Alec§taar
New Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,677 (0.71/day)
- Location
- Someone who's going to find NewTekie1 and teach hi
Processor | DualCore AMD Athlon 64x2 4800+ (o/c 2801mhz STABLE (Ketxxx, POGE, Tatty One, ME)) |
---|---|
Motherboard | ASUS A8N-SLI Premium (PCIe x16, x4, x1) |
Cooling | PhaseChange Coolermaster CM754/939 (fan/heatsink), Thermalright heatspreaders + fan built on (RAM) |
Memory | 512mb PC-3200 DDR400 (set DDR-33 for o/c) by Corsair (matched pair, 2x256mb) 200.1/200mhz |
Video Card(s) | BFG GeForce 7900 GTX OC 512mb GDDR3 ram (o/c manually to 686 core/865 memory) - PhaseChange cooled |
Storage | Dual "Raptor X" 16mb 10krpm/RAID 0 Promise EX8350 x4 PCIe 128mb & Intel IO chip/CENATEK RocketDrive |
Display(s) | SONY 19" Trinitron MultiScan 400ps 1600x1200 75hz refresh 32-bit color |
Case | Antec Super-LanBoy (aluminum baby-tower w/ lower front & upper rear cooling exhaust fans) |
Audio Device(s) | RealTek AC97 onboard mobo stereo sound (Altec Lansing ACS-45 speakers - 10 yrs. still running!) |
Power Supply | Antec 500w ATX 2.0 "SmartPower" powersupply |
Software | Windows Server 2003 SP #1 fully patched, & massively tuned/tweaked to-the-max (plus latest drivers) |
See subject line/title, & this review:
Intel Core2 Duo Preview
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=cpu&id=456&pagenumber=2
* Man, I was surprised @ the results... It's "looking good" for Intel!
(These weren't test results submitted by Intel either, so nobody can really say "Oh, it's just Intel rigging results again" (not that they ever did or that I am aware of @ least)).
APK
P.S.=> I was most surprised @ the speed diff.'s possible in the CPU's used in the test (one of which I use, see signature) & in what areas!
See - I run MOSTLY "middle-of-the-road" on the tests cpu-wise, in QUITE the crowd of contestants, but all in all, I was ok with that... when there are more than 20% diff.'s are the only areas that concerned me, & there weren't all that many (8 of 21 total tests, & 3 of them were only 21% - as I feel that anything less than 20% variations in results speeds is negligible)...
My CPU vs. all others & % from "top spot" & diff. in performance & what areas:
21% - PC Mark 2005
21% - CounterStrike Source
21% - WB: Microsoft Windows Media Encoder
24% - 3D Mark 2001 SE
26% - WB: Adobe Photoshop
26% - WB: Mozilla
29% - Far Cry
29% - UT 2004
Good read for those of you with CPU's of the types used in the test, so you know where your current rig 'stacks up' vs. the "big boys"... apk
Intel Core2 Duo Preview
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=cpu&id=456&pagenumber=2
* Man, I was surprised @ the results... It's "looking good" for Intel!
(These weren't test results submitted by Intel either, so nobody can really say "Oh, it's just Intel rigging results again" (not that they ever did or that I am aware of @ least)).
APK
P.S.=> I was most surprised @ the speed diff.'s possible in the CPU's used in the test (one of which I use, see signature) & in what areas!
See - I run MOSTLY "middle-of-the-road" on the tests cpu-wise, in QUITE the crowd of contestants, but all in all, I was ok with that... when there are more than 20% diff.'s are the only areas that concerned me, & there weren't all that many (8 of 21 total tests, & 3 of them were only 21% - as I feel that anything less than 20% variations in results speeds is negligible)...
My CPU vs. all others & % from "top spot" & diff. in performance & what areas:
21% - PC Mark 2005
21% - CounterStrike Source
21% - WB: Microsoft Windows Media Encoder
24% - 3D Mark 2001 SE
26% - WB: Adobe Photoshop
26% - WB: Mozilla
29% - Far Cry
29% - UT 2004
Good read for those of you with CPU's of the types used in the test, so you know where your current rig 'stacks up' vs. the "big boys"... apk
Last edited: