Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Tell me something, have you been abudcted by aliens or does that tinfoil hat protect you?
He's one of the 4400
Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Tell me something, have you been abudcted by aliens or does that tinfoil hat protect you?
Originally posted by: liebremx
Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Tell me something, have you been abudcted by aliens or does that tinfoil hat protect you?
He's one of the 4400
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: liebremx
Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Tell me something, have you been abudcted by aliens or does that tinfoil hat protect you?
He's one of the 4400
The show was supposed to be called "The 4401", but they had transporter problems.
He was stuck in the buffer too long....
Originally posted by: thilan29
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.
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Please lock this thread and give OcHungry a vacation. Obviously, he's trolling b/c no one can be this stupid in real life. And all this has become is a pissing contest.
Originally posted by: herbiehancock
This thread has been quite a hilarous read. Does the Oc gent honestly believe and expect anyone else to believe that every single hardware stie on the internet has been bought off by Intel? Talk about conspiracy theories....
What I see is site after site replicating tests showing essentially the same results that the C2D, such as the E6300, when OC'd, outperforms anything AMD currently has in its stable. A nasty truth, but no worse than when AMD was spanking Intel for the last few years.
To disregard and belittle the overwhelming evidence out there that Conroe is a spectacular performing cpu, performing better than anything else currently being produced for the consumer, is laughable at best, completely ignorant at worst......or maybe just showing there are rabid Intel haters who refuse to admit their precious company has been upstaged for now. I've heard of and seen denial, but Oc's is bordering on insanity.
Originally posted by: OcHungry
No problem. But understand the logic and do little math. Take a look at the A64 3000 Cinebench )single core processor). The score is 453 for single. you know Cinebench's double is a ratio between 1.85 to 1.9
Taking the lower ratio:
1.8x453 = 815>749.
Or, lets look at anand's FX62 single score = 380
Mine is 453, which is >380.
Question?
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/218/08012006051952um1.jpg
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?
Be real. Stop pushing Intel junks. Not too many are fooled.
Just roam aroun any forum and see the poor suckers complaing about " cant OC", "My temp is too high", " My comp freezes",
"This Gigabyte you recommended sure has a lot of bugs to fix"
" When are we going to see a decent and inexpensive board",
" I spent $1200 and I should have stayed w/ my old s939"
You poor suckers who keep insulting me w/ your foul mouth, I feel for you- You've been had and is frusterated beast. But hey you should have not trusted the junks in the first place.
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.
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Please lock this thread and give OcHungry a vacation. Obviously, he's trolling b/c no one can be this stupid in real life. And all this has become is a pissing contest.
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
Originally posted by: OcHungry
Is that yours?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
what speed and what cpu?
Originally posted by: OcHungry
Originally posted by: thilan29
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.
No problem. But understand the logic and do little math. Take a look at the A64 3000 Cinebench )single core processor). The score is 453 for single. you know Cinebench's double is a ratio between 1.85 to 1.9
Taking the lower ratio:
1.8x453 = 815>749.
Or, lets look at anand's FX62 single score = 380
Mine is 453, which is >380.
Question?
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/218/08012006051952um1.jpg
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?
Be real. Stop pushing Intel junks. Not too many are fooled.
Just roam aroun any forum and see the poor suckers complaing about " cant OC", "My temp is too high", " My comp freezes",
"This Gigabyte you recommended sure has a lot of bugs to fix"
" When are we going to see a decent and inexpensive board",
" I spent $1200 and I should have stayed w/ my old s939"
You poor suckers who keep insulting me w/ your foul mouth, I feel for you- You've been had and is frusterated beast. But hey you should have not trusted the junks in the first place.
Originally posted by: OcHungry
Originally posted by: thilan29
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.
No problem. But understand the logic and do little math. Take a look at the A64 3000 Cinebench )single core processor). The score is 453 for single. you know Cinebench's double is a ratio between 1.85 to 1.9
Taking the lower ratio:
1.8x453 = 815>749.
Or, lets look at anand's FX62 single score = 380
Mine is 453, which is >380.
Question?
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/218/08012006051952um1.jpg
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?
Be real. Stop pushing Intel junks. Not too many are fooled.
Just roam aroun any forum and see the poor suckers complaing about " cant OC", "My temp is too high", " My comp freezes",
"This Gigabyte you recommended sure has a lot of bugs to fix"
" When are we going to see a decent and inexpensive board",
" I spent $1200 and I should have stayed w/ my old s939"
You poor suckers who keep insulting me w/ your foul mouth, I feel for you- You've been had and is frusterated beast. But hey you should have not trusted the junks in the first place.
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.