*STABLE* Black Hole Benchmark
- Thread starter Virssagòn
- Start date
G80FTW
Active Member
Noticed my i7 wasnt listed on there. So here is how it competes with a little OC:
This is on air, and I dont like the temps so I am going back to stock. I just used the auto OC feature from my motherboard.
This puts me oddly high on the charts. Unless I did something wrong. I dont recall this processor being on the same level or better than the new gen i7s
This is on air, and I dont like the temps so I am going back to stock. I just used the auto OC feature from my motherboard.
This puts me oddly high on the charts. Unless I did something wrong. I dont recall this processor being on the same level or better than the new gen i7s
Last edited:
Virssagòn
VIP Member
Noticed my i7 wasnt listed on there. So here is how it competes with a little OC:
This is on air, and I dont like the temps so I am going back to stock. I just used the auto OC feature from my motherboard.
This puts me oddly high on the charts. Unless I did something wrong. I dont recall this processor being on the same level or better than the new gen i7s
There's something wrong with the multithreaded score... ow, wait, I forgot the old i7 970 had 12 threads xD. Good score, denther your score is also nice
G80FTW
Active Member
There's something wrong with the multithreaded score... ow, wait, I forgot the old i7 970 had 12 threads xD. Good score, denther your score is also nice
I knew 12 threads would come in handy for something!
With that note here is everything stock and I forgot notepad in my last screen so here is that as well
Either way looks like my overall score would still put me in third! I love this old 970. Glad I got a hell of a deal on it! ($300 brand new in 2012 when it was going on newegg for $900).
Last edited:
G80FTW
Active Member
Whats boggling my mind is why the 970 is still holding its price. I was looking around and places that did have it were putting prices on it above $650. One even had it posted for $1,300.
The only reason I bought into this dead platform was not only its price, but it was the only realistic option for a 6 core processor as the only other one available was the sandy bridge 3970k which was $1,000.
Im still actually learning about the 1366 platform and trying to figure out why exactly it was dropped. It seems to have been a very good platform with potential.
So the platform is dead, was dead when I bought it, but 970s still go for $650? It makes no sense as far as I know there is NOTHING special about this processor other than being a 6 core which you can get a new gen 6 core now for less than $600.
Either way, I may be on a dead socket but it hasnt slowed me down a bit. Im confident that I can ride this processor all the way into the next gen platforms. My next plan is to wait and see if I can get any games that become too demanding for my system then upgrade the GPU before the processor and see if my 970 can still keep up. This could be my longest platform life. Both my P4 and AMD X2 builds only lasted me 2 years each before I felt the need to upgrade. Maybe technology was moving relatively faster back then... Perhaps the lack of high end competition from AMD has slowed everything else down. Who knows.
Last edited:
Jiniix
Well-Known Member
I understand where you're coming from, but CPU performance is not everything.
PCI lanes, USB ports, SATA ports, RAM speeds etc all take part. 2011/X79 is 1366/X58's successor, and has maaaany more PCI lanes if I'm not mistaken. Also 6-cores were the maximum they could squeeze out of the socket, while X79 can be up to 10 core/20 thread and have quad-channel RAM vs tri-channel.
PCI lanes, USB ports, SATA ports, RAM speeds etc all take part. 2011/X79 is 1366/X58's successor, and has maaaany more PCI lanes if I'm not mistaken. Also 6-cores were the maximum they could squeeze out of the socket, while X79 can be up to 10 core/20 thread and have quad-channel RAM vs tri-channel.
Virssagòn
VIP Member
Yeah. Read the reviews on the A10-7850K on Anandtech. It scored pretty much the same as the 6800K, so I hope it's a hell of an overclocker and compatible with like a 7850 (get it??
Nope only cards from hd7000 series and up with DDR3 ram work coupled with the a10 7850K.
And yes I get your joke hd'7850' and a10 '7850'k.... you're not a good humorist right?
G80FTW
Active Member
I get what your saying. But was it REALLY the limitations of the socket itself or just that Intel wanted everyone to buy into a new socket? I mean, I can understand that with less pins there is less they can cram into the CPU itself and limits data flow however I feel that Intel has started dropping sockets left and right since LGA775 just to make more money off people swapping to those sockets for the latest gear....
I could be completely wrong though. Its just a little suspect to have a socket with a life span of just 2 years.. I mean, look at 1155. That socket has been around for how long now? And are they not still dropping new CPUs for it?
Anyway, Im still completely satisfied with my dead socket.
The quad channel RAM would be nice though. I am already almost maxing out what Intel says my CPU can do in terms of bandwidth. Says its max is 25GB/s and Im at 20. Im sure with overclocking I could get close to that. Having 50GB/s would certainly speed things along in memory intensive editing programs Id imagine. Which I use alot. Was the main reason I wanted a 6 core processor over a quad core. But also didnt want to drop over a grand for one either, which at the time I couldnt find a 6 core SB for any less. I was lucky to find this 970 on ebay brand new for $300. Otherwise I would have stayed away from this platform completely.
Last edited:
Jiniix
Well-Known Member
LGA1155 has been "dead" for a while. Haswell/Z87 uses LGA1150, which is not compatible.
The reason I put it in quotation marks is because very few people saw a reason to upgrade. Clock for clock, Haswell is about 5-10% better, but OCs bad. Uses less power too, but not many people care about a TDP reduction from ~95W to 84W.
And when I say 'OCs bad', I don't mean the clock speeds. It's the heat. Oh boy dat heat, son!
The reason I put it in quotation marks is because very few people saw a reason to upgrade. Clock for clock, Haswell is about 5-10% better, but OCs bad. Uses less power too, but not many people care about a TDP reduction from ~95W to 84W.
And when I say 'OCs bad', I don't mean the clock speeds. It's the heat. Oh boy dat heat, son!
Already got one for a build. Got it because the dude is using the onboard video. Other then the onboard GPU, not much different then the 6800K. Think they just cant keep the wattage down, so they under clocked it to keep it at a 95W. The CPU clock for clock, I give it a average 10% increase in IPC. As far as overclocking, its about the same as the 6800K. For the price right now (50 bucks more then the 6800K) its a no go, especially if your using a video card. Even a FX 4300 or FX 6300 will kick its butt and overclock better. Plus the FX 8320 is even cheaper. Thought Steamroller was going to be better. I'm really starting to get disappointed with AMD. I can see why they didn't make a server or FX with it. AMD is starting just to be a lowend onboard video king. End of story
G80FTW
Active Member
Iv been disappointed with AMD since 2006. Its sad because i would love to have a new AMD build but they seem to be stuck in the ice age.