Quote Originally Posted by Fr3ak View Post
Looking at you 1m time Stephen, I didnt think 680i would be that much slower than X975. I get 12.866 using Win 2k3 and a single 1Gb stick of GSkill HZ 800 at 445Mhz 4 4 3 8 8T 19 6 8 8 4 4 4.

How much of a difference does it make by using quality ram and tight timings compared to "normal" stuff with moderate timings for 3D benching?
I make some quick test using 03, but the difference was negligible.
Wait, so are you saying that my 1m time was unusually slow? or unusually fast ? I thought it was about average....
In terms of chipsets, I can't say that I'm qualified enough to give you a thorough answer. And asking about 3d benching IN ADDITION to Intel chipsets makes it about as foreign of a subject to me as possibly could be . To the best of my understanding, the 975 chipset is in fact the fastest CLOCK FOR CLOCK, but the problem is actually achieving high enough clocks in order to take down WR's. The 965 boards seem to be a bit slower than the 975's but they're able to make up the stagger through higher FSB and memory speeds. Now the 680i is kind of an oddity as it's able to achieve somewhat high clocks and memory speeds @ extraordinarily tight timings on the RAM. For that reason, I tend to believe that the internal timings for that particular chipset are set rather loose - thereby making tighter primary RAM timings a reality. As a result, the difference between running, for example, TRP4 vs. TRP3 becomes basically negligible. Now mind you, I'm not particularly well versed in the world of C2D + 3d benching so I could possibly be totally off base with my observations......