Madshrimps Forum Madness

Madshrimps Forum Madness (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/)
-   WebNews (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/)
-   -   AMD's 3GHz K10 to break 30,000 3DMark06 (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/amd-s-3ghz-k10-break-30-000-3dmark06-36933/)

jmke 29th August 2007 18:42

AMD's 3GHz K10 to break 30,000 3DMark06
 
LAST WEEK in Leipzig my kit was nicked, but before that happened we asked AMD if it would let us run memory benchmark scores on a system there. The reps gave us the company line and declined, so we decided to disclose the benchmark scores of our own K10 benchmarking here and now.

If you were wondering why AMD was hiding the scores of K10 so secretly, there were two reasons. The first might be that the CPU sucks badly and after AMD comes out, Intel's lads can start celebrating the death of AMD. On the other hand, there the was clear and present danger of the K10 significantly beating not just the current Conroe/Kentsfield generation, but easily out besting Wolfdale/Yorkfield. This statement warrants at least three hatemails from Intel's R&D lads, but all that we will disclose here are results we have in our possession. The pics are gone with my stolen laptop, though.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=41970

jmke 29th August 2007 18:47

Highest score for HD 2900 XT CF system on 3D06 at HWbot is here: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=640671

22.224 with Core 2 QX6850 @ 4510mhz
2x Radeon HD 2900 XT @ 880/990mhz

they score with K10 Barcelona

30.031 with K10 @ 3000Mhz
2x Radeon HD 2900 XT @ 830/900mhz

~35% increase in score with SLOWER GPU and lower CPU clocks. K10 = the bomb?

Sidney 29th August 2007 18:54

Quote:

The pics are gone with my stolen laptop, though.
How convenient for a pro without a simple USB flash backup.

geoffrey 29th August 2007 19:14

I tried, but I just can not believe this.

Rutar 29th August 2007 20:21

Can someone run the numbers if the first Radeons were at stock and the second ones were overclocked, how much of an % increase of the CPU score has to be attributed to the 20% increase in CPU clock.


for me, the numbers don't add up since the boost seems bigger than the clockspeed boost

easypanic 29th August 2007 20:56

MMM, we need real numbers and facts...

jmke 29th August 2007 22:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rutar (Post 154033)
Can someone run the numbers if the first Radeons were at stock and the second ones were overclocked, how much of an % increase of the CPU score has to be attributed to the 20% increase in CPU clock.


for me, the numbers don't add up since the boost seems bigger than the clockspeed boost

even with overclocked VGA, 30k is way over current top score.

@lazyman: Stolen story is true, car was plundered, camera, laptops, passports :(
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=41909

Rutar 29th August 2007 23:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke (Post 154042)
even with overclocked VGA, 30k is way over current top score.

that isn't the point, the point is that the CPU score would have to increase more than the clockspeed increase to reach this score

Jaco 30th August 2007 11:42

sounds too good to be true . I have my doubts...

jmke 30th August 2007 11:47

knew OC.com would have their say;)

Quote:

First, the 3DMark score went up 26% just by increasing the processor speed 20%. That's a scaling of 130%. That's pretty good, matter of fact, it's too good to be true based solely on changing the speed of the same type CPU.

Second, this is especially true for 3DMark 2006, which is primarily a video card, not a CPU benchmark.
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01208/

3D06 is first 3DMark which takes into account CPU score though, the older benchmarks did not.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32.

Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO