You should probably see this

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: dexvx
SuperPi 8M (32M Available @ XS)

E6300 (1.83Ghz) @ Stock = 321.652s
X2-3800 (2.0Ghz) @ Stock = 445.875s

E6300 @ 2.94 Ghz = 214.297
X2-3800 @ 3Ghz = 317.829

Scaling:

E6300 @ 60% overclock is 50% faster, .833 Scaling Factor (of 1.0)
X2-3800 @ 50% overclock is 40% faster, .8 scaling Factor (of 1.0)

/thread

this just proves your ignorance.
the 3800 @ 3ghz is 317 seconds? which is a 5m:28s= not spi 32m.
link please. lets see 32m that will use memory along w/ cache and not just cache used on 4m spi. 32m spi needs about 256mb of memory to run in case you need to know.
show me a link for superpi 32m 50% overclocked and I'll show you what I mean.
But let me put some data together to stop you from odor profusion when replying.
see you in 24
this is the reply to all the odor profusers- not you tuxdave, sorry about that

EDIT
here are couple of 6400's both overclocked. It's 1M spi, but proves my point any how:
E6400 @ 4119mhz (515mhz FSB) ........16.531s link
E6400 @ 3279mhz (410mhz FSB)......... 17.297s link
difference in overclock is: 4119/3279=25.6%
difference in spi 1M is: 17.297/16.531= 4.6%
Conclusion:
overclock E6400 by 25.6% and get 4.6% improvement. The ratio of improvement is 5.5 times (25.6/4.6=~5.5) less than AMD if overclocked the same percentage.
Rest my case

Doesn't spi have a lot to do with memory speed and timings?? Even though the timings are nearly the same for both E6400 systems, i doubt the memory is running at the same MHz. When I get home I'll do some tests on my E6400@3.4GHz.

if you look at the pics, the 4ghz one is running 2 spi calculations and the 3.2 ghz is running only 1

 

[n19htmare]

Originally posted by: swtethan
if you look at the pics, the 4ghz one is running 2 spi calculations and the 3.2 ghz is running only 1

But he is ignorant to stuff like that. ...

I will post results of my E6300 when i get home...

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: swtethan
if you look at the pics, the 4ghz one is running 2 spi calculations and the 3.2 ghz is running only 1

Oh thanks...didn't see that but as I asked earlier, doesn't SPI have a lot to do with memory and timings??

I remember when I had an A64 3000+ @ 2.5GHz that my Spi times were slower than other people with the same speed because my ram sucked.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: swtethan
if you look at the pics, the 4ghz one is running 2 spi calculations and the 3.2 ghz is running only 1

Oh thanks...didn't see that but as I asked earlier, doesn't SPI have a lot to do with memory and timings??

No, its marginal. as long as your ratio is set to 1:1.

Keep in mind the scaling difficulties of SuperPi. It seems most systems hit a "wall" at the 10 second mark and refuse to go lower.

 

[OcHungry]

Well My understanding was that 2 instances of spi will not be affected w/ core 2's. This was a Big question brought up at the time of conroe release and a lot of you claimed 1 or 2 instances give equal result. I took your word for it and was not paying attention when I was gathering this info. Why should I? I repeat -you had me convinced that conroe's 2 instances of SPi is the same as one. Now you claim otherwise?. Is it like " if the shoe fits ware it"? which is it? were you misinforming people or were you yourself misinformed (by Intel and Intel pushers).
Anyway, look at the WR links. You can clearly see core 2's graph has flatter slope than A64 x2. You can not deny that. or is that one not credible enough for you?
Just prove me wrong and post your screenshot of spi at 2 different speeds (ram's timings the same in both instances) and lets look at it. Oh BTW look at my idle temp.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Well My understanding was that 2 instances of spi will not be affected w/ core 2's. This was a Big question brought up at the time of conroe release and a lot of you claimed 1 or 2 instances give equal result. I took your word for it and was not paying attention when I was gathering this info. Why should I? I repeat -you had me convinced that conroe's 2 instances of SPi is the same as one. Now you claim otherwise?. Is it like " if the shoe fits ware it"? which is it? were you misinforming people or were you yourself misinformed (by Intel and Intel pushers).
Anyway, look at the WR links. You can clearly see core 2's graph has flatter slope than A64 x2. You can not deny that. or is that one not credible enough for you?
Just prove me wrong and post your screenshot of spi at 2 different speeds (ram's timings the same in both instances) and lets look at it. Oh BTW look at my idle temp.

Temps don't matter at all...it's performance. Your AMD is slower and I will prove it in a few minutes.

 

[RichUK]

OcHungry, are you Intelia's evil brother?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Ok I did couple of runs w/ spi 32m and you can clearly see that w/ AMD a 17% increase in speed translate to 17% increase in performance (+/- 1% margin of error).

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9422/09272006204938tw6.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6241/09272006220444oa9.jpg

The ram timings stayed the same. I could not lower speed w/ the same memory timings to run spi at 30-50% lower speed. My ram can not handle that.
Anyway you see the proof and judge it for yourself.
Also take a look at this chard below and compare core 2's spi graph w/ Athlon 64 x2. This graph shows different speeds for both systems. read the chard very carefully w/ precision. it clearly shows Athlon 64 x2 has a steeper slope than core 2. it shows A64 x2 spi improves considerably when cpu speed is increased. core 2's graph is flatter, which means lesser improvement (on spi) than A64 if overclocked.
Anyway enough said and you believe what you want. I know my stuff and did a thorough search before deciding on buying a dual core. AMD gives me better price performance than core 2 when overclocking comes to play.

http://www.hwbot.org/newsLink.do?newsPostId=275987

Also check the link below shows core 2's graph by itself. its spi versus speed. Just study it for yourself. You don?t have to prove anything to me. Just do yourself favor and be objective and honest to yourself.

http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_873

Good luck w/ your system build. End of story.

Judge this... Super Pi 32m @23m 27.442s On my E6400 @ stock settings. This is faster than even your 2.9Ghz X2.

and This... same test @ 3.2Ghz

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Ok I did couple of runs w/ spi 32m and you can clearly see that w/ AMD a 17% increase in speed translate to 17% increase in performance (+/- 1% margin of error).

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9422/09272006204938tw6.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6241/09272006220444oa9.jpg

The ram timings stayed the same. I could not lower speed w/ the same memory timings to run spi at 30-50% lower speed. My ram can not handle that.
Anyway you see the proof and judge it for yourself.
Also take a look at this chard below and compare core 2's spi graph w/ Athlon 64 x2. This graph shows different speeds for both systems. read the chard very carefully w/ precision. it clearly shows Athlon 64 x2 has a steeper slope than core 2. it shows A64 x2 spi improves considerably when cpu speed is increased. core 2's graph is flatter, which means lesser improvement (on spi) than A64 if overclocked.
Anyway enough said and you believe what you want. I know my stuff and did a thorough search before deciding on buying a dual core. AMD gives me better price performance than core 2 when overclocking comes to play.

http://www.hwbot.org/newsLink.do?newsPostId=275987

Also check the link below shows core 2's graph by itself. its spi versus speed. Just study it for yourself. You don?t have to prove anything to me. Just do yourself favor and be objective and honest to yourself.

http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_873

Good luck w/ your system build. End of story.

Judge this... Super Pi 32m @23m 27.442s On my E6400 @ stock settings. This is faster than even your 2.9Ghz X2. Do you even want me to run the test @3.2Ghz? I thought not

Yes please do. Again it's not about how fast your spi is. I get 420fps in cinebench and 14,500 on 3dmark3 w/ Gforce 7600GT and thats more than enough for me. The fact that I can overclock my AMD 40% and get 40% overall improvement is all I am concerned w/ and shop for. Not interested in breaking WR and spending $2000 to get near WR.
The objective here is what happens if you buy a $200 processor? would overclocking it give me a chip worth twice as much? With A64 4400 x2 I can acheive this objective. If it's hard for you to admit or understand this, well we are wasting each other's time.
But do show us your results please. I did. It's your turn now.

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1479/09182006051858bh1.jpg

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Ok I did couple of runs w/ spi 32m and you can clearly see that w/ AMD a 17% increase in speed translate to 17% increase in performance (+/- 1% margin of error).

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9422/09272006204938tw6.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6241/09272006220444oa9.jpg

The ram timings stayed the same. I could not lower speed w/ the same memory timings to run spi at 30-50% lower speed. My ram can not handle that.
Anyway you see the proof and judge it for yourself.
Also take a look at this chard below and compare core 2's spi graph w/ Athlon 64 x2. This graph shows different speeds for both systems. read the chard very carefully w/ precision. it clearly shows Athlon 64 x2 has a steeper slope than core 2. it shows A64 x2 spi improves considerably when cpu speed is increased. core 2's graph is flatter, which means lesser improvement (on spi) than A64 if overclocked.
Anyway enough said and you believe what you want. I know my stuff and did a thorough search before deciding on buying a dual core. AMD gives me better price performance than core 2 when overclocking comes to play.

http://www.hwbot.org/newsLink.do?newsPostId=275987

Also check the link below shows core 2's graph by itself. its spi versus speed. Just study it for yourself. You don?t have to prove anything to me. Just do yourself favor and be objective and honest to yourself.

http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_873

Good luck w/ your system build. End of story.

Judge this... Super Pi 32m @23m 27.442s On my E6400 @ stock settings. This is faster than even your 2.9Ghz X2. Do you even want me to run the test @3.2Ghz? I thought not

Yes please do. Again it's not about how fast your spi is. I get 425fps in cinebench and 14,500 on 3dmark3 w/ Gforce 7600GT and thats more than enough for me. The fact that I can overclock my AMD 40% and get 40% overall improvement is all I am concerned w/ and shop for. Not interested in breaking WR and spending $2000 to get near WR.
The objective here is what happens if you buy a $200 processor? would overclocking it give me a chip worth twice as much? With A64 4400 x2 I can acheive this objective. If it's hard for you to admit or understand this, well we are wasting each other's time.
But do show us your results please. I did. It's your turn now.

Ok now you're full of sh*t.

You're an idiot, a retard, and I bet kids on the short bus make fun of you every day.

It IS and ONLY WILL EVER be about how fast the CPU is. Nobody except someone retarded like you would buy a slower CPU for more money because they get a 10% gain from a 10% overclock. Meanwhile a CHEAPER CPU is faster at stock and can get a 50%+ overclock on air. It's not a matter of what scales better, it's a matter of which is faster and the fact is...AMD is slower, much much slower in fact.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Judge this... Super Pi 32m @23m 27.442s On my E6400 @ stock settings. This is faster than even your 2.9Ghz X2.

and This... same test @ 3.2Ghz

2.133Ghz: 23m 27.422s = 1407.422s
3.199Ghz: 16m 58.89s = 1018.89s

Scaling Factor:

+49.97% Clock Speed
+38.13% SuperPi 32M Speed

Relatively Efficiency: 76.3%

Edit: Would you please run your stock @ 1:1 FSB : DRAM ratio? The 2:3 might skew the results.

---

Oh BTW:

Retail E6400 @ Newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115004

$224. At stock, beats your $200 X2-4400 + $40 Heatsink

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Judge this... Super Pi 32m @23m 27.442s On my E6400 @ stock settings. This is faster than even your 2.9Ghz X2.

and This... same test @ 3.2Ghz

2.133Ghz: 23m 27.422s = 1407.422s
3.199Ghz: 16m 58.89s = 1018.89s

Scaling Factor:

+49.97% Clock Speed
+38.13% SuperPi 32M Speed

Relatively Efficiency: 76.3%

Edit: Would you please run your stock @ 1:1 FSB : DRAM ratio? The 2:3 might skew the results.

---

Oh BTW:

Retail E6400 @ Newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115004

$224. At stock, beats your $200 X2-4400 + $40 Heatsink

You can't run 1:1 with DDR2-800 memory at stock. speeds because it would only run DDR2-533 in that case. I did run 1:1 at 400Mhz FSb for 3.2Ghz

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
You can't run 1:1 with DDR2-800 memory at stock. speeds because it would only run DDR2-533 in that case. I did run 1:1 at 400Mhz FSb for 3.2Ghz

Its more for scaling purposes.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd


Ok now you're full of sh*t.

You're an idiot, a retard, and I bet kids on the short bus make fun of you every day.

It IS and ONLY WILL EVER be about how fast the CPU is. Nobody except someone retarded like you would buy a slower CPU for more money because they get a 10% gain from a 10% overclock. Meanwhile a CHEAPER CPU is faster at stock and can get a 50%+ overclock on air. It's not a matter of what scales better, it's a matter of which is faster and the fact is...AMD is slower, much much slower in fact.

Now you dont make sense and resort to profanity.
Your E6300 is not faster than my A64 4400 x2. Show us your 3d rendreing (Cinebench).
According to Anandtech article your cinebench at stock is 313 vs mine around 340 at stock speed.
But I have Overclocked this 4400 to 2.8ghz and get 420 score which is above E6600.
show us your 3d rendreing if you say your E6300 is faster.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=7

 

[cmdrdredd]

FYI I have E6400 not E6300 so I don't think you can even read since it's right in my sig >.>

 

[harpoon84]

I don't understand why OcHungry keeps embarrasing himself.

His 'mighty' 4400+ @ 2.8GHz will get utterly OWNED by any C2D @ 3GHz, let alone a 3.5 or 4GHz one.

He keeps talking about his 'special calculations and theorys' because he has no benchmarks to back himself up. He is a fraud, plain and simple.

 

[thilanliyan]

Here's my SuperPi 1M scores for E6400 (ram timings fixed at 5-5-5-12 but speed varied with FSB setting):

28.406 @2.1GHz
25.281 @2.4GHz
20.141 @3.0GHz
18.813 @3.2GHz
17.579 @3.4GHz

2.1-2.4GHz-->14% clock increase-->12%SPI 1M advantage
2.4-3.0GHz-->25% clock increase-->25%SPI 1M advantage
3.0-3.2GHz-->7% clock increase-->7%SPI 1M advantage
3.2-3.4GHz-->6% clock increase-->7%SPI 1M advantage

Seems fairly linear to me. Of course it will only be linear up to a certain point.

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Your E6300 is not faster than my A64 4400 x2. Show us your 3d rendreing (Cinebench).
According to Anandtech article your cinebench at stock is 313 vs mine around 340 at stock speed.
But I have Overclocked this 4400 to 2.8ghz and get 420 score which is above E6600.
show us your 3d rendreing if you say your E6300 is faster.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=7

My E6400@3.4GHz scored 565 for single CPU test and 1049 for multi CPU test. Oh and I matched your 2.8GHz and scored 457. I don't know how much of a factor ram is in this test though.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
I don't understand why OcHungry keeps embarrasing himself.

His 'mighty' 4400+ @ 2.8GHz will get utterly OWNED by any C2D @ 3GHz, let alone a 3.5 or 4GHz one.

He keeps talking about his 'special calculations and theorys' because he has no benchmarks to back himself up. He is a fraud, plain and simple.

Aye and lets see his system beat This Cinebench run

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd


Ok now you're full of sh*t.

You're an idiot, a retard, and I bet kids on the short bus make fun of you every day.

It IS and ONLY WILL EVER be about how fast the CPU is. Nobody except someone retarded like you would buy a slower CPU for more money because they get a 10% gain from a 10% overclock. Meanwhile a CHEAPER CPU is faster at stock and can get a 50%+ overclock on air. It's not a matter of what scales better, it's a matter of which is faster and the fact is...AMD is slower, much much slower in fact.

Now you dont make sense and resort to profanity.
Your E6300 is not faster than my A64 4400 x2. Show us your 3d rendreing (Cinebench).
According to Anandtech article your cinebench at stock is 313 vs mine around 340 at stock speed.
But I have Overclocked this 4400 to 2.8ghz and get 420 score which is above E6600.
show us your 3d rendreing if you say your E6300 is faster.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=7

Look at the link you posted... notice that E6300 @ 2.5Ghz? Where does that sit? That's right... above your 2.8Ghz 4400+ *gasp*

 

[gramboh]

Hey OcHungry, why are you only using SuperPi to prove your OC scaling theory? How can you be sure that SuperPi scales in a linear fashion? It DOESN'T. Idiot.

 

[n19htmare]

Aww i was gonna post my results but whats the point.... it'll just humiliate OChungry even more...

I can't believe he thinks his X2 4400+ at 2.8Ghz is faster than a e6300 at 3.2Ghz...

Why OChungry? why must you be the guinea pig around here?
Save yourself some more humiliation and stop while you're ahead

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: thilan29
Here's my SuperPi 1M scores for E6400 (ram timings fixed at 5-5-5-12 but speed varied with FSB setting):

28.406 @2.1GHz
25.281 @2.4GHz
20.141 @3.0GHz
18.813 @3.2GHz
17.579 @3.4GHz

2.1-2.4GHz-->14% clock increase-->12%SPI 1M advantage
2.4-3.0GHz-->25% clock increase-->25%SPI 1M advantage
3.0-3.2GHz-->7% clock increase-->7%SPI 1M advantage
3.2-3.4GHz-->6% clock increase-->7%SPI 1M advantage

Seems fairly linear to me. Of course it will only be linear up to a certain point.

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Your E6300 is not faster than my A64 4400 x2. Show us your 3d rendreing (Cinebench).
According to Anandtech article your cinebench at stock is 313 vs mine around 340 at stock speed.
But I have Overclocked this 4400 to 2.8ghz and get 420 score which is above E6600.
show us your 3d rendreing if you say your E6300 is faster.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=7

My E6400@3.4GHz scored 565 for single CPU test and 1049 for multi CPU test. Oh and I matched your 2.8GHz and scored 457. I don't know how much of a factor ram is in this test though.

Screenshot?

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: harpoon84
I don't understand why OcHungry keeps embarrasing himself.

His 'mighty' 4400+ @ 2.8GHz will get utterly OWNED by any C2D @ 3GHz, let alone a 3.5 or 4GHz one.

He keeps talking about his 'special calculations and theorys' because he has no benchmarks to back himself up. He is a fraud, plain and simple.

Aye and lets see his system beat This Cinebench run

Is that yours?
what speed and what cpu?

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd


Ok now you're full of sh*t.

You're an idiot, a retard, and I bet kids on the short bus make fun of you every day.

It IS and ONLY WILL EVER be about how fast the CPU is. Nobody except someone retarded like you would buy a slower CPU for more money because they get a 10% gain from a 10% overclock. Meanwhile a CHEAPER CPU is faster at stock and can get a 50%+ overclock on air. It's not a matter of what scales better, it's a matter of which is faster and the fact is...AMD is slower, much much slower in fact.

Now you dont make sense and resort to profanity.
Your E6300 is not faster than my A64 4400 x2. Show us your 3d rendreing (Cinebench).
According to Anandtech article your cinebench at stock is 313 vs mine around 340 at stock speed.
But I have Overclocked this 4400 to 2.8ghz and get 420 score which is above E6600.
show us your 3d rendreing if you say your E6300 is faster.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=7

Look at the link you posted... notice that E6300 @ 2.5Ghz? Where does that sit? That's right... above your 2.8Ghz 4400+ *gasp*

OK, I went ahead and did the Cinebench 3D Rendering in 64bit(for vista and winxp 64 users) and resulted in a quite a bit improvement. the single CPU score is 434 (right at overclocked e6300) and the dual CPU score is 887 (way above overclocked e6300, e6600 and damn near X6800). The dual CPU is what you should pay attention to, since you have bought a dual core and multitasking is of your interest.
Here the true 64 processor shine and can be appreciated. I haven?t even overclocked the GPU (if that matters any) or do have any state of art graphic card.
Folks these conroe pushers are beyond believe. Don?t pay attention to their insults and name callings. This is the way these people always react when cornered.
As you can see when I use win vista or winxp 64 I can get near the performance of a core 2 X6800 (>$1,000.00 chip). More importantly, the score I get is way above overclocked 6400, 6300 and way above E6600 at stock).
This is w/ a $230 CPU, a $70 motherboard, and a $115 (7600GT) single vid card.
Don?t waste your money on what you don?t need you can get for 1/3rd less. You don?t need the glory of conroe the pusher forcing on our throat.
Be practical. Look at the screenshot bellow and the benchmarks and decide for yourself.
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8383/09292006020304km9.jpg
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=7

 

[n19htmare]

Right and EVERY SINGLE USER ONLY USES THEIR COMPUTER TO RENDER.
You have who cornered?...you yourself are cornered.
Bravo on comparing 64bit vs 32bit results and drawing a conclusion.... you're a bright oneI see.


You base your conclusion on ONE result that was most likely affected by other things. When 99% other benchmarks show Core 2 Duo to be leaps ahead of your beloved X2....

Folks these conroe pushers are beyond believe. Don?t pay attention to their insults and name callings. This is the way these people always react when cornered.
As you can see when I use win vista or winxp 64 I can get near the performance of a core 2 X6800 (>$1,000.00 chip). More importantly, the score I get is way above overclocked 6400, 6300 and way above E6600 at stock).
This is w/ a $230 CPU, a $70 motherboard, and a $115 (7600GT) single vid card.
Don?t waste your money on what you don?t need you can get for 1/3rd less. You don?t need the glory of conroe the pusher forcing on our throat.

Now your'e just plain begging for people to buy AMD.... who exactly are these "folks" youre talking to? everyone on here has already called you ignorant and absent minded to reality.