Where exactly did I state that ANY specific processor such as the E6600 would waste any other specific processor ??? I believe I even stated earlier on that...
If you are running Windows XP and talking about pure grunt in this OS then I would have to agree with your statement regarding the E6600 'wasting' a AMD FX62... however I was of the opinion that the post which you replied to was about power respective to the power consumption of each processor's architecture.

ie power-per-watt

I was just stating that the 'processor competition' suggested by AMD was written with rules bias to AMD as the processor's architecture is capable of producing more power for each watt if power used.. this is the reason that Intel did not contest it and why AMD never went for a straight head to head performance fight between specific processors !!! -- its was an processor's architecture test nothing more

At no time do I recall suggesting that ONE specific processor is better than another.

 

[quote="Andymancos"]No you really got me there... I really do not understand about bottlenecks and honestly believed that a processor bottleneck occurs when one or more processes take up nearly all the time of all processors on the computer. In a bottleneck, processor threads ready to be executed must wait in a queue for processor time. All other activity comes to a halt until the queue is cleared, I take it my understanding is wrong.... please explain how

Obviously because I have two Graphic Cards with lots of memory linked through SLI (Scalable Link Interface) and featuring dedicated GPU (Graphics Processing Unit's) which provide dedicated graphics rendering which I believe is more effective than a typical CPUs for such a task... I expect that you can understand why I would have believed that these GPU's would execute the dedicated graphic related threads thus reducing overall loading on the CPU, because less demand is placed on the processor simply because the GPU's are processing the graphic demands I would obviously assume that the opportunity to bottleneck would also be reduced, I take it my understanding is wrong.... please explain how

Now when you take into consideration that most games such as BF2142 have not been programmed to take advantage of multi-threading features available to dual core processors and the fact that most of the loading from a game is graphically based rendering.... I sure you can understand why I make the assumptions above.

Now obviously I enjoy being educated and look forward to understanding why a 3.08 Ghz Opteron is a such a bottleneck to performance in a system running SLI graphic cards and a solid state RAM drive..

dual core, 64bit is most certainly the future but currently lack support and this is what the real problem is at present.. I have no doubt that given an application to take full advantage of the dual core and 64bit processors features that they are awesome... but how many applications are you actually aware of which do this ??

Benchmarks are bullshit... they do not provide a true comparision between systems as the benchmarks being compared are usually done on systems in different locations and as such results are subject to different ambient conditions..... they are the stuff of dreamers, they also take advantage of processor features not widely used in applications presently and because of this they give a false indication of how a processor performs in the real world today... they are also insecure and very very easy to fake which puts a question over the whole benchmark thing itself

Heres a socket A 800mhz Duron




If I was to start doing Windows benchmarks I would have to do them in a virtual machine as I do not run Windows through choiceon my systems, this also produces unreliable and exceptionally high results.... I also have little desire to install Windows to post benchmarks which offer nothing of value as I have liitle need to extend my 'E'-penis

My own systems run Ubuntu Linux, Darwin, BSD and ReactOS as I want Operating Systems which are stable and secure

 

Ok,

I downloaded and ran 3D mark 06 (free version) and below is the result :



On this spec machine :









Yet, all these run fine :









As does all the Grand Theft Auto's in 1280 x 1024 resolution, Battlefield 2142, both Max Payne Games,

 

The only thing that matter is your PC does what you ask of it imho... you know when its slow and when it needs upgrading and thats the standard everyone should go by...
I have trouble these days determining which one of my computers I am on sometimes as now even a mid range system is pretty capable for everything but hard core gaming with mad resolutions which im not personally interested in...

Knowledge about processor architecture and having an interest in it only serves to prove that you are a geek that needs to get a life, nothing more

Graphics look good enough to me DanRSturbo

Im lousy at gaming, real bad but that lego starwars thing has my inner 12 year old wanting a go

 

The lego star wars is an excellent game IMO

Proper funny too

 

unseenmenace, i know what you mean about not needing a super computer sometimes. My old system is a 2.6ghz celeron 1 gig of ram, onboard graphics, but its pretty much the same speed at web browsing etc not as quick to react when you double click folders/programmes though, just gaming it cant do, due to the fact it has really old pci graphics(not express) so i couldnt even get an agp card for it but anyway its good for a backup pc incase my main machine needs maintenance.

 

My backup machine is a shonky old time pc, with 64 meg's ram, a 256 graphics card, and 6 hard drives

 

Quality game. Only problem is, I can't get my 7yr old son off the bloody thing

 

to add for this i just got a new rig

ocz gamestream 600w psu
gigabyte s3 motherboard
2gb of pc6400c4 geil ram (problematic)
core2duo e6300
ati x1950xt
antec 900 case

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=147617

was stable, untill i started tweaking the ram and now it wont run very stable even at standard speeds, i need to keep resetting the bios, argh!

 

Download memtest and see if there is anything actually wrong with the memory... if it errors post the error message.

http://www.hcidesign.com/

If it does not error what timings are you running on the Geil

 

it doesnt error, running timings in auto now and it appears stable at 2.8ghz

tried 444 12 before and 555 24 and neither were stable.

 

I would RMA them if they will not do CAS 4-4-4-12 as they have a Lifetime Warranty and state that they support this agressive ram setting.
If you can only get them to run with auto setting which are usually mild I would believe that you could have a poor stick.

 

oh dear.

i bought them from ocuk, so even more oh dear, ive been adviced to rma them straight to geil because ocuk will just stick them in a rig and run them on auto and tell me they are ok

it has been running quake 4 at 2.8ghz for 6 hours straight fine.

then i left it idle whilst i took a shower, came back and it had locked up (again) and now the only thing that will get it to boot is cmos reset (again)

the cmos battery and jumper are under the gfx card

 

... are your system votages ok.. geil stick are very fussy with these

 

i had the same ram mate its nothing but problems wouldnt even do the rated speed stable so got myself some supertalent runs 1000mhz no probs

 

hopefully ocuk will give me a refund so i can get some cellshock

 

Just got myself a Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.13GHz and I must say it is pretty good already, compared to my old Pentium 4 @ 2.53GHz. But my E6400 will soon be upgraded to 3.0 or 3.2GHz I just have to buy a new cooling system for it. And then I doubt a lot of CPU will be ahead !

 

 

It's amazing how a quick drunken post can turn out a few weeks later


Just add water...