is that on the destroyer ?Quote:
Originally Posted by OverClocker_gr
pop that thing is the asus m379-T, somewhere some said you'll ACC for higher then 3.6ghz.
Printable View
is that on the destroyer ?Quote:
Originally Posted by OverClocker_gr
pop that thing is the asus m379-T, somewhere some said you'll ACC for higher then 3.6ghz.
I'm not sure about ACC or AOD or w/e for higher then 3.6 I think you must have read 3.8, since from what we've been shown from a lot of people playing with them 3.6 can be achieved at stock voltage.
Yes I'm an addict keeping up with any info about this I can :rofl:
Great review, guys. Answered pretty much all the questions except for how retail samples will clock. That could make all the difference.
Actually retail samples may have slightly difference performance overall as well...such as fixing areas that they didn't do so well in with the ES's.
Perhaps not but as a price/performance based consumer I have to hope so.
Destroyer,M3A79-T,DFI 790FXQuote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
@3.6 i am with default voltage too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caveman787
The cpu that i have its not an ES.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caveman787
http://www.hwbox.gr/images/imagehost...3f0a87b72c.jpg
In addition to the Intel favored software, as suggested above, maybe you could add some encoding and 7zip. But thanks for the numbers, as they are perfect for what matters to me! :) Definitely looking forward to this purchase. :)
7zip also comes in the x64 variety :)Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
I've only tested with laptops; a 1.73GHz Merom 2M Dell 640m with WI-FI and display set to minimum uses a total of 29W from the battery while running dual P95 at stock voltages, and 19W when undervolted to 0.95v. A 2.53GHz T9400 Penryn Thinkpad W500 uses 41W running P95 at stock and 33W running at 2.4GHz/1.15v. I haven't bothered with desktops but I've read enough of Silentpcreview forums to see that the results are accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Knowing my luck, my 1st "Deuce" will be an 0843BPMW... :yepp:
Well, let's hope at this point that PII does overclock as well as initially rumored. And not just 1 in 10,000 chips.
It'll be a pretty big disappointment if 3.6 is around all that people can get, but we'll see. I'm not going to be buying
a PII in any case as I already have a board I love and a Q9650 to upgrade to, but I've always liked AMD and would
love to see them return to XS prime time.
thats the only thing im really wondering about at this point. we have seen amazing overclocks but they could be cherry picked. i really don't believe they all are but theres a possibility that the majority of them were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
*sigh* With all these performance results starting to surface it's painting a rather grim picture of the Phenom II. Rather than even hoping for clock-for-clock parity with Yorkfield, we're just wanting it to be a close match with its price-equivalent competitor at this point. It looks as though for the most part, not even that is going to happen.
As someone who wanted to keep the AMD family "tradition" alive (never owned an Intel system), I was really hoping for a return to form with this series. Sadly what does even comparable overclocking matter when 3.6GHz on Yorkfield gets you so much more than 3.6GHz on a Deneb? Forgive me if this seems "ranty", but I'm just really disappointed right now. Obviously I'll refrain from final judgement until the big-name reviews appear, but I'm not holding onto false hope.
Either you are doing something wrong or you are pulling stuff out of thin air ... most of the data around the web is reproducible.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Jack
people seem to forget this a great drop in upgrade for anyone with a AM2 mobo. As long as the price is right can't really say AMD failed. Now if this was a totally new chip for AM3 it be another story.
That not what going to put food on the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
AMD needs something that performs better clock for clock so it can be profitable.
Sure overclocking popular, but not popular enough to turn red into black.
P2 is about what I was expecting.
Totally buying it. I better start shining my boot to kick Q6600's @ss good bye.
lol, I think I will be keeping my two year old q6600 @450x8 3.6ghz since it will likely be faster or as fast as any deneb untill I can get i7-i5.Quote:
Originally Posted by largon
Can I ask why you are going to spend the money to change platform for no improvement?
too expensive, but i hope the price will go down.
OverClocker_gr,
First, Thanks for your great review.
Well, Would it be possible you to test with SLI of GTX 260-216 and test in 1920x1080 ?
Thank You. :up:
Perhaps you have heard of overclocking?Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
And AMD's platform (as in mobo+bios) is just better.
I sure have heard of overclocking, Thats why my q6600 is at 3.6ghz, What I am asking you is that since you find i-7 a complete waste of money why are you so excited to change a whole platform for = performance?Quote:
Originally Posted by largon
And how is AMDS platform better? Any links or is this just your opinion?
That sums up what we have been hearing for weeks , PII still slower clock per clock even when compared to two years old kentsfield and that shows that Core 2 wasn't just small jump in performance but still waiting for that OC review thought .
Nehalem?
Nehalem would be a complete platform overhaul (CPU, board, memory [of which 2 latter are way too expensive]). That means i7 is an option I don't even consider. Besides, what would be the gain? Nothing in performance in applications I care about.
Yorkfield?
LGA775 mobos and bios' suck (and are boring), so Yorkfield is not an option. All i965Ps and P35s I've used since the launch of Core 2 have let me down.
What else?
That leaves Deneb - which uses a platform I've used before (pre-K10) and was pleased with. I loved tweaking (RAM especially) back in the days of S939s but when I moved to Core 2 tweaking became tedious due to quirky LGA775 mobos and bios'. Sure, the CPUs are quick, but in the end, I have no use whatsoever for CPU power. I don't have the need to experience the illusion: "Wow. Is this CPU is blazing fast..." That is, while I browse the internet, listen to music and the system uses maybe 1-2% of CPU resources. Even in gaming (casual) - there is no difference.
But before anything; I want the fun back in OC'ing. And a better conscience.
Then again, the most effective way to gain overall system performance would be to get an SSD. No CPU is fast enough to match that kind of gain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kemo
Why are so many of you saying this? Am I looking at a different set of graphs or something?
From what I saw it was quite comfortably duking it out with the Q9550 90% of the time, it was only the tests that have always favored Intel that it was at the same level as the Q6600....
Jesus christ even now some of you seem to be trying to highlight the few bad points over the masses of good ones.:rolleyes:
I think people mean clock for clock, Dont forget that the q6600 is 2.4ghz, If they clocked it up to 2.8-3.0ghz ph2 would be having a hard time with it, Even if you clock them both to the max I doubt that ph2 would be much better. Thats why I am disappointed, Ph2 looks to be 2 years late.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r