Best offers
|
Core i7 I7-920 Quad Core Processor... | $349.99 Dell Home More info |
|
Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Quad... | $194.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Core i5 750 Qaud Core Processor... | $199.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Core i7 Extreme Edition I7-975 Quad... | $1041.17 CostCentral.com More info |
|
Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad... | $182.99 Directron More info |
- how to overclock phenom ii x3 720
- liquid nitrogen cpu
- socket am3 review
- amd processor review
- torture rack 2
- testing cpu fan
- amd phenom ii x4 940 benchmark
- overdrive overclock
- amd phenom socket am3
- phenom ii toms hardware
- phenom ii cooling
- amd 3 core
- socket am3 phenom
- black edition processors
- overclock phenom ii x4 940
Source: Tom's Hardware US – Keywords: phenom, ii, ln2
Categories: Overclocking, AMD/ATI, Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Tech Talk, Overclocking Academy
Syndication:
|
(Ed.: We had tons of fun with the guys from Team IRONMODS during our Overdrive Overclocking Championship. With AMD's Socket AM3 Phenom II processors on the horizon, we asked team member Ton "TiTON" Khowdee to do a pre-launch exhibition of the X3 720 Black Edition--a chip that AMD says should overclock better than the Phenom II X4 940 BE. He obliged, and provided this write-up and the following photo documentation of his efforts.) This article will be a hardcore demonstration of AMD's latest Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition processor. This is not a traditional review of a processor. We are not focusing on 24x7 stability. Instead, we'll focus on passing benchmarks at the fastest possible speed. We will be putting AMD's latest Black Edition chip through the ultimate torture test. The CPU will be frozen with liquid nitrogen and its voltage cranked all the way up. We are going to dance on the fine line between breakneck speeds and complete CPU destruction. We will go to the dark side and see what performance rewards are awaiting those brave enough to travel down this path. |
|
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Sweet! Not bad for a 3ghz Overclock ehh. Im excited to see what the higher clocked version's will do.
[
No, AccessGranted, you are wrong. If the first one benched at 28 minutes, and it ran OC'ed in 14 minutes, that's a 50% increase. Since it ran in 16:36, that's less than a 50% performance increase. Same with the second one. 18.8 / 2 is 9.4. Benchmark finished in 10.6, which is less than a 50% increase. You are doing the math backwards as you always compare to the original number. 10.6/18.8 = 56% of the original or a 44% decrease in time.
Wrong again
Formula: (New-Old)/Old*100 ;-)
Toms editor should really get his glasses checked. that of find a new job with all the mistakes in this artical..
but good to see from AMD.
If a benchmark takes 2 minutes at default and then 1 minute overclocked that's a 100% increase in performance. 100% increase in performance = 50% decrease in time. It's twice as fast thus taking half the time. It can't be any other way.
Ok, lets say a CPU scales perfect with clockspeed.
X Mhz:
Benchmark 1: 20 fps
Benchmark 2: 20 sec
2X Mhz
Benchmark 1: 40 fps
Benchmark 2: 10 sec
It's 100% faster -> twice as many fps, half as long rendering time.
anyway AMD cpu = Velocity Raptor
the fabrication technology of this cpus is incredible
Toms editor should really get his glasses checked. that of find a new job with all the mistakes in this artical..but good to see from AMD.
Irony?
Alot of the math is wrong. Didn't find any other obvious mistakes.
It looks good to see AMD back... But What AMD needs now Is some winner CPU's which can take the crown away from Intel....
cangelini, the formula you wrote is only good for benchmarks where an increase in performance equals an increase in the unit that is measured (fps for example).
The correct formula to use when an increase in performance equals a decrease in the unit measured is (Old/new)-1 = performance increase in percent
((Old/New)-1)x100 = performance increase in percent
are we going to see something similar with the i7? i mean, is it possible or is there some crazy restriction.. (or something i missed in a different article)
Quote:
accessgranted 02/10/2009 10:16 AM
It's a 75% (28/16 = 1,75) in performance, not 40%.
The operative word is performance. It is a ~75% increase in performance and a ~40% decrease in time. I have to agree, TH got it wrong.
Numbers aside, awesome test!
cangelini, the formula you wrote is only good for benchmarks where an increase in performance equals an increase in the unit that is measured (fps for example).The correct formula to use when an increase in performance equals a decrease in the unit measured is (Old/new)-1 = performance increase in percent
I'm sorry, you're absolutely right Access. I've edited all of the author's original numbers to reflect the proper percentages. Thanks for the correction!
AMD doesnt need the crown, they only need the cost/performance ratio just like they always have.
Toms editor should really get his glasses checked. that of find a new job with all the mistakes in this artical..but good to see from AMD.
You should have your English checked.
This article has me excited to see all of the AM3s when they come out.
This is making me want to build my first liquid-cooled gaming machine in the fall, which is hopefully when all the manufacturers should have their MBs on the market.
Nice article, guys.