You should probably see this

[sanitydc]

my cinebench in 64bit
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/xdiaboLix/64bitCINE.jpg
598
1117

my cinebench in 32bit
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/xdiaboLix/mine.jpg
570
1050


increase in 64 = 28 and 67 or 5% and 7%



yezzir.

 

[sanitydc]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Roguestar
Clearly the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to him.

ROFL (I think the entropy of this thread is increasing too fast. )...and neither does common sense or any logical reasoning apply. I can't believe he's still arguing. He goes from SuperPi, to Cinebench, and now to a MEMORY benchmark??

"Yeah baby my timings are SOOO much TIGHTER than yours. That means my CPU is faster cause I said SO!!!! That's right I'm Rick Jayyymes B!TCH!!!"

Ahem...sorry, got a little carried away.

Just show a screenshot of your E6400 @ 3.4ghz w/ 1.375v.
in the screenshot show the proof of speed, stability, and temp (stock cooling or ?).
Let's see your credentials before you mock others.

There you go mate.
20+ hours of Orthos. Oh I know, now you're gonna say Orthos is not a good measure of stability.:roll:

Now, you have any other unrelated arguments you wanna bring up?? You STILL haven't answered many questions posed to you in this thread...I wonder why?? You gotta know when to stop.

PS. Let's see the screenshot of your A64 3000+ beating an FX-62 in <<<32-bit>>> Cinebench. Just in case you decide to have selective vision...I said THIRTY TWO BIT CINEBENCH...NOT SIXTY FOUR BIT. Got it?? You said your CPU could do it...let's see it.

Here's your post where you said you could do it:

Originally posted by: OcHungry
I was referring to FX62 low score (a cooked score by that web site). Yes my A64 3000 does better than what that website showed for FX62. that's why right away I suspected the intention of the review. Hell I doubted Anandtech's (have to know the numbers to see through) cooked a little in first time review. But later Anand changed the fx62 # to more realistic. I did not know there are review sites out there sell their own mother (or wife) for the money. Hardware zone is one of those pimps.

Anandtech showed 421 for the FX-62 32-bit single CPU test and 446 for the E6700 clocked (only :roll: ) at 2.66GHz. Please post your score. If I'm wrong I'll admit it. I have no problem doing that. Here's my score of 566 32-bit for single CPU with CPU at 3.4GHz.

has it not occurred to you that i dont have the 3000 anymore and i did that test 6 moths ago? Why not just compare what you and i have at present time?
From your screenshot it shows that you only gained 11% w/ 13% more overclocked than my 4400. That means clock for clock the 4400 performce better. How else need to explain this? I am comparing your conroe result w/ my 4400. There is no if and but, and you can not change the fact or calculation. It's straight forward.

your comparing yours in 64bit to his in 32bit, and going of my scores he can expect atleast a 5-7% increase in 64 bit which completely offsets your percentage. ouch.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
has it not occurred to you that i dont have the 3000 anymore and i did that test 6 moths ago? Why not just compare what you and i have at present time?
From your screenshot it shows that you only gained 11% w/ 13% more overclocked than my 4400. That means clock for clock the 4400 performce better. How else need to explain this? I am comparing your conroe result w/ my 4400. There is no if and but, and you can not change the fact or calculation. It's straight forward.

Are you kidding me? Now you are comparing score percentage to OC percentages from different CPUs?
Wasn't your argument before that Core2 itself doesn't scale linearly? You want MY CPU to scale linearly with YOUR CPU?? I'm sorry but my CPU doesn't swing that way.

Here is a 348 score for my CPU at 2.1GHz. SOOO...a 62% increase in clock speed (2.1GHz to 3.4GHz) results in a 62% increase in Cinebench score (348 to 566). Ummm...is that good enough for ya?

I'm starting to wonder...do you actually believe what you are saying or you just like to argue on the net?

 

[harpoon84]

Hmm, I suspect he just likes seeing our reactions to his outrageous claims.

 

[n19htmare]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

has it not occurred to you that i dont have the 3000 anymore and i did that test 6 moths ago? Why not just compare what you and i have at present time?
From your screenshot it shows that you only gained 11% w/ 13% more overclocked than my 4400. That means clock for clock the 4400 performce better. How else need to explain this? I am comparing your conroe result w/ my 4400. There is no if and but, and you can not change the fact or calculation. It's straight forward.

FOR THE 3rd time STOP comparing his 32bit to your 64Bit..... do you honestly blank out the people telling you that you're comparing the wrong results?

Why do ignore to respond to certain people....

FACT IS that once you get cornered in with no way out, you decide to rant on something else only to be cornered again. What does memory bandwidth have anything to do with this? so what if AMD has more bandwidth and low latency...HOW IN THE WORLD does that affect the final result.
All amd has is a crap lost of badwidth that not utalized and is just going to waste.... thats it.

I'll ask ONE more time Can you please provide us with stability test for your x2 4400 at 3000Mhz...
Thank you.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: n19htmare

Originally posted by: OcHungry

has it not occurred to you that i dont have the 3000 anymore and i did that test 6 moths ago? Why not just compare what you and i have at present time?
From your screenshot it shows that you only gained 11% w/ 13% more overclocked than my 4400. That means clock for clock the 4400 performce better. How else need to explain this? I am comparing your conroe result w/ my 4400. There is no if and but, and you can not change the fact or calculation. It's straight forward.

FOR THE 3rd time STOP comparing his 32bit to your 64Bit..... do you honestly blank out the people telling you that you're comparing the wrong results?

Why do ignore to respond to certain people....

FACT IS that once you get cornered in with no way out, you decide to rant on something else only to be cornered again. What does memory bandwidth have anything to do with this? so what if AMD has more bandwidth and low latency...HOW IN THE WORLD does that affect the final result.
All amd has is a crap lost of badwidth that not utalized and is just going to waste.... thats it.

I'll ask ONE more time Can you please provide us with stability test for your x2 4400 at 3000Mhz...
Thank you.

i think he will NEVER have that result

 

[sanitydc]

he hasn't replied to my 64 bit score results either. considering they blasted his.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Roguestar
Clearly the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to him.

His PC is cold with solution.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Roguestar
Clearly the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to him.

His PC is cold with solution.

Umm, no, his PC is green with envy. His head, on the other hand, who knows?

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: n19htmare
ignored me too, oh well.
i want to see your amd at 3ghz stable you yourself have said it's not stable but you ask others for proof.
You are SO quick to show your X2 4400 at 3gigs and claiming it is faster than Lopri's at Core 2. YET AGAIN, you compare 32bit vs. 64bit.
I can guarantee you that Lopri's computer is more stable than yours.


Here is my e6300 at 3150mhz. I went from a Opty 165 at 2.95 to this system and yes IT IS FASTER. Period.
INcase you're wondering, I actually MADE money moving to a faster computer.

Sold opteron for $240
sold RAM for $197
Sold Mobo for $105.
=$542

E6300= $179
Ram=$109
MObo= $215
=$503

SUre i went from 2gb to 1gb but it doesn't matter, the new computer is still faster with half the ram....



http://members.cox.net/picchost/e6300oc3150.JPG
Pay very close attention to my voltage and temperature.
What you see is an E6300 at 3150mHz on sub 1.2x volts and not to mention 47 Full load on big typhoon.
Trust me, this e6300 will walk over anything amd's got right now.

the thing is I?ve been truthful to you about everything I have said. On the other hand you conroe pushers never brought to the attention of interested the importance of stability when you say "E6300 overclocks to 3.5ghz" or "my E6300 overclocks to....). I show you A64 3000 (a 1.8ghz) overclocked to 4 ghz and take 1m spi shot. but is it stable or I can do that too. NO.
Here were we differ. you bluntly claim core 2 does stellar OC, and I give the listeners the " warning".
Now about why I am comparing my 64bit to your 32bit- Because that's all you can do, 32bit. Comes Vista in another year or 2 everyone will change over. and 32bit will be as obsolete as win98. AMD improves by 10-15% in 64bit, whereas core 2 is stuck at 32bit level (maybe 1-5% improvement but not near AMD?s).

 

[harpoon84]

How about we wait for Vista to be released before comparing 64 bit performance on it?

I presented you an article from Xbit showing that C2D is still significantly faster in 64bit than AMD64 and you dismissed it as being 'paid by Intel'. So anything that proves you wrong is 'paid by Intel' apparently... right!

Sure, the pure gain % is lower on C2D, I'll give you that, but it's STILL FASTER than AMD64, which is the bottom line. C2D is ~20% faster clock for clock in 32bit and ~15% faster in 64bit. The Xbitlabs article clearly shows that C2D is still faster than AMD64 in the vast majority of 64bit applications, despite AMD64 scaling slightly better.

You can talk scaling all you want, but what matters in the end is real world performance. And in that regard C2D is streets ahead of AMD.

You are a tragic AMD fanboy, I've read your comments on many forums, even when everybody has proven you wrong you come back for more.

I wonder how long this thread will continue on, it seems we are just going in circles now.

Hey, I have an idea, why not create a public poll and see how many people agree/disagree with your point of view? That would be interesting.

 

[zsdersw]

Now about why I am comparing my 64bit to your 32bit- Because that's all you can do, 32bit.

Umm.. you could run regular ol' 32-bit XP too.. for the sake of comparison... or everyone else could run the 64-bit version of XP........ but the point is that your comparison is still false. It's clearly not "all that you can do".. since you don't have to run 64-bit XP and everyone else doesn't have to run 32-bit XP.

 

[Roguestar]

Actually by benchmarks he means his CPU is easier to lift over the head than the Core2Duo, duh. And everyone knows that means it's faster or scales more linearly or has blah blah [insert most recent argument here].


On a more serious note I see that he is using what is known as the Chewbacca Defence; when someone points out a valid contradiction, baffle the audience with nonsensical noises and distractions.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: n19htmare

Originally posted by: OcHungry

has it not occurred to you that i dont have the 3000 anymore and i did that test 6 moths ago? Why not just compare what you and i have at present time?
From your screenshot it shows that you only gained 11% w/ 13% more overclocked than my 4400. That means clock for clock the 4400 performce better. How else need to explain this? I am comparing your conroe result w/ my 4400. There is no if and but, and you can not change the fact or calculation. It's straight forward.

FOR THE 3rd time STOP comparing his 32bit to your 64Bit..... do you honestly blank out the people telling you that you're comparing the wrong results?

Why do ignore to respond to certain people....

FACT IS that once you get cornered in with no way out, you decide to rant on something else only to be cornered again. What does memory bandwidth have anything to do with this? so what if AMD has more bandwidth and low latency...HOW IN THE WORLD does that affect the final result.
All amd has is a crap lost of badwidth that not utalized and is just going to waste.... thats it.

I'll ask ONE more time Can you please provide us with stability test for your x2 4400 at 3000Mhz...
Thank you.

@ highlighted above. Yes, he has to. There is no other explanation. This all has to be a joke. I dunno, some people get a "rise" out of this kind of stuff. They like being berated for being impossibly stupid with there posts. Submissive types.

And Mark!!!! Holy Cow!!! First time for everything. And OCHungry, if Markfw calls you a AMD fanboy, then it's time for counseling in a huge way.

 

[sanitydc]

STILL HASN'T REPLIED TO MY CONROE POSTING HIGHER GAINS IN 64BIT THAN HIS ON HIS PITIFUL CINEBENCH BENCHMARK.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Now about why I am comparing my 64bit to your 32bit- Because that's all you can do, 32bit.

Umm.. you could run regular ol' 32-bit XP too.. for the sake of comparison... or everyone else could run the 64-bit version of XP........ but the point is that your comparison is still false. It's clearly not "all that you can do".. since you don't have to run 64-bit XP and everyone else doesn't have to run 32-bit XP.

Well you dont understand how this whole argument started.
There where those saying core 2 oc 40% better than A64. so I showed them that it's not true.
Then a few others said "Ok fine, but however you look at it, core 2 is still 30-40% better performer". Then I showed them that's not true either. First I proved that A64's cinebench is a mere 10-15% lower. Cinebench is good indication of CPU performance.
Then I brought to their attention that in 64bit A64 performs (in Cinebench) just as good as core-2 (if not better considering my memory speed was lower and A64 performance directly relates to memory speed and timings, because of IMC). Since 64bit has minimal impact on core-2's performance but on the other hand, A64 benifits 10-15% from it, the more meaningfull comparison should be conducted in 64bit(as far as AMD users are concerned). Furthermore, we are upgrading operating system to 64bit comes next year, why not see how both platforms perform in winxp 64bit or vista? Arent we interested in getting the most out of our system, after all?

 

[The-Noid]

All of your claims have been proved wrong. The Cinebench, the Scaling, The superPi. The worst part is you really believe what you are saying. You argue with logic and facts and are completely wrong on everything you say. Your computer also amazingly dissipates 135w of heat with a stock cooler and still STAYS and I quote "At or 1-2 degrees above room temperature" You obviously have no concept of computers, computer performance, or simply electricity. Also if you give me your e-mail I would love to send you over some pictures of stability. With a 60% overclock (which scales to 57%, which you were wrong on again) I am 24 hours orthos stable, and I also ran 3dmark05 looping for 12 hours (but my room temperature went up by 8 degrees ) so I had to stop.

 

[raincityboy]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Roguestar
Clearly the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to him.

His PC is cold with solution.

but how long crystals last?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Umm, no, his PC is green with envy. His head, on the other hand, who knows?

His head is stuck in early 2006.

Originally posted by: raincityboy

but how long crystals last?

I'm so glad I saw that thread. Is it in the archive?

 

[n19htmare]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
the thing is I?ve been truthful to you about everything I have said. On the other hand you conroe pushers never brought to the attention of interested the importance of stability when you say "E6300 overclocks to 3.5ghz" or "my E6300 overclocks to....). I show you A64 3000 (a 1.8ghz) overclocked to 4 ghz and take 1m spi shot. but is it stable or I can do that too. NO.
Here were we differ. you bluntly claim core 2 does stellar OC, and I give the listeners the " warning".
Now about why I am comparing my 64bit to your 32bit- Because that's all you can do, 32bit. Comes Vista in another year or 2 everyone will change over. and 32bit will be as obsolete as win98. AMD improves by 10-15% in 64bit, whereas core 2 is stuck at 32bit level (maybe 1-5% improvement but not near AMD?s).

If you have been truthful, you will NO PROBLEM backing up what you're saying. Prove me wrong and show me 8+ hours Orthos stability for your x2 4400 at 3000Mhz, no less.

I told you i'm pushing my E6300 at 3150mhz at a mere 1.2x V.... and I backed it up by showing an 8 hour Orthos test.

Last time you questioned Thilan29's overclock of 3.4Ghz.... He came back and showed you a 20+ hours Orthos stability. YOU NEVER acknowledged it, instead you went on to analyze some useless data and TOTALLY changed the topic to scaling... Scaling has didly squat to do with this...its about end result.

assume you scale better with amd... max you'll get 2.8 or so on air...
E6300 will have NO PROBLEMS reaching 3.2 on air at quiet low voltage....

In this case, IN THE END THE CORE 2 IS MUCH faster than your 2.8ghz
I ask again, Please show us you stable OC of 3000Mhz+

and I refuse to run 64bit till it is well set and has major driver support. I work with hardware in and out and i need a computer that has a good foundation on driver support. I just don't see it yet for the xp64....so I'm not moving over.

Plus, stop comparing vista...it's still months away, we'll compare it when it's launched.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: n19htmare

Originally posted by: OcHungry
the thing is I?ve been truthful to you about everything I have said. On the other hand you conroe pushers never brought to the attention of interested the importance of stability when you say "E6300 overclocks to 3.5ghz" or "my E6300 overclocks to....). I show you A64 3000 (a 1.8ghz) overclocked to 4 ghz and take 1m spi shot. but is it stable or I can do that too. NO.
Here were we differ. you bluntly claim core 2 does stellar OC, and I give the listeners the " warning".
Now about why I am comparing my 64bit to your 32bit- Because that's all you can do, 32bit. Comes Vista in another year or 2 everyone will change over. and 32bit will be as obsolete as win98. AMD improves by 10-15% in 64bit, whereas core 2 is stuck at 32bit level (maybe 1-5% improvement but not near AMD?s).

If you have been truthful, you will NO PROBLEM backing up what you're saying. Prove me wrong and show me 8+ hours Orthos stability for your x2 4400 at 3000Mhz, no less.

I told you i'm pushing my E6300 at 3150mhz at a mere 1.2x V.... and I backed it up by showing an 8 hour Orthos test.

Last time you questioned Thilan29's overclock of 3.4Ghz.... He came back and showed you a 20+ hours Orthos stability. YOU NEVER acknowledged it, instead you went on to analyze some useless data and TOTALLY changed the topic to scaling... Scaling has didly squat to do with this...its about end result.

assume you scale better with amd... max you'll get 2.8 or so on air...
E6300 will have NO PROBLEMS reaching 3.2 on air at quiet low voltage....

In this case, IN THE END THE CORE 2 IS MUCH faster than your 2.8ghz
I ask again, Please show us you stable OC of 3000Mhz+

and I refuse to run 64bit till it is well set and has major driver support. I work with hardware in and out and i need a computer that has a good foundation on driver support. I just don't see it yet for the xp64....so I'm not moving over.

Plus, stop comparing vista...it's still months away, we'll compare it when it's launched.

Well put! I currently have an AMD desktop for a primary rig, but damn am I drooling over the performance of the core 2's. This is why im going to buy a Merom(T7200) laptop soon!

 

[n19htmare]

Originally posted by: swtethan


Well put! I currently have an AMD desktop for a primary rig, but damn am I drooling over the performance of the core 2's. This is why im going to buy a Merom(T7200) laptop soon!

Thanks.
I was in the same boat... Though I loved my opty 165 at 2.9, I've been drooling over the Core 2. I've always gone for the setup that gives me better performance at a lower cost. Back then it was tough to beat an opty165.
I'll be honest, I just have an itch to upgrade even though i don't need. The itch becomes a MUST when the cost to crossover is very minimal, and you just HAVE to do it when you're actually MAKING money moving over to a faster machine. so I just had to.

I was surprised to see my ram sell for $200 when i payed 150 for it.... my cpu sold for $240, when i got it for 260.. and mobo sold for $100... Everything brought back what i put into it, thus the crossover to core 2 was at no loss to me. Well, I did loose out on 1GB of ram... oh well.

 

[raincityboy]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: raincityboy

but how long crystals last?

I'm so glad I saw that thread. Is it in the archive?

No. They deleted it.
It's a close call, but I think that thread was funnier than this one.

 

[Vertigo0176]

Here are the things I learned from this post:

1. I shoulda bought an E6300 instead of my E6600.
2. Like little children crying for attention, trolls go away if they are ignored.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
the thing is I?ve been truthful to you about everything I have said. On the other hand you conroe pushers never brought to the attention of interested the importance of stability when you say "E6300 overclocks to 3.5ghz" or "my E6300 overclocks to....). I show you A64 3000 (a 1.8ghz) overclocked to 4 ghz and take 1m spi shot. but is it stable or I can do that too. NO.
Here were we differ. you bluntly claim core 2 does stellar OC, and I give the listeners the " warning".
Now about why I am comparing my 64bit to your 32bit- Because that's all you can do, 32bit. Comes Vista in another year or 2 everyone will change over. and 32bit will be as obsolete as win98. AMD improves by 10-15% in 64bit, whereas core 2 is stuck at 32bit level (maybe 1-5% improvement but not near AMD?s).

I showed you a screen of my E6400 stable at 3.4GHz. AND I showed that core2 does scale linearly. What more proof do you want? I'm finished with this. You are ridiculous beyond belief and several people have made you look foolish already. I wonder where this will go next?:disgust: