Just liking something doesn't make you incapible of providing objective information about it. (I love my old Athlon 3200+ Lappy, but it sucks)2nded, Being a fanboy disqualifies you from saying anything about a processors performance (its called bias).
For real. Let him enjoy the new tech. 4.6 GHz on air cooling is not an easy feat by any metric.wow..
you guys are calling him a fan boy because he's showing off a 32nm dual core with HT?
Because i think his comment was a meant as a joke...
which happens to rape AMD. :\
Here mine on my PII 965 C3 @ 3.9ghz
The overclock on that Clarkdale is sweet! But I gotta say that This benchmark is a joke. Am I supposed to believe that a Core i7 860 @ 3.9ghz is almost 70-80% faster than Phenom II @ 3.9ghz...>>?
The overclock on that Clarkdale is sweet! But I gotta say that This benchmark is a joke. Am I supposed to believe that a Core i7 860 @ 3.9ghz is almost 70-80% faster than Phenom II @ 3.9ghz...>>? obviously this bench just lost all credibility since it has nothing to do with real world performance. I think we should focus on the overclocking achievement but if you are going to include benchmarks, they have to be games or something that isn't purely synthetic.
There is no megahalem cooler on that review that I can find. Also, they don't give enough specs on what platform they were cooling. Bad review IMO.
But them if you look at their top 5, the megahalem is number one by temperature !!!
A fanboy is someone who goes for a product/company and is incapable of admitting its flaws.Just liking something doesn't make you incapible of providing objective information about it. (I love my old Athlon 3200+ Lappy, but it sucks)
Hey Zeus provided a good set of benchmarks about a i3 @ 4.8ghz and a PII 965 @ 3.8ghz, I think that it's quite telling that the PII walks all over the i3 despite having a Ghz less clockspeed. Granted the PII can probably go a decent bit higher, but remember, we don't know how high the 32nm process can go either. Granted, 1.42v seems high, seeing as how 1.45v seems to be the magic number for an everyday OC of a 45nm chip, but we shall see if that voltage is too high or not.
If Hey_Zeus were a fanboy, the blue bars would be longer than the red bars...though it would be more interesting to see a comparison between the i3 540 and the Athlon II X2 250.
Why would comparing a $145 i3 540 to a $59 X2 250 be more interesting?
lol cuz amd would lose then..
^ mean this as a joke.. i dont want to piss off you AMD lovers...
no but seriously, its so u have 2 dual core performance benches side by side.
However its not fair, because the i3 has HT.
Why would comparing a $145 i3 540 to a $59 X2 250 be more interesting?
Because that would be comparing a dual core @ ~3.0Ghz vs. another dual core @ ~3.0Ghz, instead of two seemingly random processors.
As for it being "unfair" -- processors don't cry. What's important is to what extent HT improves the results, not whether it does.
Am I supposed to believe that a Core i7 860 @ 3.9ghz is almost 70-80% faster than Phenom II @ 3.9ghz...>>? obviously this bench just lost all credibility since it has nothing to do with real world performance. I think we should focus on the overclocking achievement but if you are going to include benchmarks, they have to be games or something that isn't purely synthetic.
Just the same now, HT is beneficial for encoding, 3D and similar, but is not going to affect gaming.
Comparing processor performance based on price bracket is actually a little bit absurd, because that tells you absolutely nothing about the processors themselves. Relative pricing varies with respect to time, geography, marketing and availability -- whereas processor specifications and performance measurements are static. It's better to let the engineering teams determine how to rank the processors than the marketting teams.But why the Athlon II version and not the Phenom II version? That still would be meaningless, you are comparing 2 chips aimed at different markets with different performance goals.
The overclock on that Clarkdale is sweet! But I gotta say that This benchmark is a joke. Am I supposed to believe that a Core i7 860 @ 3.9ghz is almost 70-80% faster than Phenom II @ 3.9ghz...>>? obviously this bench just lost all credibility since it has nothing to do with real world performance. I think we should focus on the overclocking achievement but if you are going to include benchmarks, they have to be games or something that isn't purely synthetic.
Comparing processor performance based on price bracket is actually a little bit absurd, because that tells you absolutely nothing about the processors themselves. Relative pricing varies with respect to time, geography, marketing and availability -- whereas processor specifications and performance measurements are static. It's better to let the engineering teams determine how to rank the processors than the marketting teams.
In this case we have two processors from competing firms which are very much in the same market, namely "modern recently-released dual cores", although they are not in the same price bracket. It'd be interesting to add in a comparably clocked Phenom II X2 as well, sure.
I would not be the least bit surprised if the i3 comes out ahead in many situations. But what matters is "how much", and in which situations.
wait what?I totally agree the benchmark SUCKS but it's..
1. Free
2. Widely Used
3. Not biased towards anyone
I'm not a Fanboi. Have owned both Amd and Intel. Went with an I3 over a Athlon II X4 630 because i like playing with new tech and wanted to see how high it can go on air.
Posting the benchmark proves that Intel's new 32nm Dual core's can trade blow's with Amd's Flagship Quad Core. Nothing more. Nothing less.
IF that were the case don't you think i would have an ES of a 32nm Quad in my room?
I'm just an Intel Fanboi. Plain and simple