Pages: 1

 

2007-07-28 06:06:24
ReDevilJR
Member
+106|6824
"This is my first Intel build after being an AMD fanboy for some time and I am glad I made the switch. I went from a 8,875 3dmark06 score with my old AMD X2 4600+ to an 11,207 score from only upgrading to this processor. Intel e6850 3.0 ghz EVGA 8800GTX Corsair 2gb ddr2-800 OCZ 780 watt modXstream Without a bios update on the Asus P5K wifi deluxe there is a cpu ucode load error. This is just from the mobo not really recognizing the newer cpu to the fullest extent, you can just press f1 to bypass the error with no performance hit at all. A bios upgrade makes the message go away."

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6819115028

This was a review on newegg. I know it's a difference, I would've just thought there would've been a bigger difference.

Discuss.

Last edited by ReDevilJR (2007-07-28 06:06:57)

2007-07-28 06:43:01
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7094|London, England

leetkyle wrote:

Talk about the Rig Specs and Pics here!
Post your 3DMark scores here!
Nah, it was a review from Newegg which he's saying isn't that big (the change in 3d mark score).

I went from a 8,875 3dmark06 score with my old AMD X2 4600+ to an 11,207 score from only upgrading to this processor
I'd say that's pretty big
2007-07-28 07:09:10
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6966|N. Ireland
Oh, sorry. Well, yeah, a 2.3k increase is quite large! just for a new CPU (and motherboard).
2007-07-28 08:55:57
The#1Spot
Member
+105|7013|byah
4600+ costs 5 times less than a e6850 and a good am2 mobo is less than 100$ so for 2.3k score increased that is sure a rip off
2007-07-28 09:44:14
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6966|N. Ireland

The#1Spot wrote:

4600+ costs 5 times less than a e6850 and a good am2 mobo is less than 100$ so for 2.3k score increased that is sure a rip off
I don't think people buy for 3DMark06 scores. Core 2 Duos overclock better, have better architecture, are much better value for money..
2007-07-28 09:54:57
Freezer7Pro
I don't come here a lot anymore.
+1,447|6670|Winland

Yeah, nowmore, Intel>AMD. The C2D architecture is far better than the Athlon64 architecture. AMD hasn't changed their architecture much since the Throughbread (1600+ - 2700+). The only notable change is the thinner technology. Intel have completely re-modeled the architecture compared to the P4's. A 3000+ can beat a 3 GHz Prescott CPU with up to 3000 3DMark points, but can barely meet a 2.13 GHz C2D. However, in past times, the AMD architecture was far superior to Intel. I have an Intel P4 1.7GHz and an AMD Athlon XP 1600+, and with the same mem and HDD's, the 1600+ beats the shit out of the 1.7GHz Intel.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
2007-07-28 11:15:18
ReDevilJR
Member
+106|6824
Well, if a 4600+ can be within 2.3k then, then wouldn't the 6000+ be pretty darn close?

Yes, I know architecturally speaking, C2D is far better, I just thought it was interesting.
2007-07-28 12:04:00
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7055|SE London

ReDevilJR wrote:

Well, if a 4600+ can be within 2.3k then, then wouldn't the 6000+ be pretty darn close?

Yes, I know architecturally speaking, C2D is far better, I just thought it was interesting.
Fairly close.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007. … ;chart=419

3DMark is not the best indication of all round CPU performance though.

You've also got to bear in mind the added OCing potential.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard