You should probably see this

[Bobthelost]

OC Hungry is using the classic conspiracy theorist method of debate, moving targets. When you attempt to fix him on one of his errors he moves onto another one and ignores all earlier references to it.

He's either an idiot or much smarter than us as he's being paid to do this.

 

[harpoon84]

Hey OcHungry, I have some numbers for you, in case you missed the other thread ( http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1935280&enterthread=y ). It took me 15 minutes just to collaborate all the results so hopefully you will have the guts to reply to my post and acknowledge that you have been utterly and totally proven wrong.

The following is an article that compares the performance of an E6300 @ 3.36GHz against stock X6800, E6700, E6600 and the fastest CPU currently available from AMD - the Athlon FX-62.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=2014&cid=2&pg=1

SYSmark 2004
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 357
Athlon FX-62 - 282
Intel advantage: +26.6%

SYSmark 2004 Internet Content Creation
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 470
Athlon FX-62 - 364
Intel advantage: +29.1%

SYSmark 2004 Office Productivity
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 271
Athlon FX-62 - 219
Intel advantage: +23.7%

PCMark05 CPU Score
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 8624
Athlon FX-62 - 5741
Intel advantage: +50.2%

PCMark05 Memory Score
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 7088
Athlon FX-62 - 5191
Intel advantage: +36.5%

Cinebench 2003
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 1076
Athlon FX-62 - 746
Intel advantage: +44.2%

XMpeg 5.03 (lower is beter)
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 6.33 minutes
Athlon FX-62 - 9.62 minutes
Intel advantage: +52%

3DMark06
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 4771
Athlon FX-62 - 4602
Intel advantage: +3.7% (GPU limited benchmark)

3DMark06 CPU Score
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 2836
Athlon FX-62 - 2165
Intel advantage: +31%

AquaMark 3
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 125.47 fps
Athlon FX-62 - 103.59 fps
Intel advantage: +21.1%

AquaMark 3 CPU Score
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 17651
Athlon FX-62 - 12678
Intel advantage: +39.2%

Quake 4 (single core)
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 94.6 fps
Athlon FX-62 - 74.3 fps
Intel advantage: +27.3%

Quake 4 (SMP)
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 102.2 fps
Athlon FX-62 - 90.3 fps
Intel advantage: +13.2%

UT2004
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 133.67 fps
Athlon FX-62 - 106.7 fps
Intel advantage: +25.3%

Overall E6300 @ 3.36GHz advantage over Athlon FX-62 - 30.22%

C2D doesn't scale eh? Well, it's freaking owning an FX-62 by 30%, that certainly puts to rest your 'theory' that C2D only scales 17% or whatever for a 50% overclock.

Talk about eating humble pie eh?

Game over buddy.

You've just been completely and utterly... O-W-N-E-D ! ! !

 

[OcHungry]

You keep judging me (w/ insults) and I keep posting results. But Please refrain yourself from offending the fellow members and be decent. thanks

Anyways,
I downloaded the latest nvedia vid driver and now I am able to do the 3D Rendering @ 460 single CPU, and 890 dual. these scores are right at X6800's (2.93ghz) scores.
You should wonder a 2.85ghz 4400 x2 w/ a lower grade vid card can do just as good as a X6800 @ 2.93ghz using top of the line vid card. Further more, the benchmarks are by anandtech (the experts who gets cherry picks).

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9501/09292006043456hf8.jpg

And I am not escaping anything. I proved my point and still waiting for some links, or some screenshots from those who claim otherwise. The Cinebench is a good indication of cpu performance and this is what we are after, and want to know. Right?
I will do a video encoding if that's pleases you. post your core 2's results and the segment to encode and I will do it.

 

[Bobthelost]

And I am not escaping anything. I proved my point and still waiting for some links

You're right, at no point did you say this:

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.

Good thing too, or you'd be looking really bloody stupid about now.

Screenshots? So easy to fake they aren't worth the bandwidth they are printed on. We have to rely on people's honesty and integrity here, which is why i am not impressed by you in the slightest.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
You keep judging me (w/ insults) and I keep posting results. But Please refrain yourself from offending the fellow members and be decent. thanks

Anyways,
I downloaded the latest nvedia vid driver and now I am able to do the 3D Rendering @ 460 single CPU, and 890 dual. these scores are right at X6800's (2.93ghz) scores.
You should wonder a 2.85ghz 4400 x2 w/ a lower grade vid card can do just as good as a X6800 @ 2.93ghz using top of the line vid card. Further more, the benchmarks are by anandtech (the experts who gets cherry picks).

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9501/09292006043456hf8.jpg

And I am not escaping anything. I proved my point and still waiting for some links, or some screenshots from those who claim otherwise. The Cinebench is a good indication of cpu performance and this is what we are after, and want to know. Right?
I will do a video encoding if that's pleases you. post your core 2's results and the segment to encode and I will do it.

As I guessed. You go off claming all these ridiculous 'facts' that are totally wrong, and when that is conclusively proven, you chose to ignore that and continue on your merry way.

I'm pretty sure you're not blind, so I have to assume you just conveniently chose to ignore my post. Those numbers are pretty damning, theres even a Cinebench score there, and the E6300 @ 3.36GHz beats the FX-62 by a whopping 44.2%.

You just can't hack being wrong, I guess.

Go on, keep insisting your X2 @ 2.8GHz matches an overclocked C2D. The only person you can convince is probably yourself.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: harpoon84


.

I have discarded you since you have been rude, insulting and plain indecent.
But I took a glance at those benches and gave it "0" for credibility.
Why? b/c the numbers are all twisted and no way near reality.
for example it shows X6800 Cinebench's score to be 940 and fx62 at 749. My A64 3000 can do better than that. just compare it w/ anandtech's benchmarks and you?ll see what I mean. Can your e6300/6400 do a cinebench of over 1000? how about 900? or why not just 800? If you own a core 2, then show me your results, not youur big Dady who's set up is just a set up. setting you up. Don?t be fooled.
I am still waiting for one of you to show me a score of his/her own. But you keep posting so and so can do this and that. where is yours? Don?t go through the trouble of showing me someone's scores that even you have hard time believing it.
Unless you have something substantial to show(your own CPU, PC, benchmarks) everything else is heresy and worthless.
I had the guts to show my cpu?s results. Where is yours?

 

[harpoon84]

As I thought.

Discredit another sites benchmarks as 'no way near reality' since they don't match your state of denial.

Perhaps you should email the author and let him know that his results are bogus.

Look at ALL the results again. Soak it in. E6300 @ 3.36GHz is 30% quicker overall compared to your X2 4400+ @ 2.8GHz.

Are you here to tell me that you think ALL those results are totally bogus and that your own results represent the epitome of benchmarking perfection?

Stop living in denial, get a grip on reality.

C2D >>> X2.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Here's my Cinabench on an OC E6400 to 3.2Ghz

986 for Multicore good?

 

[Shimmishim]

lol. this is a funny thread.

i think i understand part of Ochungry's argument but... it's still not completely valid.

it seems like OcHungry really likes the X2 due to the fact that it can scale almost linearly with overclock... meaning a 17% increase in o/c leads to a 17% increase in score (or decrease in time with the case of superpi 1M)

I agree that the X2 probably does scale linearly but so does the C2D up to a point before it drops off.

Here's the deal.

Who buys a cpu because it can scale linearly with superpi 1M scores? I sure don't.

I don't think most people do. In the end, it comes down to which cpu is the fastest and performance the best.

Even the graph that shows the 1M scores, it shows that at the same speed, the C2D is about 10 seconds faster (depending at which speed you look at).

I personally don't care if the C2D doesn't scale linearly. All I know from seeing threads over at xtremesystems and other places, the C2D performs better than the X2.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
for example it shows X6800 Cinebench's score to be 940 and fx62 at 749. My A64 3000 can do better than that. just compare it w/ anandtech's benchmarks and you?ll see what I mean.

Can you show a screenshot of your A64 3000 doing over 940 in 32-bit Cinebench?? I'd love to see that. You must have an A64 from the planet Krypton.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Cinebench redone w/CPU-Z

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
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

*YAWN*

So you want to compare Windows XP 64bit? Lets go ahead:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=13

Your reported score @2.9Ghz : 434 Single, 887 Multi
E6700 @ STOCK (2.67Ghz): 463 single, 861 Multi

So you spend hours tweaking your system to the max to eek out every point of performance, and you can barely match a stock E6700 from some plain joe who has done no tweaking at all?

So what does that say? An E6300 at around the 2.7Ghz mark will match your 2.9Ghz @ Cinebench 64bit? So I'm gonna go on a limb and say an E6300@3.2Ghz, which if you actually read this forums can be done with a $40 heatsink and a $150 motherboard with a $180 Retail E6300 will smash your setup apart.

 

[n19htmare]

but but but but but

 

[Keysplayr]

Yeah, OCHungry guy is way past comical at this point. X2's are cranking CPU's but cmon man. Know when to say, "I'm wrong."

And no, this was not an invite for you to say, "Ok, you're wrong." Just in case it was the only thing you could think of to say.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Yeah, OCHungry guy is way past comical at this point. X2's are cranking CPU's but cmon man. Know when to say, "I'm wrong."

And no, this was not an invite for you to say, "Ok, you're wrong." Just in case it was the only thing you could think of to say.

omg you are like, sooooo wrong

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
lol. this is a funny thread.

i think i understand part of Ochungry's argument but... it's still not completely valid.

it seems like OcHungry really likes the X2 due to the fact that it can scale almost linearly with overclock... meaning a 17% increase in o/c leads to a 17% increase in score (or decrease in time with the case of superpi 1M)

I agree that the X2 probably does scale linearly but so does the C2D up to a point before it drops off.

Here's the deal.

Who buys a cpu because it can scale linearly with superpi 1M scores? I sure don't.

I don't think most people do. In the end, it comes down to which cpu is the fastest and performance the best.

Even the graph that shows the 1M scores, it shows that at the same speed, the C2D is about 10 seconds faster (depending at which speed you look at).

I personally don't care if the C2D doesn't scale linearly. All I know from seeing threads over at xtremesystems and other places, the C2D performs better than the X2.

QTF

I posted in this thread the day it started and haven't really checked back. I was wondering why this thread keeps popping up. Now I see why and decided to dig out some old screenies.

E6300 Cinebench http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=e6300cinebenchvv2.png
E6400 Cinebench http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=e6400cinebenchgu8.png
E6400 32M (single) http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=e6400superpioe0.png
E6600 Cinebench http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=e6600cinebenchjt9.png
E6600 32M (dual) http://img158.imageshack.us/my.php?image=e6600superpiyz3.png

Opteron 148 32M http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=148superpibc3.png
Opteron 146 1M http://img158.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1461mti4.png
3800+ (AM2) 32M http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3800superpidj1.png

Right now the only advantages that A64 has going for it are the integrated memory controller and multi-GPU support. (and possibly better motherboard selection, but this is changing very quickly) Thanks to the high quality memory controller which is built into the CPU, on the contrary to the MCH, a set of DIMMs will show better potential on A64 platform. For instance my DDR2 sticks did up to 1160MHz with a 3800+, a full 100MHz more than on 975X. I also loved the Socket 939 platform where I used to fiddle with every single parameters in A64Tweaker to squeeze out more performance.

But we know memory performance matters only when CPU take advantage of it.

Core 2 Duo more than makes up for the bandwidth disadvantage with its sheer power. AMD had to lower the prices of their entire lineup just to stay competitive. I have a hard time understanding people who argue against the obvious just because of their preference or buyer's remorse, etc. Could we leave the favoritism in the video forum?

 

[markymoo]

@OcHungry
what good is it if you buy a fx62 and get a 20% overclock and a 20% increase in bench score or actual 20% real live use performance as you suggested if the amd costs more money and if the fx62 ends up being slower than a conroe? the conroe end result is faster. i understand your mentality. whats point of proving this. people are more interested in the end result. speed and performance. i say again the conroe has more power per watt. you be using more electricity on your amd speed for speed. lol

keep it up OcHungry now is great entertainment.

it kind of like you are comparing your ram in your amd build is faster than our conroes ram and you think thats more important and superior than the final mhz of the cpu and whole performance of the pc which we have you beaten on.

@all
this thread has so far been a supposed benchmark beater, conroe vs. fx62, ridiculous going on funny.

now that this thread has gone further than any ever of us imagined can we now have the conroe xp 64bit vs. amd fx62 benchmarks. as i understand the conroe didnt fully implement 64bit. is anybody running 64bit xp on the conroe? the drivers for p5b are available. i read 20% slower. please confirm.

 

[secretanchitman]

C2D > any cpu out there. stock and overclocked.

stop denying it. its the best value for cpus right now.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Yeah, OCHungry guy is way past comical at this point. X2's are cranking CPU's but cmon man. Know when to say, "I'm wrong."

And no, this was not an invite for you to say, "Ok, you're wrong." Just in case it was the only thing you could think of to say.

omg you are like, sooooo wrong

LOL!!!

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: OcHungry
for example it shows X6800 Cinebench's score to be 940 and fx62 at 749. My A64 3000 can do better than that. just compare it w/ anandtech's benchmarks and you?ll see what I mean.

Can you show a screenshot of your A64 3000 doing over 940 in 32-bit Cinebench?? I'd love to see that. You must have an A64 from the planet Krypton.

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.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: OcHungry
for example it shows X6800 Cinebench's score to be 940 and fx62 at 749. My A64 3000 can do better than that. just compare it w/ anandtech's benchmarks and you?ll see what I mean.

Can you show a screenshot of your A64 3000 doing over 940 in 32-bit Cinebench?? I'd love to see that. You must have an A64 from the planet Krypton.

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.

It's the corrupt reviewers!

They're all out to get us/you/your lucky charms!

Tell me something, have you been abudcted by aliens or does that tinfoil hat protect you?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: OcHungry
for example it shows X6800 Cinebench's score to be 940 and fx62 at 749. My A64 3000 can do better than that. just compare it w/ anandtech's benchmarks and you?ll see what I mean.

Can you show a screenshot of your A64 3000 doing over 940 in 32-bit Cinebench?? I'd love to see that. You must have an A64 from the planet Krypton.

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.

I'd imagine you would also, if only to get someone here to buy your story.

 

[zsdersw]

Sorry, OcHungry, but the world is round.. not flat.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: zsdersw
Sorry, OcHungry, but the world is round.. not flat.

He hasn't got that far yet. He still thinks the Earth is at the center of the solar system.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: OcHungry
for example it shows X6800 Cinebench's score to be 940 and fx62 at 749. My A64 3000 can do better than that. just compare it w/ anandtech's benchmarks and you?ll see what I mean.

Can you show a screenshot of your A64 3000 doing over 940 in 32-bit Cinebench?? I'd love to see that. You must have an A64 from the planet Krypton.

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.

So let's see the screenshot of your mystical/magical/super A64 3000+ beating the FX-62 in the 32-bit Cinebench CPU test. The 3000+ will only be able to run the single CPU test so will get NOWHERE NEAR the FX62 score. Hardwarezone shows 749 for the Fx62 and anand shows 783(not a drastic difference and that's for the multi cpu test) so let's see your 3000+ beat even the 749 which you claim is too low.