fade2green514
Active Member
haha i've never had the need to use prntscrn before... don't make fun. lol
Core Duo not that much better?
- Thread starter fade2green514
- Start date
fade2green514
Active Member
i compressed it with adobe photoshop CS2 at 3 quality.. it was like twice as big as its allowed 2 be.
im gonna try reducing screen res... im at 1280X1024
im gonna try reducing screen res... im at 1280X1024
fade2green514
Active Member
Sisoftware CPU benchmark
hmm check it out.
hmm check it out.
Last edited:
fade2green514
Active Member
18123 + 7277 vs. 22896 + 10326
btw my multimedia was 48075 + 52361
compared to your 37874 + 42045
looks like they're better in diff. areas.
mines better at sisoftware sandra benchmarks, yours is better at superPi.
i guess it all depends on frequency vs. single or dual core vs. cpu architecture.
all i was sayin was that the core duo's aren't as good as intel made them out to be... 50% better than an FX-60 o/ced?? i think not.
they either made those numbers up, or were cheap in how they built the seperate systems.
also, i can't post another pic... AHH filesize too big.
i guess it adds up from all attachments... lol 100kb isn't much
also whats your sisoftware memory bandwidth benchmark?
i got an int 6043mbps + float 6001mbps
btw my multimedia was 48075 + 52361
compared to your 37874 + 42045
looks like they're better in diff. areas.
mines better at sisoftware sandra benchmarks, yours is better at superPi.
i guess it all depends on frequency vs. single or dual core vs. cpu architecture.
all i was sayin was that the core duo's aren't as good as intel made them out to be... 50% better than an FX-60 o/ced?? i think not.
they either made those numbers up, or were cheap in how they built the seperate systems.
also, i can't post another pic... AHH filesize too big.
i guess it adds up from all attachments... lol 100kb isn't much
also whats your sisoftware memory bandwidth benchmark?
i got an int 6043mbps + float 6001mbps
Last edited:
Clutch
banned
fade2green514 said:
fade2green514, why are you comparing a processor which has a 2GHz HTT, and one which has a 667MHz traditional bus? Don't worry though, I won't blame it on stupidity, I'll just blame it on not knowing the facts before making an assumption, and sharing it with the world.
What it seems to look like is that the Core Duo is ahead of the Athlon 64 X2, when it comes to mathematical calculations, but just can't keep up with it in most things due to the bus speeds (as I stated above).
And another thing... how the hell did you not know how to use Print Screen? Come on... I've been using it since I was in first or second grade. Now, that is one thing I can blame on stupidity.
In response to those benchies which you posted, if you want to have a fair competition with [-0MEGA-], then downclock back down to 2.0GHz.
http://vic.expreview.com/read.php?1 - You may also want to see those Intel Conroe benchmarks, to see how it completely blows any of AMD's current products out of the water.
fade2green514
Active Member
umm #1 theres no difference between 667mhz and 2000mhz when it comes to fsb, because the memory isn't that fast anyways.
also, its 1ghz in two different lanes... not 2ghz.
dude, just because i never had the need for prntscrn before doesn't mean u have to go calling me stupid for it, mister bronze member.
i agree, the core duo is better than athlon 64's... but i don't think a conroe is THAT much better, when its clocked 140mhz below the FX-60 that they used. they need to benchmark it with more similar hardware.
i also dont see actual benchmarks anywhere on that link you provided.
also, conroe isn't out yet... so basically you're comparing my processor to something that doesn't exist lol
lol they're gonna kick you out of this forum if you keep acting like that.
also, its 1ghz in two different lanes... not 2ghz.
dude, just because i never had the need for prntscrn before doesn't mean u have to go calling me stupid for it, mister bronze member.
i agree, the core duo is better than athlon 64's... but i don't think a conroe is THAT much better, when its clocked 140mhz below the FX-60 that they used. they need to benchmark it with more similar hardware.
i also dont see actual benchmarks anywhere on that link you provided.
also, conroe isn't out yet... so basically you're comparing my processor to something that doesn't exist lol
lol they're gonna kick you out of this forum if you keep acting like that.
Last edited:
fade2green514
Active Member
i detect an INTEL fanboy!Clutch said:
haha
btw, april fools threads are for idiots.
unlocking a 7800gs... not gonna happen.
Last edited:
Clutch
banned
First of all, the 2000MHz HTT as of now can only take advantage of PC3200. Meanwhile, the Core Duo can only take advantage of PC2-5300 (which would be equilivent to PC2700 speeds as of now as the technology is rather still in it's infancy). So in fact, it would make a difference when it comes to memory bandwidth.fade2green514 said:
Second off, and lastly... since when does post count indicate techinical competence?
fade2green514
Active Member
hmm... 2ghz (even though its 1ghz*2) can handle 400mhz (even though its 1ghz*2)... it would depend on timings. its funny, because i upped my ram to ddr424, and HEY! it improved memory bandwidth!Clutch said:
and ddr533 is only as fast as ddr333... wow u r smart...
Clutch
banned
Hmm, how could I possibly be an Intel fanboy, when I have only used AMD processors for my last 4 or 5 computers?fade2green514 said:
I can admit that the Athlon 64 series is superior to the Pentium 4, but AMD can't stay on the top forever.
There is a change coming, and I am just saying the truth: that AMD is in for a fight, and it is very possible that Intel could become the performance king once again.
Clutch
banned
Okay, if 2GHz can supposedly handle more than PC3200, then show me sources which specifically state that Athlon 64's can use higher bandwidth memory (such as PC3500, or PC4000).fade2green514 said:
And, if DDR2-533 isn't as fast as DDR333 in bandwidth benchmarks, then please, I beg of you to disprove me. Show me the benchies!
Last edited:
fade2green514
Active Member
ok, sisoftware sandra reports that pc2700 with a CL of 2 benchmarks 1536mbps and pc2 5300 with a CL of 5 has 3208mbps
fade2green514
Active Member
hes talking about hypertransport.[-0MEGA-] said:
read the thread please.
each core does not run at 2ghz... thats only if you have 2 cpu's in your computer (not simply two cores). thats like saying that theres 4ghz worth of heat that the heatsink needs to dissipate. (thats alot of heat, you would need a big heatsink)
Last edited:
Geoff
VIP Member
Oh i guess that would have helped, lol.
If you run your hardware at stock, then your will beat mine in some tests, and mine will beat yours in others (it actually beats your in a few when yours is oc'd).
So when it comes to performing calculations, or doing CPU intensive work, mine will outperform yours.
If you run your hardware at stock, then your will beat mine in some tests, and mine will beat yours in others (it actually beats your in a few when yours is oc'd).
So when it comes to performing calculations, or doing CPU intensive work, mine will outperform yours.
fade2green514
Active Member
i'd guess theyre hand in hand with most apps... very closely performing procs.
of course mines o/ced, so it performs better in alot of things.. but yours is mobile.... i want a laptop lol.
of course mines 64-bit
vista will support both, but saying that it doesn't matter is comparing like windows 3.1 and windows 95 lol. (16bit to 32bit)
of course mines o/ced, so it performs better in alot of things.. but yours is mobile.... i want a laptop lol.
of course mines 64-bit
vista will support both, but saying that it doesn't matter is comparing like windows 3.1 and windows 95 lol. (16bit to 32bit)