325/315 :
2600mhz 216X12 : 20012
2604mhz 236X11 :20202
i assume little gain but gain.
The dual channel impact is important... it depends game/app. For example, in xbit-labs, look at FX-53 Vs. 3700+ in these three benches (same frecuency, same caché, but dual Vs. single channel):
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/lga775/quake3.png
Quake, FX-53 12% faster than 3700+
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/lga775/3dmark01.png
3dmark 2001, FX-53 6% faster than 3700+
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/l...3dmark03-2.png
3dmark 2003 CPU, FX-53 8% faster than 3700+
Or look at Ace's Hardware, differences between dual and single channel:
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=65000314
As we can see there are apps/games where dual channel has a nice impact (ScienceMark Primordia, 7.5%; Plasma, 24%; WinRAR, 5%; Medieval Total War, 6%; Ghost Recon, 15%; Halo, 6%; Wolfenstein, 8% & 6%; X2, 5%). There are anothers where hasn't (render 3D. Only in Maya with Mental Ray there is a noticiable 4,5%). Again, it depends game/app.
Summary, in general terms there are apps/games where dual channel has an important impact in perfomance. There are others where hasn't. And this general situation is reflected perfectly in A64.
Well you guys post all the bargraphs you want. What's at the top of the ORB? That's right, an ECC REG 940 and a single channel 3400+ (not even a 3700+). So tell me again about the effects of DC and REG mem?:ROTF:
Keep your bargraphs...I'll go with what is proven.
I'm taking Charlie an X800XT today. We'll see what S939 can do with it.
Nothing like living in denial:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by StormPC
Keep your bargraphs...I'll go with what is proven.
What's "proven" has been put in front of your face time and again. At this point it's apparent you're hell bent on pushing any credibility you may have had right into the toilet. By ignoring the obvious facts layed out right in front of you only puts your opinion on the lunatic fringe and in the zero value column.
Worshipping the ORB results doesn't help your position. Just because someone with the skills and desire have not yet pushed the 939 pin platform to the "top of the ORB" proves nothing at this point. The platform is young and no heavy hitters with all the right equipment have even tried yet.
Get over it, the old 940 system is second rate now
:lol:
Just got back from Charlie's. Benched S754 3700+ and S939 FX-53. Why don't you ask Charlie how it went? The S939 results were disappointing to say the least.:(
From what I saw I am now having second thoughts about testing the FX-53 and Gigabyte S939 I'll be getting next week. I see little point until the bugs are worked out.
Oh, and mdzcpa? Stick to accounting and I'll stick to building the fastest stock aircooled systems on earth!;)
Quote of the week: "Get over it, the old 940 system is second rate now"
Somebody should tell OPP and Macci.:ROTF:
hehe you guys are too much!!
wow....that's, ummmmm, impressive:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by StormPC
I'll stick to building the fastest stock aircooled systems on earth!
I sure hope to god that's not your full time job if this is the best you can do.
Oh, and BTW, no need to tell 'em, they already know. It's being work on at the moment:)Quote:
Originally posted by StormPC
Quote of the week: "Get over it, the old 940 system is second rate now"
Somebody should tell OPP and Macci.:ROTF:
Here comes yet another possible alternative board, and Anandtech is apparently very high on it.........also it is expected to be available this week:
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.html?i=2100&p=2
John