You should probably see this

[RichUK]

OcHungry give it a rest, just let this thread die. You're not getting anywhere.

 

[raincityboy]

This thread is a good contender for Pwnage of the year.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
60% increase in CoD2 at low res?
33% increase in quake 4 @ low res?
33% increase in HL 2 @ low res?
33% (or more) improvement in encoding times?

I'd call that slapped about.

It's slapped about, but it's also useless since nobody actually games with an X1900 or 7900 card at 1024 resolution with no AA.

For gaming, FX-62 is still quite viable.

Originally posted by: Tsuwamono
We arent in the 90s anymore... Intel does it in the present. and AM2 supports AM3 hense why im building am2.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. AM2 is a socket; how could a socket possibly support the newer socket?

I think what you meant to say was that AM2 supports dual core today and will support quad core when it's out next year.

And thats all on low res. High res is a different story. Your also compareing brand new technology to old technology. Thats like saying "My p4 beats your Athlon 900mhz" its obvious that thats going to happen.

The low-res results are useless for real-life comparisons. They are only good at showing the raw power of the CPU itself, as compared to CPU benchmarks. For gaming, Athlon64 X2 is still right up there with Core2 as long as you play at high resolutions with AA/AF.

---------------

I think everyone is ignoring one possiblity - the slight immaturity of 975X for Crossfire. It can't be as good as ATI's implementation on RD580, and probably accounts for a slight drop in performance compared to Crossfire gaming on the RD580 (AMD) board.

But with that said AMD puts on a damn good show at high res with the single 7900GTX vs the Conroe.

Conroe dominates in video encoding and pure CPU benchmarks (owing a lot to its massive 4MB unified cache as well), but in gaming situations at high res, where the CPU is less of a factor, it does not dominate at all, it's a virtual tie!

 

[sanitydc]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/xdiaboLix/mine.jpg


here's my cinebench.
570 and 1054 respectively.

 

[sanitydc]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Folks lets just not get on tangent and be rude and offensive to a fellow member. Look at this argument w/ a fair frame of mind and don?t get irritated if you don?t like what you see or hear. I have refrained myself from giving those who resort to insult and profanity and have not reported you to anandtech (yet). But don?t go too far offending people here w/ your insults because I am sure a mod will have enough of you and your rudeness.
Anyways. I went ahead and put some numbers together for you. take a look at it and be fair please.
Below is a screenshot of my latest overclock and Cinebench benchmark. As you can see I am not too far off the Cinebench Hardware zone conducted on E6300 @ 3.36ghz.
My A64 4400 x2 is overclocked to 3036mhz and the Cinebench scores improved quite a bit.
Here is my analysis:
Hardware zone's
E6300 @ 3.36ghz $185
DDR2 1000 $225
DQ6 Mobo $226
Vid card $400
memory speed @ 480mhz
total $1036
Vcore @ 1.60v
Cooling? unknown. But must be adequate to be able to cool a vcore like that
Cinebech multi CPU 1076 Don?t know why the score for single CPU was not mentioned

Mine:
A64 4400 x2 @ 3036ghz $236
DDR 400 $56(2x256) or $115 (2x512)
Asrock Dual Sata mobo $66
GF7600GT $114
total $531(w/ 2x512)
Cooling: Ninja $ 39
memory speed @ 276mhz
Cinbench multi CPU 943 single score @ 503

The price performance:
Pay 95% more ($1036/$531) to get 14% improvement (in Cinebench)
My memory speed is almost ½ Hardwarezone's. I don?t know if I use 10x multi and better memory to run 1:1 @ 300mhz can help w/ cinebench score, but I am sure it will improve other applications.
Wouldn?t you rather save the $505 ($1036-$531) and spend it on something else? a monitor perhaps?
I did. I bought a 22" LCD for $350 shipping included and still have $155 left that can buy another vid card to make a SLI. Or just put it in the bank. I don?t think 15% improvement is worth $500. That is almost the price of another machine to build.
Bottom line is this: Core 2 is not kicking AMD's azz as some of you led to believe.
Now don?t let above piss you off because you went and spent $1000 on core 2 system and thing I am bashing you. That's your choice and more power to you. You did good and had the money to spend on the latest technology. But don?t be so hyped up about it and scorn those who buy cheaper machine that happens to be an AMD. that does not make you smarter and him dumb., because he spends $500 less o a set up 15% slower.
The chances are both system will perform just as equally.
Hardwarezone has the vcore @ 1.60v. Do you know how hard it is to cool that system?
I see people here complaining about Core 2's temp @ 1.40v vcore.
Yes hardware zone can overclock his E6300 to 3.36ghz. Can you? and what motherboard? would you use that chip @ 1.60v vcore 24/7 Or play game for an hour?
Think about it. Hardwarezone's benchmarks and review is unrealistic and the overclock w/ 1.60v is insane and impractical. what kind of cooling do they use for that 1.60 v chip anyway?
Enough said. you believe what you want and buy whatever pleases you. I know I spend my money wise and I don?t regret a second, or feel I?ve missed any performance.
Again, if you'd like to respond to this post, refrain yourself from bad words and be decent to your fellow member when you write.
Thanks.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4730/09302006033722fk5.jpg

25 degrees celsius with an air cooler? your ****** ridiculous. and all the stuff listed in your build = way over priced.
this was a month ago.
my video 190
my mobo 140
my cpu 240
my mem 140
cooling - 45
755 for a new aged system that will smash your 531 dollar build in every aspect I've been informed of. I think its worth the 200 dollars just not to be outdated the day you built your system.

and your comparing your low end rig to a high end conroe build?

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: dexvx
Thats BS, stock cooling to get a 90nm S939 X2 to 2.9Ghz?

I've read that stupid thread you linked me, and everyone has a $40+ Air Cooling or water cooling to get anywhere near that high. In fact, you're like the first person to suggest that the X2 stock cooler is enough for 2.9Ghz (2x 1MB) on *this* forum.

lol
my Opteron 170 @ 2.75 1.4v had 50C load with a big typhoon and I find it hard to believe that someone would do 2.9 with stock cooling.

Who says I was using stock cooling?
If you'd paid attention, I have mentioned several times That I am using ninja. I have had my case custom air cooled for quite a while now. In my home office I use a window A/C units that is flex duct to side panel w/ a 120mm fan blowing in. In heavy load (mostly during stress test) I turn on the a/c unit. The Highest temp I let this baby run is 48c (during dual prime), and normal load is right @ room temp or 1-2c above it (A/C off).
It is not so unussual to see 27c idle or light load.
To the poster who asked why I run Cinebench only- It's because this benchmark is a pretty good indication of CPU performance (gtaphic card has minimal impact).
You can clearly see that a 4400 x2 would give you equal performance (if not better) vs core 2 at same speed.
To person who wonders about 64bit. Yes AMD does about 10-15% better in 64 bit eliminating any core 2's advantage in 32bit or 64bit. Probably core 2's performance decreases in 64 bit (I dont know). What I know is that Intel's core 2 is based on 32bit instructions and can not perform as well as AMD in 64bit.
Why not use 64bit? Overtime everyone will use Vista (wixp 64bit today). Winxp 32 bit will be obsolete next year.
But to be fair to the questioner. The Anandtech's cinebech for FX62 was 380 at one point and later anandtech showed it to be 420. My speed was also slower than FX62 for cinebench benchmark. But any FX62 owner will tell you that on the average The Cinebench score is ~ 450 stock speed (not 380 or 420).
Anyways enough said and proven and nothing changes.
You keep scorning me and make false claim on how good core 2 is and how bad A64 x2. I know this: I have never been happier w/ the system I have.
Origionally I owned a Dell deminssion P4 3ghz, sold it, bought A64 3000 venice, bought opteron 146, and now i have this 4400 x2 which is much better than those mentioned.

 

[sanitydc]

Ignore anything that disproves your line of thought, then go vote for bush.

:\

 

[swtethan]

go right on ahead and ignore my post, OcHungry. You know im right

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
What I know is that Intel's core 2 is based on 32bit instructions and can not perform as well as AMD in 64bit.

Wrong.

Perhaps you could explain to me why, when testing out Windows Vista RC1 on my Core 2 Duo machine, the 32-bit version of Vista rated my CPU with a 4.8 while the 64-bit version rated it as 5.0? Same build number in each case (5600) and no changes in hardware.

Aside from that, though, your characterization of Core 2 Duo's roots and its performance in 64-bit is just flat out wrong. Maybe you should read up on the specs of the CPUs you're talking trash about.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
To person who wonders about 64bit. Yes AMD does about 10-15% better in 64 bit eliminating any core 2's advantage in 32bit or 64bit. Probably core 2's performance decreases in 64 bit (I dont know). What I know is that Intel's core 2 is based on 32bit instructions and can not perform as well as AMD in 64bit.
Why not use 64bit? Overtime everyone will use Vista (wixp 64bit today). Winxp 32 bit will be obsolete next year.

Just explain why you compared 32-bit Cinbench scores to YOUR 64-bit scores? Do a run in 32-bit and post THAT score.

 

[harpoon84]

OcHungry,

Conroe is still faster than AMD in 64bit.
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-64bit.html

Go on, state that review is 'biased' or 'removed from reality'. I can so see it coming from you.

 

[Keysplayr]

OC Hungry, where are you getting your info from?

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
OcHungry,

Conroe is still faster than AMD in 64bit.
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-64bit.html

Go on, state that review is 'biased' or 'removed from reality'. I can so see it coming from you.

X-Bit Lab will sell his own under age child to chines child labor manufac for a few $$.
Just read this quote

Of course, there are a few applications, when Core 2 Duo work slower in their 64-bit versions than it would in their 32-bit ones. Among them are Windows Media Encoder 9 or 7-zip archiving tool, for instance. However, since the other testing participants have also lost some of their performance in these tasks, the problem is most likely to be not in the microarchitecture. EM64T technology of Core 2 Duo processors has a positive effect on the performance in the majority of applications.

In 7-zip bench Core-2's 64bit has decrease vs AMD's increased. They call this the same?
Also SiSandra that they show are all those a few bench's that Core's 2 has little advantage, but fail to show those benches that AM2 whipes the floor w/ X6800. For example: AM2's memory bandwidth is twice as high as core-2 and memory latency is almost cut in half. Everest benchs is anothe benchmark that they faile to mention.
No matter how hard X-bit tried to paint a rosy picture for Core-2 performance in 64bit, they still had to show several bench'es that FX62 beats Conroe.
So go ahead keep misinforming people w/ links to paid per review sites and may be able fool a few. But at the end it will come back and hunt you. Because those a few who believed these core-2's adds will remember you (which can get nasty for you).

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
OC Hungry, where are you getting your info from?

What do you mean?
I get my own full proof info from my own system and anywhere I wish to visit.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
X-Bit Lab will sell his own under age child to chines child labor manufac for a few $$.
Just read this quote

what a load of ******. xbl staff are by far the most well-informed when it comes to cpu uarch. better than the respectable (anand, hannibal @ ars), and lightyears ahead of the idiots (you, sharikou, kyle @ hardforums, rahul sood, etc).

fyi, nobody gives a crap about sandra memory bandwidth bench, sciencemark is a known outlier against c2d (im not going to bother explaining to you why, but its been acknowledged for months internally), and c2d still wins overwhelmingly against fx62. end of story.

 

[terentenet]

I think the tests are not that conclusive right now. x64 OS's and benchmarking tools are not that mature. Perhaps along with Vista, which will be Microsoft's 2nd attempt at 64 bit things will change.
Thing with Vista is not that it's Microsoft's 2nd attempt at 64 bit, but they said it's being built from the ground up for 64 bit, not just a conversion as XP 64.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: harpoon84
OcHungry,

Conroe is still faster than AMD in 64bit.
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-64bit.html

Go on, state that review is 'biased' or 'removed from reality'. I can so see it coming from you.

X-Bit Lab will sell his own under age child to chines child labor manufac for a few $$.
Just read this quote

Of course, there are a few applications, when Core 2 Duo work slower in their 64-bit versions than it would in their 32-bit ones. Among them are Windows Media Encoder 9 or 7-zip archiving tool, for instance. However, since the other testing participants have also lost some of their performance in these tasks, the problem is most likely to be not in the microarchitecture. EM64T technology of Core 2 Duo processors has a positive effect on the performance in the majority of applications.

In 7-zip bench Core-2's 64bit has decrease vs AMD's increased. They call this the same?
Also SiSandra that they show are all those a few bench's that Core's 2 has little advantage, but fail to show those benches that AM2 whipes the floor w/ X6800. For example: AM2's memory bandwidth is twice as high as core-2 and memory latency is almost cut in half. Everest benchs is anothe benchmark that they faile to mention.
No matter how hard X-bit tried to paint a rosy picture for Core-2 performance in 64bit, they still had to show several bench'es that FX62 beats Conroe.
So go ahead keep misinforming people w/ links to paid per review sites and may be able fool a few. But at the end it will come back and hunt you. Because those a few who believed these core-2's adds will remember you (which can get nasty for you).

So now you are claiming Intel paid Xbitlabs money to do a 64bit C2D vs AMD64 comparison?

If you are making such accusations, it'd be good if you provided some proof.

Oh, and you seem to easily overlook the fact that AMD64 is slower than 32bit in a few benchmarks as well. Let's not mention THOSE results, shall we? Just sweep it under the carpet and hope nobody notices? LOL!

OcHungry, just a simple question: Do you honestly believe your X2 @ 2.8GHz matches a C2D @ 3GHz+?

So I guess ALL the reviews on the net are just sponsored Intel sites, and the only benchmarks we should believe are YOURS?

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: harpoon84


OcHungry, just a simple question: Do you honestly believe your X2 @ 2.8GHz matches a C2D @ 3GHz+?

No I did not say that. But clock for clock This 4400 x2 match'es or beats core 2 in 64bit.
Take a look at the 2 Cinbenches below. The E6300 is Overclocked to 2941mhz. My Cinebench score(single and multi CPU) are better than his. I am @ 3036, a 3.2%higher speed. My Cinebench scores are 1.6%-single and 3.2%-multi better than his.
Given the fact that his memory speed is much faster than mine, I would say this 4400 x2 equally performs (if not better) as Core-2 (in 64bit). Certainly Conroe is not 40% or even 5% better performer. This is why I question X-bit, and any website showing 10%-40% in favore of Core2. Cinebench is a good indication of CPU performance, if anyone still wonders or doubt my logic.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4730/09302006033722fk5.jpg
http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=e6300cinebenchvv2.png

 

[sanitydc]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: harpoon84


OcHungry, just a simple question: Do you honestly believe your X2 @ 2.8GHz matches a C2D @ 3GHz+?

No I did not say that. But clock for clock This 4400 x2 match'es or beats core 2 in 64bit.
Take a look at the 2 Cinbenches below. The E6300 is Overclocked to 2941mhz. My Cinebench score(single and multi CPU) are better than his. I am @ 3036, a 3.2%higher speed. My Cinebench scores are 1.6%-single and 3.2%-multi better than his.
Given the fact that his memory speed is much faster than mine, I would say this 4400 x2 equally performs (if not better) as Core-2 (in 64bit). Certainly Conroe is not 40% or even 5% better performer. This is why I question X-bit, and any website showing 10%-40% in favore of Core2. Cinebench is a good indication of CPU performance, if anyone still wonders or doubt my logic.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4730/09302006033722fk5.jpg
http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=e6300cinebenchvv2.png

did you miss my 6400 raping you?

570 and 1054? MY OC is 12% higher and my score is 15% higher than yours..


using 1 synthetic benchmark to prove your point is beyond sad. dl any other benchmarker and I'd be willing to bet i get a good 20-40% higher score then you. dont be scared :[

 

[sanitydc]

and I'm in 32 bit.

 

[harpoon84]

So you are saying any website showing C2D with a >20% edge over AM2 is outright lying?

Are you discrediting ALL the review websites which state that C2D has a 20% clock for clock advantage?

What exactly is 'wrong' with the way Xbit conducted their review? So say they have been 'paid off' by Intel, are you claiming that Xbit received money to artificially inflate Intel figures? Because you better well have proof before making such accusations!

I'd much rather trust Xbit and their suite of 20 benchmarks than your wild claims that your X2 is as fast as C2D. I'm sorry, but you're just too much of an AMD fanboy to have any credibility around this place.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: sanitydc

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: harpoon84


OcHungry, just a simple question: Do you honestly believe your X2 @ 2.8GHz matches a C2D @ 3GHz+?

No I did not say that. But clock for clock This 4400 x2 match'es or beats core 2 in 64bit.
Take a look at the 2 Cinbenches below. The E6300 is Overclocked to 2941mhz. My Cinebench score(single and multi CPU) are better than his. I am @ 3036, a 3.2%higher speed. My Cinebench scores are 1.6%-single and 3.2%-multi better than his.
Given the fact that his memory speed is much faster than mine, I would say this 4400 x2 equally performs (if not better) as Core-2 (in 64bit). Certainly Conroe is not 40% or even 5% better performer. This is why I question X-bit, and any website showing 10%-40% in favore of Core2. Cinebench is a good indication of CPU performance, if anyone still wonders or doubt my logic.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4730/09302006033722fk5.jpg
http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=e6300cinebenchvv2.png

did you miss my 6400 raping you?

570 and 1054? MY OC is 12% higher and my score is 15% higher than yours..


using 1 synthetic benchmark to prove your point is beyond sad. dl any other benchmarker and I'd be willing to bet i get a good 20-40% higher score then you. dont be scared :[

You wonna bet?
lets see if your core 2 can beat this memory latency. Go ahead kill yourself (or your conroe) to get near this poor old A64000 3000 @ 2.7 ghz.
tell you what, I give you a break. Whatever score you squeez out of your E6400 rear, multiply it by .70% (lower is better) and I say you win if can beat it.
But I think you already know That you've been violantly ripped apart. (Notice I didnt use the word "rape"), But you get the picture.
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/4521/07192006044246qv0.jpg

 

[herbiehancock]

OcHungry, you've been busted and owned so many times, yet you keep coming back for more............it reminds me of the joke about the moron who is sitting in the corner, hitting himself in the head with a hammer. When asked why was he hitting himself in the head, the moron answered, "Because it feels so good when I quit."

So here's a suggestion: Quit while you're ahead....it'll feel soooooo good.

Some ownage, in case you forgot:

Originally posted by: OcHungry

If you are refering to the challenging one of anandtech reviewer who claimed to have bought a retail 6400, for your info, that was a bate to trap the guy. Sure enough it worked and the guy went for it head first. The purpose for traping him was to expose his lie about him buying a retail version which was a lie. Show me any one who bought retail 6400 that can do super super pi 32M like he did. None. Notice also he never said anything about his chip's temp. Why do you guys kid yourself? A month has past and didnt take long for people to realize these conroes are turnning out just like no seller preseler.

Originally posted by: Gary Key, Anandtech Editor

The chip in question is a retail part purchased from TigerDirect. The performance numbers are in perfect alignment with any other E6400, stock or overclocked. The temp at overclock was 31c idle, 52c load, not any real difference from my 3800+ X2 when overclocked. Your continuing FUD about Conroe's temperature issues reminds me of your performance claims in the early summer that turned out to be false also. Please give it a break and if you cannot say something constructive or assist someone with an issue then take your FUD to the Off Topic area.

Here is a screen shot of the TigerDirect invoice- TigerDirect Invoice

The above exchange was taken from this thread.

(OcHungry mysteriously never reappeared nor answered in that thread.)

Originally posted by: OcHungry

1. I don?t have an AM2 board, but know the Asus board used for AM2 goes as high as 425mhz.
2. I can show you plenty of s939 that will do 400mhz and higher, so there is no reason why sAM2 couldn?t.
3. But question is: Why 325x9 was not used for FX62 to match Conroe's speed?
4. If Conroe's FSB is @ 1333, that means the cpu to memory was running @ 333mhz, compared to FX62 @ 200mhz. That is 65% increase in memory speed by itself.
Surely you know IMC can improve overall performance if mem speed is increased.
5. I get Spi of 35.8ns @ 312 1:1 ratio, but I see FX @ 45ns in your test. This tells me FX was not running at its optimal settings.
I understand that conroe is producing better benchmarks (so far ES and by review sites),
6. But I believe the AMD's side of things were ignored someways in most reviews.

Originally posted by: Gary Key

1. I own the Asus board and several other AM2 boards. Without serious modification they will not go above 400HTT in a stable manner.

2. This holds true with 98% of the S939 boards, only a couple on the market currently will go over 400HTT as shipped. It still does not matter if you decided to run the same settings with Core 2 Duo.

3. Why not use 11x266 to exactly match the 2.93 Conroe? We did and it does not allow the FX62 to surpass the X6800. Core 2 Duo runs on a 1066 bus, not 1333 so your numbers are incorrect. Also, Core 2 Duo has the lowest memory bandwidth of the AM2 or Netburst offerings, this measurement no longer translates into best performance.

4. You will find out shortly that even running a low latency 1066 memory strap on the FX62 will show great Sandra numbers but means very little in actual applications.

5. The FX in our tests were run at the stock HTT speed, the way the chip is shipped from AMD. Each system was setup and run at its standard configuration. I find it amusing that people (intel or amd) always want to compare an overclocked CPU to a stock CPU to try and state one is better than the other.

6. AMD has not been ignored. I doubt you would find a bigger AMD fan over the past few years as Anand or most of the editors on the site. We are first and foremost, performance fans. As such, Intel offers the highest performing CPU family (Core 2 Duo) now (will in three days). That is not a knock against AMD, it is simply a fact. If you are happy with AMD, stay with them, they make an excellent product. If you want to upgrade at this time then Core 2 Duo offers excellent performance and in most applications, leading performance. Everyone wins in my opinion.

The above was taken from this thread.

(OcHungry mysteriously never reappeared nor answered in that thread.)



You've been busted, owned, and yet you keep coming back.......guess you haven't hit yourself in the head enough, eh?

 

[theteamaqua]

1. games r GPU depandent

2. conroe can be easily to 3.5GHz range easily

3. i dont see any benches compare a E6600 at 3.6GHz vs FX at 3.2GHz both on aircooling, cuz i dont think FX can go that high curretn FX of course

 

[sanitydc]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: sanitydc

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: harpoon84


OcHungry, just a simple question: Do you honestly believe your X2 @ 2.8GHz matches a C2D @ 3GHz+?

No I did not say that. But clock for clock This 4400 x2 match'es or beats core 2 in 64bit.
Take a look at the 2 Cinbenches below. The E6300 is Overclocked to 2941mhz. My Cinebench score(single and multi CPU) are better than his. I am @ 3036, a 3.2%higher speed. My Cinebench scores are 1.6%-single and 3.2%-multi better than his.
Given the fact that his memory speed is much faster than mine, I would say this 4400 x2 equally performs (if not better) as Core-2 (in 64bit). Certainly Conroe is not 40% or even 5% better performer. This is why I question X-bit, and any website showing 10%-40% in favore of Core2. Cinebench is a good indication of CPU performance, if anyone still wonders or doubt my logic.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4730/09302006033722fk5.jpg
http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=e6300cinebenchvv2.png

did you miss my 6400 raping you?

570 and 1054? MY OC is 12% higher and my score is 15% higher than yours..


using 1 synthetic benchmark to prove your point is beyond sad. dl any other benchmarker and I'd be willing to bet i get a good 20-40% higher score then you. dont be scared :[

You wonna bet?
lets see if your core 2 can beat this memory latency. Go ahead kill yourself (or your conroe) to get near this poor old A64000 3000 @ 2.7 ghz.
tell you what, I give you a break. Whatever score you squeez out of your E6400 rear, multiply it by .70% (lower is better) and I say you win if can beat it.
But I think you already know That you've been violantly ripped apart. (Notice I didnt use the word "rape"), But you get the picture.
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/4521/07192006044246qv0.jpg

explain to me how that has absolutely anything to do with cinebench or anything else I said in my entire reply? so what if your slower processor and ram with tighter timings has a lower latency.. If you'd like I'll run a 32m super pi just to shame your numbers but please.. back to the point my 32bit xp e6400 beats your's by a good 15 percent with only a 12% higher OC then your chip in 64bit.. why do you completely disregard that buddy?