You should probably see this

[herbiehancock]

Sanitydc, you've got to understand..........OcHungry is completely and utterly convinced that each and every review site on the internet has been bought and paid for by Intel.....no exceptions. This is because each review site, when benching the C2D cpus against current AMD offerings, keep coming up with figures that very much resemble each other.....that the C2D is much faster than current AMD processors, esp. with a bit of OC'ing.

OcHungry is living in the world of conspiracy and cannot and will not accept teh facts as they currently are: that Intel did spend the 3 years or so that they were down on performance compared to AMD to do some rather nice research, which has now paid off with the C2D line of cpus. When and if AMD surpasses Intel is to be seen, but given their history, it's a seesaw battle, one leapfrogging over the other, over and over.

OcHungry just cannot accept facts and would rather live in a fantasy world of his own with unbelievable benchies that he alone can replicate, that are disproven time and again by other members on this and other boards. I suppose a troll by any other name is OcHungry.

 

[markymoo]

@OcHungry

hey silly boy. the conroe surpasses the amd fx62 and it does it with less power

Prices released on Conroe, AMD may need to slash 70% on FX62

t?s noteworthy that the C2D E6600 2.4 GHz dual core Conroe which has a list price of $316 is able to beat the fastest AMD AM2-based FX-62 processor which costs around $1000.

With a level playing field, using much of the same components, the Intel X6800 pulled ahead of the AMD FX62. Some of the performance advantage can be attributed to the fact that the X6800 runs at 2.93GHz, while the FX62 runs at 2.8GHz. Also, the FX62 is based upon a 90-nanometer design, while the X6800 uses a 65-nanometer design. The AMD FX62 earned an overall Passmark score of 670.5, while the Intel X6800 scored 925.2 overall.

The only thing amd fx62 can beat conroe on is memory bandwidth

 

[sanitydc]

I'm noticing that herbie, he's probably just getting his jollies from seeing everyone trying to prove him wrong. Aside from that however...



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/xdiaboLix/CPUZEVERESTSUPERPI.jpg
There's my superpi 1m,2m, and 32m. As well as my Memory benchmarks Including read write and latency.... If you'll notice that little list you'll see that your lovely x2 4400+ scores about 55% lower than my c2d, strange. I guess having low latency doesn't help out memory bandwidth too much does it. or maybe having ddr memory just lowers your latency because it runs at tighter timings and lower speeds than ddr2 which has been known to have a higher latency. dumbass. anyways if you haven't been shamed enough I'd love to destroy you with another benchmark.

 

[zsdersw]

The only thing amd fx62 can beat conroe on is memory bandwidth

.. which, as the results have shown, doesn't matter.

 

[Keysplayr]

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).

We can read for ourselves, and can see that you and the OP are the only ones misinforming anybody at all. What blinds you so throroughly? I'm actually amazed. I have seen super zealots galore on this forum, but you easily dwarf them in comparison. If this is the notariety you were shooting for, then congratulations. Because you are the top tier in your field. An AMD super turbo zealot, and the likes of sharikou pales trembling before you.

Why oh why would you want that status? I guess whatever it takes to float your boat, eh?

 

[Roguestar]

EVERYONE ON THE INTERNET IS PAID TO LIE

THIS MUST BE THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION BECAUSE I CAN NOT BE WRONG


ENSIGN, ROTATE THE ARGUMENT SUBJECT FREQUENCIES, LOGIC AND REASON ARE CHARGING UP FOR ANOTHER PASS




Just calling in to thank OcHungry for amusing me in work. Thanks man!

 

[The-Noid]

OCHungry also states that his computer runs at room temperature without the AC on and with air cooling. He obviously is delusional and does not understand anything.

 

[Roguestar]

Clearly the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to him.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

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).

We can read for ourselves, and can see that you and the OP are the only ones misinforming anybody at all. What blinds you so throroughly? I'm actually amazed. I have seen super zealots galore on this forum, but you easily dwarf them in comparison. If this is the notariety you were shooting for, then congratulations. Because you are the top tier in your field. An AMD super turbo zealot, and the likes of sharikou pales trembling before you.

Why oh why would you want that status? I guess whatever it takes to float your boat, eh?

he still has not replied to my price correction post. I WONDER WHY

 

[swtethan]

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/395/4/

"With the Intel Core 2 Quad QX6700 processor we were able to see Cinebench 2003 complete the CPU Benchmark with all cores rendering the image in a short 13.4 seconds! I highly advise you to download Cinebench 2003 if you can find the dated benchmark (9.5 is current) and try this out at home and then you'll understand just how fast 13.4 seconds really is! For those that don't have the time to try it out our Dell XPS M1710 gaming notebook with the T7600 (Merom) processor completes the benchmark in 31 seconds, the Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor completes the benchmark in 22 seconds and the fastest offering by AMD (Athlon 64 FX-62) finishes the benchmark slower than our notebook at 35.6 seconds. Now does 13.4 seconds sound fast?"





Oh noes! Conspiracy! Intel is everywhere!!!! :laugh:

Kinda funny to see a mobile processor beat a top of the line desktop chip.

 

[n19htmare]

Originally posted by: OcHungry


Who says I was using stock cooling?

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Oh BTW take a look at my idle temp w/ stock cooling. its 21c. 1/2 of any conroe's Idle temp w/ creative cooling.
Question?

Please refer to you post on page 8 of this thread. You yourself said you were on stock cooling. Any Questions?

Originally posted by: OcHungry


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

Yet again, excellent job of comparing your 64BIT cinebench to his 32BIT cinebench... lol... now you've totally lost it. What proof do you have that he's 64bit? when i looked at his screenshots, all i saw was cinebench 9.5 and did not see the 64bit edition...

You try and try to twist the facts with your false implications...yet we're not stupid.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: sanitydc

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?

You said

dl any other benchmarker and I'd be willing to bet i get a good 20-40% higher score then you. dont be scared :[

So I said beat A64 memory and you ignore your own foul play.
To everyone else rehashing Gary Key's reply:
Let it be. I proved his benchmark is unreal and there is no retail conroe like his. You don?t see people do 500mhz FSB, or buy a $3000 system to get 2-3 seconds lower score in spi.
Here, I showed you conroe is not even 10% faster in cpu related benchmarks and you will not accept or admit. By the same token, you aint gonna convince me pay a dime for anything Intel offers. So stop your bashing AMD, insulting AMD owners, and stop rehashing old posts.
I didn?t continue arguing w/ anandtech reviewer and refrained myself from replying to you in the same tone. Go spent your money on conroe. I don?t care. But don?t misinform people about conroe is 20%, or 40% faster than AMD. it is not.
Further more, stop comparing any cheap but overclocked E6300/6400 to a $700 FX62 @ stock speed. Why don?t you compare stock speed E6700 w/ overclocked 3800 x2 (a $150 chip) for a change? It works both ways you know?. I showed you that a 4400 x2 overclocked can beat E6700 and perform @ X6800 level stock speed. None of these review sites you keep linking to showed that. A fair minded reviewer would have done so.

 

[996GT2]

Lol, I love flamewars like this...reminds me of the good old days of Akshayt

And may I add that it's pretty much common knowledge that a Core 2 will kick an A64's butt, no matter how much the latter is OC'd (they top out at 3.5 GHz or so btw). Like many have said, those gaming benches are GPU bould and don't do anything to test CPU power.

Lol, I?m running on AM2 and I?m supporting these facts?so to the OP no need to be fanboyish around here

 

[Shimmishim]

Not even 10%?

Didn't you link that one webpage that shows that clock for clock that the conroe was >10% faster than the X2 at superpi?

Isn't superpi a cpu related benchmark?

and also, no one is telling you or trying to convince you to buy intel.

We, as the casual overclocking, are trying to point out to those that are not as well informed that the intel offerings are the best for the time being. No one is bashing AMD or saying not to buy it. We are just trying to point out that intel offers the best performance RIGHT NOW.

Had this been early January of this year, you'd see people recommending AMD since it was owning the p4 in terms of performance.

As for why there are so many posts about temperature issues with the conroe and other related issues, it's because conroe is new and there are a lot more people with these setups RIGHT NOW.

Had this been early January of this year, you'd have seen a lot of people posting issues with AMD processors.

It's all about the timing and what has the best performance.

If you'd like, I can do a comparison of the E6700 vs. a 3800 X2 (939). You're gonna have to give me a little time to get my build complete though.

 

[swtethan]

yet again my remarks have not been answered, thanks OcHungry! you TROLL.

 

[sanitydc]

memory latency is a memory benchmark not a cpu benchmark.

 

[Markfw]

LOL. I have been called an AMD fanboy many times, but this OChungry guy leaves no doubt he is the king of AMD fanboys (keys, I can;t believe I am agreeing with you, but when you are right, I have to)

Conroe may be arguably 10-30% faster, and right now I won't say where, but they ARE faster, and DO take less power, and it's definitely OVER 10%, and sometimes OVER 20%. Let him rant, we all know whats up.

 

[thilanliyan]

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.

 

[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.

 

[cmdrdredd]

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.

Firstly why would he need to lie about running that speed? Second he wouldn't run it if it wasn't stable, and third the temps mean nothing when you're talking about speed and stability. You can have some chips simply run hot. It's how it is.

Oh and if you look at his sig he says he's running a TT BT which is not stock. So in the end you're an idiot who can't even read.

 

[sanitydc]

notice how he ignored me after I pointed out his memory latency benchmark was pointless and his memory's bandwidth was pitiful compared to mine, he's a silly kid :x.

 

[thilanliyan]

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.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: sanitydc
notice how he ignored me after I pointed out his memory latency benchmark was pointless and his memory's bandwidth was pitiful compared to mine, he's a silly kid :x.

yeah, ignored me too... oh well

 

[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.

 

[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.