Re: R.i.p. S939
Alright. Look at this.
Average Framerates, sounds like a good comparison.
Now we're comparing a 2.66Ghz Conroe to a 2.8Ghz FX-62. We want to see the performance that the processors would reach at the same clockspeeds. The clockspeeds are 2.66Ghz for the Conroe and 2.8Ghz for the FX-62. We want to see what score the Conroe would reach at 2.8Ghz. So we take 2.8Ghz and divide it by 2.66Ghz. The number that comes out is 1.05. So we take the 125FPS that the Conroe got, and multiply it by 1.05 to see what score the Conroe would've gotten at the same clockspeed as the FX-62. 125 x 1.05 = 131.25. A significant increase, but all for the sake of fairness.
Now, the FX-62 gets 100FPS at 2.8Ghz, and a 2.8Ghz Conroe is getting 131FPS. 131 divided by 100 would give you the ratio of how much better the Conroe is to the FX-62 at the same clockspeed. 131/100 = 1.31 -- You don't even need a calculator to do that.
For anyone that read my really long post, you will see that that is exactly the same ratio that I presented earlier. It proves itself absolutely correct, yet again. Now we have a ratio. Now take the Athlon 64 X2 4800+. It runs at 2.4Ghz. Divide 2.4Ghz by 1.31 to get the clockspeed at which the Conroe would have to be to match the X2 4800+. 2.4 / 1.31 = 1.83Ghz Conroe. It would take a 1.83Ghz Conroe processor to match a 2.4Ghz Athlon 64 X2 4800+. Just like I said.
I also mentioned this in my long post a while ago - these benchmarks are misleading. They show the Conroe processor dominating the Athlon 64, and at a lower clockspeed. There are practically no benchmarks that show the Conroe and Athlon 64 at the same clockspeed.
Just so you know - I had never seen that benchmark before. But still, it showed exactly what I have seen in every other benchmark.
And those benchmarks are at 1280x1024 on high settings! You're not even supposed to run CPU benchmarks in games on that high. The GPU usually becomes a bottleneck and doesn't show the true power of the processors. It didn't in this case, they were using a strong enough videocard to support that resolution. But you're supposed to look at the "low settings" benchmarks when comparing processors, since thats when their performance is rally shows.
Those people are f*cking retards and stupid fanboys. Up until now, I thought you to be as far away from idiots like those as possible. Please don't make this one of the very few times I'm wrong.
Intel also has Reverse HyperThreading built into the Conroe processor you little prick. Its called Core Multiplexing. It also lets 2 cores act like one superpowered Core. There won't be any jumping bandwagons.
Like I said, Intel has done everything to grind K8 into the ground. INCLUDING having AMD's rumoured SuperTechnology.
Originally posted by rha600
show me that "impressive" part in this.
there's nothing you see in that comparison that you wouldn't see anytime a company brings out a new design. it's not like it's doubled anything the AMD can do. now if it comes out and you can overclock it like crazy, then I'll be impressed.
there's nothing you see in that comparison that you wouldn't see anytime a company brings out a new design. it's not like it's doubled anything the AMD can do. now if it comes out and you can overclock it like crazy, then I'll be impressed.
Average Framerates, sounds like a good comparison.
Now we're comparing a 2.66Ghz Conroe to a 2.8Ghz FX-62. We want to see the performance that the processors would reach at the same clockspeeds. The clockspeeds are 2.66Ghz for the Conroe and 2.8Ghz for the FX-62. We want to see what score the Conroe would reach at 2.8Ghz. So we take 2.8Ghz and divide it by 2.66Ghz. The number that comes out is 1.05. So we take the 125FPS that the Conroe got, and multiply it by 1.05 to see what score the Conroe would've gotten at the same clockspeed as the FX-62. 125 x 1.05 = 131.25. A significant increase, but all for the sake of fairness.
Now, the FX-62 gets 100FPS at 2.8Ghz, and a 2.8Ghz Conroe is getting 131FPS. 131 divided by 100 would give you the ratio of how much better the Conroe is to the FX-62 at the same clockspeed. 131/100 = 1.31 -- You don't even need a calculator to do that.
For anyone that read my really long post, you will see that that is exactly the same ratio that I presented earlier. It proves itself absolutely correct, yet again. Now we have a ratio. Now take the Athlon 64 X2 4800+. It runs at 2.4Ghz. Divide 2.4Ghz by 1.31 to get the clockspeed at which the Conroe would have to be to match the X2 4800+. 2.4 / 1.31 = 1.83Ghz Conroe. It would take a 1.83Ghz Conroe processor to match a 2.4Ghz Athlon 64 X2 4800+. Just like I said.
I also mentioned this in my long post a while ago - these benchmarks are misleading. They show the Conroe processor dominating the Athlon 64, and at a lower clockspeed. There are practically no benchmarks that show the Conroe and Athlon 64 at the same clockspeed.
Just so you know - I had never seen that benchmark before. But still, it showed exactly what I have seen in every other benchmark.
And those benchmarks are at 1280x1024 on high settings! You're not even supposed to run CPU benchmarks in games on that high. The GPU usually becomes a bottleneck and doesn't show the true power of the processors. It didn't in this case, they were using a strong enough videocard to support that resolution. But you're supposed to look at the "low settings" benchmarks when comparing processors, since thats when their performance is rally shows.
Originally posted by lil_jimmy_norton
Originally posted by rha600
Like I said, Intel has done everything to grind K8 into the ground. INCLUDING having AMD's rumoured SuperTechnology.
Comment