"Glad you put this up, I backed off from putting it in the forum. I'm not believing anything from any unreliable source until the actual reviews are put here. One thing I note from that same source is the date of the test ,3DMark11 : 1-2-2008 , Photoshop FAIL"
That's not a PS fail--it can simply mean an incorrect clock. Check the GT scores against known results for the GTX 580. Since we already know how 3DMark scores, correct results in those cases imply the benchmark is more likely to be legitimate.
AMD's new business model is not only missing Mark, It is also Missing Richard, Harry and Tom!:P
Thanks for explaining the relevance of the benchmarking programs and versions, some of that I did not know, and I bet a lot of people out there know even less. I still see hordes of people clamoring for SuperPi results with few knowledgeable people shouting them down, citing its outdated x87 instructions.
Thanks for the clarification. This is somewhat disappointing, in that I was happy to see some early results for Bulldozer. And I know several other sites had posts citing the same source, but once again you guys are the only one to shed light on the situation, and reveal the truth. Thanks for being honest, and taking the time to analyze these results instead of rushing to be the first to post.
PS You mentioned that one of the results looked to be for an overclocked cpu. For what it's worth, I believe that some other sites were quoting an overclock of 5.1 Ghz.
Overclocked results are fun--I've got a pair of phase change units that I enjoy testing and I've used them to take a Thuban up to 4.4GHz (not record-setting by any means, but useful for testing scaling). The problem with using OC results without careful control tests is that they don't tell us anything about how the chip performs in a real-world environment.
Regardless of how easy it is to OC a chip, only a very tiny handful of companies will ever sell it in an OC'd configuration. Any website claiming to provide useful data needs to articulate both base performance and OC'd results, along with an explanation of how an overclock was achieved. Raising IMC, RAM, and HT speeds in conjunction with an overclock can lead to different performance characteristics than simply raising clockspeed.
This result is a fake. Check the original source, please. They apologized for being cheated by their own source.
Do you speak Turkish? The Google Translation of the amended website is good enough to give the general idea that false numbers were given, but I can't make much headway with the specifics of the situation.
Well considering that the CPU they tested was a Engeneer Chip, as well as they used old/bad bench apps, I think everyone needs to chill out and wait till Its actually released on the 19th of Sept.
Then wait for good benches to be released and in turn not feed the fanboy trolls that are lurking.
So yeah, about that 19th of Sept?
So yeah, about that 19th of Sept?
Don't forget about November and December!
"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms