Quote Originally Posted by SparkyJJO View Post
For AMD, that's good, (even though it is a pretty pointless benchmark IMO ). I'm looking at CPUZ though and hoping that either it is misreading the voltage or that the retail chip will not need such a huge amount, 1.568V

hokiealumnus, as far as F@H being slower on AMD compared to intel, I've heard it said that it is because F@H uses the intel compiler, and the intel compiler just simply isn't as 'friendly' to AMD CPUs. Now that's just what I've heard someplace, don't know if it is true or totally way off Probably more due to architecture design differences probably, I know the A64 did better at F@H than the P4 did, by quite a bit (though netburst just sucked overall lol) because of that.
That chip is overclocked, i think the link tells you, but maybe i read it somewhere else.