Well, it was me that was saying I could tell a slower clock speed from a better one irrespective of cpu generation - and I didn't think you were one of the naysayers.Freezer7Pro wrote:
Yes, I know that, thank you. What I'm saying is, that 1800 points is a horrible score, since his system is capable of so much more.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
And the clock speed of an E6400 is?Freezer7Pro wrote:
Not anymore. I run at 3.73 right now, for temp- and voltage reasons. Somehow, my chip looses performance at over 1.5v. I do, however, get 1300 points flat on 3.4. Around 1400 for 3.73.
I'm not saying my CPU is omgpwn, I'm saying that his CPU is omgsux. Even with that low multi, he should hit at least 3GHz without hassle.
Answer: 2.13 GHz
@those who poured scorn on my claims that clock speed is more important than cpu generation: So, clock speed ain't a good measure of how fast a PC is and all Core2's are faster than older cpus?
Also, wasn't it you who had issues with the clock speed/architecture thing?
And, yeah, I think you're right - his system probably should be doing better - but I can't be arsed to check up on what he should be getting, but equally that slow cpu clock speed is going to be something of a bottleneck - the system won't be able to feed the GPU fast enough.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-06-28 14:05:00)