It does, surprisingly.
I am also running a 32bit OS at the moment, I don't know how much difference a 64bit OS would make, but I'll post up results in a couple of weeks. It will certainly make full use of the memory, unlike now.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Fritz Chess Benchmark/Super PI Thread 2010
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
It does, surprisingly.
I am also running a 32bit OS at the moment, I don't know how much difference a 64bit OS would make, but I'll post up results in a couple of weeks. It will certainly make full use of the memory, unlike now.
Soldato
3.1 GHz
Edit: sorry I see the OP didn't want to see cost.
Edit: sorry I see the OP didn't want to see cost.
Last edited:
Associate
is anyone else thinking it might be intresting to see one of these core i7's running the fritz benchmark with 4 cores to see how much the hyperthreading is helping and to kind of see a core to core comparison against the phenoms ?
Associate
Last edited:
Associate
i7 at similar settings to Q9550/X4 965 above.
------------------------------
CPU: i7-920 @ 3.4GHz
Super pi: 11.996s
Fritz Chess Benchmark: x8: 12207
----------------------------
CPU: i7-920 @ 4GHz
Super pi: 10.140s
Fritz Chess Benchmark: x8: 14646
Updated.
Last edited:
Associate
Thanks LEUVEN
N.P, makes it easier to compare when they're at the same speed.
I'll also update the post with super pi.
.....In the morning.
Last edited:
seeing as we're trying to compare them at 3.4 i gave it a go
q6600 @ 3.4
PI - 15.467
FRITZ 9053
memory was at ddr2 950 5,5,5,15 at that setting but the computer locked as i was trying to get into paint to do the screenshot hence the pic again
more voltage may have gotten it stable but at least it managed the bench's
looks like same speed and cores evens out the playing field quite a bit and reels in those i7's a lot
q6600 @ 3.4
PI - 15.467
FRITZ 9053
memory was at ddr2 950 5,5,5,15 at that setting but the computer locked as i was trying to get into paint to do the screenshot hence the pic again
more voltage may have gotten it stable but at least it managed the bench's
looks like same speed and cores evens out the playing field quite a bit and reels in those i7's a lot
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,287
seeing as we're trying to compare them at 3.4 i gave it a go
memory was at ddr2 950 5,5,5,15 at that setting but the computer locked as i was trying to get into paint to do the screenshot hence the pic again
more voltage may have gotten it stable but at least it managed the bench's
looks like same speed and cores evens out the playing field quite a bit and reels in those i7's a lot
Exactly. Makes me wonder why AMD haven't implemented hyper threading yet, especially as they already have an IMC and a true quadcore design. Here is hoping that Bulldozer will be good. Nehalem was boring!
Just run your memory 1:1 ratio with your cpu, that way you will be able to get a higher clock on your cpu.
So for example 3600MHz divided by the multiplier which is 9 gives you 400, multiply this by 2 and you have your memory sitting at a non overclocked 800MHz, lovely jubbly
^^^^^^ Now thats what I call a Screen shot! ^^^^^^
Literally
after the pc locked up i couldn't move anything so i has to take a shot of the whole screen to get them all in lol
Just run your memory 1:1 ratio with your cpu, that way you will be able to get a higher clock on your cpu.
So for example 3600MHz divided by the multiplier which is 9 gives you 400, multiply this by 2 and you have your memory sitting at a non overclocked 800MHz, lovely jubbly
the memory is actually running underclocked as it is ddr2 1066 so i should really have plenty of headroom left in it, i just quickly did this to get the bench's done at 3.4, i am more than happy with the performance i get at 3.3
Last edited:
the memory is actually running underclocked as it is ddr2 1066 so i should really have plenty of headroom left in it, i just quickly did this to get the bench's done at 3.4, i am more than happy with the performance i get at 3.3
I'd rather have a faster cpu than memory, more MHz on your cpu will be far more beneficial than more MHz on your memory, each to their own though.
If you have the SLACR G0 stepping version of the Q6600 it should be good for 3.6GHz, I had one that ran at this speed 24/7 for a couple of years, I even managed to get it to 3.9GHz with my lowly 800MHz rated RAM
it's deffo a G0 stepping but as i bought it as an overclocked bundle @3.2 from here i am already getting an extra 100mhz than i paid for , if i ever need to get it to go higher i will try as you suggested but for now theres nothing i ask it to do that i'm unhappy with the way it performs doing it
and if i leave it at the settings overclockers have in the book that came with it, if it dies i can moan about it on here
, if i ever need to get it to go higher i will try as you suggested but for now theres nothing i ask it to do that i'm unhappy with the way it performs doing it and if i leave it at the settings overclockers have in the book that came with it, if it dies i can moan about it on here
Last edited:
Caporegime
Core i3 530 @ 4Ghz
