• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Sandy Bridge to Introduce New Sockets, Chipsets, Reorganize Platform Further

Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
424 (0.08/day)
People who reckon it is an octa-core chip obviously are blind and haven't read the box. Quoting my i7-930 box:

[Intel Core i7 Inside Logo]
QUAD-CORE
DESKTOP
INTEL CORE i7 PROCESSOR

Not all processors come with the box. Most come inside the assembled PC. I've seen a professional animator who believed that his i7 920 had 8x 2.67GHz cores because there are 8 rendering threads and it's a 2.67GHz rated processor. He didn't build his workstation. He bought it though because the person selling it to him lead him to believe that while it wasn't really an 8 core processor, it was the same thing. I was just trying to avoid that type of misinformation. If it's that obvious though, carry on. :)
 

HillBeast

New Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
407 (0.08/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name Kuja
Processor Intel Core i7 930
Motherboard Gigabyte X58A-UD3R
Cooling Corsair H50 HB.o Special Edition with Koolance CHC-122 NB Block
Memory OCZ Extreme Edition 4GB Dual Channel
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon 5870 Vapor-X Rev. 2
Storage 2x 1TB WD Green in RAID
Display(s) BenQ V2400W
Case Lian Li PC-A17 HB.o Special Edition
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek 889A
Power Supply Gigabyte Odin Pro 800W
Software Windows 7 Professional
Benchmark Scores 93632 sysPoints in sysTest '09 47 FPS in Star Tales Benchmark
Not all processors come with the box. Most come inside the assembled PC. I've seen a professional animator who believed that his i7 920 had 8x 2.67GHz cores because there are 8 rendering threads and it's a 2.67GHz rated processor. He didn't build his workstation. He bought it though because the person selling it to him lead him to believe that while it wasn't really an 8 core processor, it was the same thing. I was just trying to avoid that type of misinformation. If it's that obvious though, carry on. :)

True.
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
101 (0.02/day)
Location
Vancouver, Canada
[QUOTE

On applications that aren't heavily multithreaded, the architecture of Core i# is inferior to that of Core 2 and Phenom II.[/QUOTE]

No. Core i7 is faster in single threaded application. It has higher performance per clock than any other architecture. Look at how it fares in gaming compared to phenom and Core 2 Quads.
 

DrPepper

The Doctor is in the house
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
7,482 (1.26/day)
Location
Scotland (It rains alot)
System Name Rusky
Processor Intel Core i7 D0 3.8Ghz
Motherboard Asus P6T
Cooling Thermaltake Dark Knight
Memory 12GB Patriot Viper's 1866mhz 9-9-9-24
Video Card(s) GTX470 1280MB
Storage OCZ Summit 60GB + Samsung 1TB + Samsung 2TB
Display(s) Sharp Aquos L32X20E 1920 x 1080
Case Silverstone Raven RV01
Power Supply Corsair 650 Watt
Software Windows 7 x64
Benchmark Scores 3DMark06 - 18064 http://img.techpowerup.org/090720/Capture002.jpg
No. Core i7 is faster in single threaded application. It has higher performance per clock than any other architecture. Look at how it fares in gaming compared to phenom and Core 2 Quads.

Not much better. It does have a high instructions/clock rate 23.9 compared to 18.6 for a core 2 quad yorktown so yes it is faster but not by a huge margin.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
4,686 (0.80/day)
System Name Obelisc
Processor i7 3770k @ 4.8 GHz
Motherboard Asus P8Z77-V
Cooling H110
Memory 16GB(4x4) @ 2400 MHz 9-11-11-31
Video Card(s) GTX 780 Ti
Storage 850 EVO 1TB, 2x 5TB Toshiba
Case T81
Audio Device(s) X-Fi Titanium HD
Power Supply EVGA 850 T2 80+ TITANIUM
Software Win10 64bit
No. Core i7 is faster in single threaded application. It has higher performance per clock than any other architecture. Look at how it fares in gaming compared to phenom and Core 2 Quads.

Games? That's the last thing you should look at for a yorkfield vs i7 comparison. There's zero performance difference with single gpu setups, a slight edge only shows up for dual gpu situations. Random productivity benchmarks are where the difference is.

Look here at the bottom http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/45?vs=48

Two games are tied, two games where either or wins. That sums up the whole of the video game comparison... it's even.
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
3,842 (0.62/day)
Location
Maryland
System Name HAL
Processor Core i9 13900k @5.8-6.1
Motherboard Z790 Arous master
Cooling EKWB Quantum Velocity V2 & (2) 360 Corsair XR7 Rads push/pull
Memory 2x 32GB (64GB) Gskill trident 6000 CL30 @28 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 4090 Gigagbyte gaming OC @ +200/1300
Storage (M2's) 2x Samsung 980 pro 2TB, 1xWD Black 2TB, 1x SK Hynix Platinum P41 2TB
Display(s) 65" LG OLED 120HZ
Case Lian Li dyanmic Evo11 with distro plate
Power Supply Thermaltake 1350
Software Microsoft Windows 11 x64
All I see is marginal improvement for far to much cost.
This is a bad financial move for intel. Exactly like the ps3 was for sony.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
I highly doubt Intel would be dumb enough to release a chip worse than it's predecessor after the fiasco they had with Netburst.
Nehalem practically is Netburst with a new dress. The only real difference is the pipelines are quite a bit shorter (the mistake in NetBurst was the assumption they could keep increasing the clockspeeds indefinitely).


Look at the most to least portion of the results here:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1686222&postcount=119

4 times was exagerating :roll:, it was (as expected) almost twice as fast with hyperthreading enabled. No hyperthreading = very low scores except in the floating point department. It got hurt very badly in the integer department without Hyperthreading. That proves that over half of the ALU's are idle without two threads throwing work at it where the FPUs are mostly loaded with just a single thread giving it work.


As you can see, I haven't done any testing at only one thread yet.

No. Core i7 is faster in single threaded application. It has higher performance per clock than any other architecture. Look at how it fares in gaming compared to phenom and Core 2 Quads.
Phenoms II win 50% of the time. Core 2 loses all the time because of the delay in reaching the RAM that is minimized in Phenom II and Core i#.
 
Last edited:

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (3.81/day)
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
Nehalem practically is Netburst with a new dress. The only real difference is the pipelines are quite a bit shorter (the mistake in NetBurst was the assumption they could keep increasing the clockspeeds indefinitely).


Look at the most to least portion of the results here:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1686222&postcount=119

4 times was exagerating :roll:, it was (as expected) almost twice as fast with hyperthreading enabled. No hyperthreading = very low scores except in the floating point (double and single) department. It got hurt very badly in the integer department without Hyperthreading.

Numerous tests on i7 with HT disabled shows that it's faster clock for clock than both AMD and Core 2. It's all over the net. Just look at the 750's benchmarks.
 

HillBeast

New Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
407 (0.08/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name Kuja
Processor Intel Core i7 930
Motherboard Gigabyte X58A-UD3R
Cooling Corsair H50 HB.o Special Edition with Koolance CHC-122 NB Block
Memory OCZ Extreme Edition 4GB Dual Channel
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon 5870 Vapor-X Rev. 2
Storage 2x 1TB WD Green in RAID
Display(s) BenQ V2400W
Case Lian Li PC-A17 HB.o Special Edition
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek 889A
Power Supply Gigabyte Odin Pro 800W
Software Windows 7 Professional
Benchmark Scores 93632 sysPoints in sysTest '09 47 FPS in Star Tales Benchmark
As you can see, I haven't done any testing at only one thread yet.

That what I was talking about.

Also about the whole Core 2s being better than Core i7s in poorly threaded apps, it's simply not true. I wrote a program years ago for comparing P4s and it tests the CPUs per thread performance, and per MHz, Nehalem is faster than Core.

I never said it was better in multi threaded apps, but from your absolutely confusing chart all I can understand is that i7 works better when you turn on HT, which any smart person knows already. It does after all double the number of threads per core.
 
Last edited:

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
Numerous tests on i7 with HT disabled shows that it's faster clock for clock than both AMD and Core 2. It's all over the net. Just look at the 750's benchmarks.
Edit: Clock for clock, Core 2 (Penryn) is about equal to Phenom II. Core i7 is clock for clock faster than Core 2 (and thus, Phenom II) in multithreading but I'm not certain about single threaded.


uint64: Core i7 920 < Phenom II 955
double: Core i7 920 > Phenom II 955 (not by much on the 4 thread test)

Core i7 920 is better at floating point operations than the Phenom II 955 but not at integer operations. If you are testing with an application that is heavy in floats, the Core i7 will come out on top (with hypthreading disabled). If the application is heavy on ints, Core i7 (hyperthreading disabled) will come in second.

Turning on hyperthreading and the workload the same (4 threads each), Phenom II 955 and Core i7 920 are very close (i7 on top) while the Core i7 920 slaughters the Phenom II 955 in the floating point area. Turn on hyperthreading and add 4 more threads and the Core i7 920 simply mocks the Phenom II 955.


I never said it was better in multi threaded apps, but from your absolutely confusing chart all I can understand is that i7 works better when you turn on HT, which any smart person knows already. It does after all double the number of threads per core.
Read the results at the bottom for analysis. The test was to compare HT to no HT, two processors versus one, and AMD versus Intel (they were about the same price when the benchmark was done).
 
Last edited:

HillBeast

New Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
407 (0.08/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name Kuja
Processor Intel Core i7 930
Motherboard Gigabyte X58A-UD3R
Cooling Corsair H50 HB.o Special Edition with Koolance CHC-122 NB Block
Memory OCZ Extreme Edition 4GB Dual Channel
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon 5870 Vapor-X Rev. 2
Storage 2x 1TB WD Green in RAID
Display(s) BenQ V2400W
Case Lian Li PC-A17 HB.o Special Edition
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek 889A
Power Supply Gigabyte Odin Pro 800W
Software Windows 7 Professional
Benchmark Scores 93632 sysPoints in sysTest '09 47 FPS in Star Tales Benchmark
Right so here are some results from my testing program.

When I first wrote it, it was when P4s were all big and I made it to compare them. I first wrote it on my P4 2.4GHz Northwood and since then I have been using it on all the CPUs I have had since and here are some quick results:

Code:
Arch.		Processor				Core Clock	Score		Points/MHz
Nehalem		Intel Core i7 930			3800MHz		11704	3.08
Nehalem		Intel Core i7 860			2860MHz		8780	3.07
Nehalem		Intel Core i7 920			2793MHz		8520	3.05
Core		Intel Core 2 Duo E8400			3000MHz		8677	2.89
Core		Intel Core 2 Duo E6550			2333MHz		5577	2.39
Pentium M	Intel Pentium M 1.86 GHz		1866MHz		3972	2.19
Pentium M	Intel Celeron M 420			1600MHz		3478	2.17
K8		AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+			2400MHz		4748	1.98
K8		AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+			2200MHz		4348	1.98
K7		AMD Athlon XP Barton (Underclocked)	1722MHz		3137	1.81
K7		AMD Duron 800+				800MHz		1330	1.66
Netburst	Intel Pentium 4 540			3000MHz		3499	1.17
Netburst	Intel Pentium 4 Northwood		2400MHz		2985	1.14

And if you look back at history these scores really do correlate well. K7 was faster than Netburst per clock, Pentium M was much faster than Netburst, Core was faster still. Nehalem gets the highest score therefore Nehalem is the best.

Anyone who doubts these findings are either a fanboy or a just plain stupid.
 
Last edited:

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
Wanna send me that app so I can try it?
 

HillBeast

New Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
407 (0.08/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name Kuja
Processor Intel Core i7 930
Motherboard Gigabyte X58A-UD3R
Cooling Corsair H50 HB.o Special Edition with Koolance CHC-122 NB Block
Memory OCZ Extreme Edition 4GB Dual Channel
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon 5870 Vapor-X Rev. 2
Storage 2x 1TB WD Green in RAID
Display(s) BenQ V2400W
Case Lian Li PC-A17 HB.o Special Edition
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek 889A
Power Supply Gigabyte Odin Pro 800W
Software Windows 7 Professional
Benchmark Scores 93632 sysPoints in sysTest '09 47 FPS in Star Tales Benchmark
Here is my testing app. Ignore the Total Processor Score as it is inaccurate. It simply theorizes what the CPU could do if all the cores work perfectly together in multi threaded applications. I didn't have the know-how to write a multi threaded program back when I wrote it. The Per Thread Score is still accurate though.

Oh this is a rewrite of the original program for P4s.

Let me know what you get.
 

Attachments

  • sysTest '09.exe
    533.5 KB · Views: 524
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
4,686 (0.80/day)
System Name Obelisc
Processor i7 3770k @ 4.8 GHz
Motherboard Asus P8Z77-V
Cooling H110
Memory 16GB(4x4) @ 2400 MHz 9-11-11-31
Video Card(s) GTX 780 Ti
Storage 850 EVO 1TB, 2x 5TB Toshiba
Case T81
Audio Device(s) X-Fi Titanium HD
Power Supply EVGA 850 T2 80+ TITANIUM
Software Win10 64bit

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
My Core i7 920 matches your score (within a few dozen points).

Code:
Core		Intel Xeon E5310 (dual processor)		1600MHz		4336	2.71

What type of calculations does this appication do? Lemme guess, floating point?


I've never seen a review that showed Phenom II being even with core 2. Close in some things, ahead in a few select things, but lagging in the vast majority. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/48?vs=88
According to that, Phenom II 965 BE and Core 2 Q9650 are well matched, Core 2 being slightly more efficient clock for clock.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
4,686 (0.80/day)
System Name Obelisc
Processor i7 3770k @ 4.8 GHz
Motherboard Asus P8Z77-V
Cooling H110
Memory 16GB(4x4) @ 2400 MHz 9-11-11-31
Video Card(s) GTX 780 Ti
Storage 850 EVO 1TB, 2x 5TB Toshiba
Case T81
Audio Device(s) X-Fi Titanium HD
Power Supply EVGA 850 T2 80+ TITANIUM
Software Win10 64bit
I usually don't consider mismatched stock speed comparisons as phenom and core 2 chips have roughly equal clock speed potentials, so clock for clock is most relevant for enthusiasts.
 

HillBeast

New Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
407 (0.08/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name Kuja
Processor Intel Core i7 930
Motherboard Gigabyte X58A-UD3R
Cooling Corsair H50 HB.o Special Edition with Koolance CHC-122 NB Block
Memory OCZ Extreme Edition 4GB Dual Channel
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon 5870 Vapor-X Rev. 2
Storage 2x 1TB WD Green in RAID
Display(s) BenQ V2400W
Case Lian Li PC-A17 HB.o Special Edition
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek 889A
Power Supply Gigabyte Odin Pro 800W
Software Windows 7 Professional
Benchmark Scores 93632 sysPoints in sysTest '09 47 FPS in Star Tales Benchmark
What type of calculations does this appication do? Lemme guess, floating point?

I can't remember. It was a long time ago. I don't think so though. I'm pretty sure it was just simple arithmetic.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
I haven't tested any Core 2s and you didn't list any Phenom IIs so it's hard to line up my multithreaded charts to your single-threaded chart. Still, note how close Core 2 (Penryn) is to Core i7 despite the major architectural changes (namely, moving the memory controllers to the chip).
 

HillBeast

New Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
407 (0.08/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name Kuja
Processor Intel Core i7 930
Motherboard Gigabyte X58A-UD3R
Cooling Corsair H50 HB.o Special Edition with Koolance CHC-122 NB Block
Memory OCZ Extreme Edition 4GB Dual Channel
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon 5870 Vapor-X Rev. 2
Storage 2x 1TB WD Green in RAID
Display(s) BenQ V2400W
Case Lian Li PC-A17 HB.o Special Edition
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek 889A
Power Supply Gigabyte Odin Pro 800W
Software Windows 7 Professional
Benchmark Scores 93632 sysPoints in sysTest '09 47 FPS in Star Tales Benchmark
I haven't tested any Core 2s and you didn't list any Phenom IIs so it's hard to line up my multithreaded charts to your single-threaded chart. Still, note how close Core 2 (Penryn) is to Core i7 despite the major architectural changes (namely, moving the memory controllers to the chip).

Yeah after my bad experience with my original Phenom, I promised myself to stay away from them. I was an AMD boy until I got my first Phenom and it really let me down.

I don't think my program is affected by memory much, hence the very low difference.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
I predicted (back on Hardware Analysis) the Phenom was going to suck before it even had a name (it was referred to as K8L or K10 at the time). I avoided them like the plague when they did finally launch like 18 months late. I'm glad they finally got off their rubbish 65nm fab with the Phenom II and Athlon II processors though (they are decent for mainstream systems).
 
Top