Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom 2 at 6.5 gigh. New 3d mark record.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2009 1:38:51 AM
January 25, 2009 1:48:16 AM

And that benefits us average Joe's how? Anyway cool but it doesn't really tell anything.
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2009 1:57:58 AM

does not have to benefit the 'average joe' at all but it shows how much you can overclock these things with proper cooling.
January 25, 2009 2:19:41 AM

no, it tells how much you can overclock with liquid nitrogen. overclocking is going to be like any other cpu. there will be variances by batch in how high one can be stable 24/7 overclocked. the milestone here is the fact it can overclock pretty decent compared to the previous gen phenom.
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2009 2:23:16 AM

roofus said:
no, it tells how much you can overclock with liquid nitrogen. overclocking is going to be like any other cpu. there will be variances by batch in how high one can be stable 24/7 overclocked. the milestone here is the fact it can overclock pretty decent compared to the previous gen phenom.


its actually liquid helium ;) 
a c 127 à CPUs
January 25, 2009 3:46:45 AM

Wait wait wait wait there just one minute. This is the same cherry picked CPU that AMD was using to hype the crap out of Phenom II? Whats the use? Most review sites have not even been able to hit 4GHz on air like AMD did with this chip.

Hell Anand did a bit more tweaking and got from 3.8GHz to 3.9GHz but still no further.

This was just hype. AMD found one really really good CPU and used it to hype the living jebus out of Phenom II.

Nice record but it will be broken soon. Cooliaer tends to break thos very easily with anything and ATI GPUs that he OCs like crazy.

Plus its AMDs YouTube channel. Not to be trusted 100% just like Intels YouTube channel is not. Although I enjoy the sort of presentations Intel has on their page about the new tech they are doing like the HK/MG one. Interesting stuffs.
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2009 3:48:11 AM

lol... yeah AMD is always full of it when they post things like this. actually now that i think of it it must be a fake video. probably pre rendered 3d mark score. actually... its probably an Intel chip used!
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2009 4:01:56 AM

bit of e-peen envy there jimmy.

The cold does tend to shrink things matey ...
January 25, 2009 5:12:07 AM

1.84 Vcore is crazy, but I guess so is 6.5Ghz. That shows that AMD did something right this time around.
PS. Why is Jimmy such a hater? It's just a CPU, dude, chill out.
January 25, 2009 7:16:39 AM

AMD did not say their Chip can hit 4GHz on air that is why Intel Core 2 Quad is still the way to go. AMD says you could hit 3.9GHz on air and maybe 4.2GHz on water.
January 25, 2009 7:39:55 AM

Ive got mine chugging along fine for 3 days now at 3.7ghz with a 1.4625 vcore. Idle temp's are 26c with load never going above 45c. Im almost positive i could hit 4ghz if i tried with the right vcore but for now im happy with my 700mhz overclock...Rig in Sig
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2009 11:35:52 AM

Something in the back of my mind tells me Intels i7 cpus can beat that 3dmark score on a much lower clock speed :/ 
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2009 2:17:04 PM

Quote:
Something in the back of my mind tells me Intels i7 cpus can beat that 3dmark score on a much lower clock speed :/ 


too bad it has not been done and the i7 has been out longer then, huh? fanboy.
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2009 2:49:47 PM

roofus said:
wierd..
cant find it there anywhere. somebody help me out here lol. i dont trust videos when the result should be on their site.
http://www.futuremark.com/community/halloffame/3dmarkva...


its on there. i just ran a 3dmark05 test on my system and it said the highest score reached was a p2 at 45 yadda yadda. run 3dmark05 and u will see it in system comparison.
January 25, 2009 3:06:58 PM

why? that is an outdated, unoptimized test. i am not busting balls werxen. i just expected to see it in Vantage since it is the most current, updated 3dmark app. in truth, it needs updated BADLY. those apps tend to be easily manipulated which is why i don't give them the credence i used to. i would be nipping if this were the i7 so dont feel like i am nit-picking. there was one of those terrible P4's that could go over 7Ghz and didnt and still doesnt impress me.

I see it did clock highest but did not achieve the highest score over here:
http://ripping.org/benchmarks.php?act=graphicscores&gra...

then we look at the newer version:
http://ripping.org/benchmarks.php?act=graphicscores&gra...

now in fairness, there may be a reason they have not ran 3dm6. i still think Vantage would be a better measure myself. i would imagine we will see them appear there before long.

a b à CPUs
January 25, 2009 3:42:19 PM

roofus said:
why? that is an outdated, unoptimized test. i am not busting balls werxen. i just expected to see it in Vantage since it is the most current, updated 3dmark app. in truth, it needs updated BADLY. those apps tend to be easily manipulated which is why i don't give them the credence i used to. i would be nipping if this were the i7 so dont feel like i am nit-picking. there was one of those terrible P4's that could go over 7Ghz and didnt and still doesnt impress me.

I see it did clock highest but did not achieve the highest score over here:
http://ripping.org/benchmarks.php?act=graphicscores&gra...

then we look at the newer version:
http://ripping.org/benchmarks.php?act=graphicscores&gra...

now in fairness, there may be a reason they have not ran 3dm6. i still think Vantage would be a better measure myself. i would imagine we will see them appear there before long.


the scores are all relative dude... i got a 22K in 3dkark05 and 13K in 06. whats the difference? one i got high, the other i got higher but in both instances i would have to apply tremendous overclock to both CPU and GPU to achieve a higher score.


EDIT: btw i do not trust that website over the actual 3dmark website that declares the AMD team the winners. they can post whatever they want but the REAL site with the ACTUAL listing posts AMD team is the winner not the i7 team.
January 25, 2009 3:47:16 PM

fair enough. now they need to run Vantage. it will be more telling on the CPU side.
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2009 3:58:48 PM

werxen said:
too bad it has not been done and the i7 has been out longer then, huh? fanboy.

hmmm.....
January 25, 2009 4:06:13 PM

i have a reasonable answer to that. 3dmark05 isn't nearly CPU intense as the newer tests. the proof being that the core2 duals are nipping at its heels. it was "the test" before the quads were emerging in numbers.
the overclock is impressive. that it mucho high for a quad. i am going to guess there arent alot of i7 or Yorkfield results to be found with 05 compared to 3dmark06 or Vantage. bet there are TONS of dual core results because that was a test of that era.
January 25, 2009 4:12:00 PM

Is it me or does the website say the Phenom is @ 4481 Mhz and not 6.5 Ghz?
January 25, 2009 4:15:14 PM

The_Blood_Raven said:
straight from the real website werxen, kind of have to believe that...


Too bad they didn't use approved video drivers so that their result would have actually been validated. You can read this inside of that result:

Quote:
Please note that this result has been produced using display drivers which have not been validated or approved by Futuremark and will not be visible on default result search on the ORB or on the Hall of Fame.


But since they didn't then werxen is correct... they have the world record.
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2009 4:18:19 PM

keithlm said:
Too bad they didn't use approved video drivers so that their result would have actually been validated. You can read this inside of that result:

Quote:
Please note that this result has been produced using display drivers which have not been validated or approved by Futuremark and will not be visible on default result search on the ORB or on the Hall of Fame.


But since they didn't then werxen is correct... they have the world record.



hmm... :heink:  whats going on lol.
January 26, 2009 7:55:21 AM

The world record in any Futuremark score is just that and nothing more. It translates poorly into real world results. Phenom II and i7 overclocking on air, or even with water cooling is what's pertinent to everyone's experience, and then give me real framerates in games people actually play nowadays.

That said, my recession anxiety's past and I'm ordering a Phenom II 940 on February 6, but I'm not sure how it would overclock on an SB700 board.

Even if I don't overclock 3.0 gigahertz with higher IPC and four cores should make a difference.
January 26, 2009 9:41:49 AM

Phenom 2 apparently does not need the overclocking features of the SB750 because it is built in so you should be fine.
January 26, 2009 12:43:56 PM

yipsl said:
The world record in any Futuremark score is just that and nothing more. It translates poorly into real world results. Phenom II and i7 overclocking on air, or even with water cooling is what's pertinent to everyone's experience, and then give me real framerates in games people actually play nowadays.

That said, my recession anxiety's past and I'm ordering a Phenom II 940 on February 6, but I'm not sure how it would overclock on an SB700 board.

Even if I don't overclock 3.0 gigahertz with higher IPC and four cores should make a difference.


Good luck with your purchase yipsl! i am sure you will love it. i am way behind where i wanted to be on gett
ing one but the bitter disappointment of no BIOS for the board i returned soured me on it for the time being.

rest of your message is spot on. orb tests amount to crap anymore. they are not up to date. this is the equivalent to using UT99 or Quake3 to show off GPU performance of a 4870x2 or a GTX 295. it doesnt take advantage of the 4 cores so it is deriving the score purely from the overclock speed. not real telling if you ask me other than the fact it overclocks high if you have liquid helium or LN2 sitting around for a suicide run. that test is 3 generations old so i have to wonder if it can deliver on the newer, modern (relatively speaking) versions.
!