# Don't wait for new Nehalem processors. Read why.



## toloratedmeat (Oct 11, 2008)

***UPDATED** Don't wait for new Nehalem processors. Read why. Screenshots Posted!!*

The new Nehalem processors' main feature is that is does not have an FSB rather a memory controller onboard. "Bloomfield" the first Nehalem release will be running on an Intel X58 chipset. This requires Triple Channel DDR3 RAM. So this is supposed to "trick" system builders. So it's kinda confusing but i will try to explain it as best as I can.

So our theoretical mobo has 6 slots.







Here are our slots, the ones with dashes under their name means they're in the same channel.

So if you had 6x1GB ram you would put one DIMM in each slot.
If you had 3x2Gb you would put them in 1,3,5 correct?
In dual channel if you had 2x4gb you would put them in 1,3
But in triple channel, you would put them in 1,2 because if the third slot isnt occupied, apparently it dosent run as fast as it should.

Also even though the Bus speed is 4.8GHz/s it isn't as good a gaming processor as a workstation processor. Why?

The "Bloomfield" series have 4 physical cores and 2 threads each. Equaling 8 threads.
Most games are single threaded meaning that in the Penryn series more GHz+FSB+Cache meant speed. This here is not the case. Since there are so many threads, this will slow the game down a lot. 

Here are my two benchmarking systems:

Core i7 Machine:                         
Intel Core i7 940 @ 3.2GHz on air  
12GB DDR3 1066                         
ATI HD 4870 X2                                                  
MSI Eclipse                                 
32GB SSD                                   

Core 2 Quad Machine:
Core 2 Quad Q9650 @ 4GHz On liquid
8GB DDR3 1600 Crucial
ATI HD 4870 X2 
ASUS P5Q3 Deluxe
750GB HDD SATA II

In Crysis:
At 1024x768:
Core i7 got: 36fps MIN 74.6fps MAX
Core 2 Quad got: 43fps MIN 88.4fps MAX

At 1280x1024:
i7 got: 24fps MIN 53.9fps MAX
C2Q got: 12fps MIN 65.5fps MAX

At 1920x1200:
i7 got: 9.3fps MIN 33.6fps MAX
C2Q got: 18fps MIN 51.6fps MAX

As you can see, the fps gap at smaller resolutions are smaller. In the first one, it was a matter of a few frames. But as the going got tougher, the i7 skipped out. I also realised in task manager that while I was running the benchmark one thread was on 100% and the others were on 3-7% idling doing nothing.

It will be a matter of many years before games are multithreaded. Until then stick with your C2Q.

The graphics card in both machines were the same. Not overclocked. Stock.

Thanks to iSkytech for letting me borrow the processor/mobo.
The Core 2 Quad Gaming Rig is mine so if you have any questions on overclocking just post them here. 

Thanks!!


----------



## Darknova (Oct 11, 2008)

Run the benches with the CPUs at the same speed with the same cooling method, and use the SSD on both machines. Otherwise this means absolutely nothing to me.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 11, 2008)

"The "Bloomfield" series have 4 physical cores and 2 threads each. Equaling 8 threads.
Most games are single threaded meaning that in the Penryn series more GHz+FSB+Cache meant speed. This here is not the case. Since there are so many threads, this will slow the game down a lot."

yeah yeah, lets all go back to single core CPU's. thats a pretty poor argument there.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Oct 11, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> The new Nehalem processors' main feature is that is does not have an FSB rather a memory controller onboard. "Bloomfield" the first Nehalem release will be running on an Intel X58 chipset. This requires Triple Channel DDR3 RAM. So this is supposed to "trick" system builders. So it's kinda confusing but i will try to explain it as best as I can.
> 
> So our theoretical mobo has 6 slots.
> 
> ...



Do you work for AMD?


----------



## xylomn (Oct 11, 2008)

You can't run benchmarks on cpu's for comparison with completely different hardware on each side, simply unscientific.

- Same amount of memory @ same speed
- Same hard drive
- as your comparing architectures both cpu's @ same speed

how can you expect your results to be respected when you have missed the above :shadedshu


----------



## btarunr (Oct 11, 2008)

I still feel if you have a Core 2 Extreme, even a QX6700, you can hold on for a while post Bloomfield. After Bloomfield arrives, you'd be forced to sell your ~$800+ CPU at dirt cheap prices...let's say a QX6700 goes for $280, since if you're unreasonable, people would rather buy a new i7 920. So after selling your 1337 chip for a quarter of its original price, you'd be spending an extra ~$600 for a 96x XE, and for performance increments that aren't 'revolutionary', just a little significant.


----------



## Jansku07 (Oct 11, 2008)

Second post - no pictures or CPU-Z validation whatsoever. I dont find this results very trustworthy..


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 11, 2008)

Ok... I'll post the new benchmarks with the processors at the same speed next Saturday because I have school this week. I'll include the CPU-Z stuff too. I need to run back down to iSkytech and I cant do that on weekdays.

I promise I'll get back to you guys soon.

Since the Q9650 is stock at 3.00GHz, what should I set the FSB to to make it 2.93GHz. I just dont wanna do the math.


----------



## Darknova (Oct 11, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> Ok... I'll post the new benchmarks with the processors at the same speed next Saturday because I have school this week. I'll include the CPU-Z stuff too. I need to run back down to iSkytech and I cant do that on weekdays.
> 
> I promise I'll get back to you guys soon.
> 
> Since the Q9650 is stock at 3.00GHz, what should I set the FSB to to make it 2.93GHz. I just dont wanna do the math.



Run both at 3.2Ghz. Most games are single-threaded, so that will show which has the better architecture and how much of a performance increase we can expect.


----------



## r9 (Oct 11, 2008)

Darknova said:


> Run the benches with the CPUs at the same speed with the same cooling method, and use the SSD on both machines. Otherwise this means absolutely nothing to me.



+1
From this we concluded that higher frequency means more speed daah.


----------



## SimFreak47 (Oct 11, 2008)

As others have stated, you NEED to have the same RAM, same HDD, and same CPU frequency. You also need CPU-Z screenshots, and GPU-Z screenshots. Till then, I will have to disregard this info, just like an above member.
Edit* What OS are you running?


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 11, 2008)

I cant do same ram because MSI Eclipse is Triple Channel and unless I have 3 DIMMs of 2.6666667 ram it wont work at full speed. So what should I do?


----------



## Darknova (Oct 12, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> I cant do same ram because MSI Eclipse is Triple Channel and unless I have 3 DIMMs of 2.6666667 ram it wont work at full speed. So what should I do?



I would run 2 different benches. One with the i7 in Dual Channel, and one with the i7 in triple channel. With the dual channel run the same amount as the C2Q (Say 4Gb) and then with the Triple run the closest you can (say 6Gb).


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Oct 12, 2008)

yeah. delete this thread, and start a new one when you can compare with same/similar hardware, and actually get benches proven.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Oct 12, 2008)

Fail


----------



## Darknova (Oct 12, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Fail



Not helpful. This guy has access to the hardware I can guarantee we are all waiting to see, so instead of making inane comments like that maybe you should be helping him come up with a benchmark that will actually show off i7 on a level footing.

I for one would love to see what i7 can really do, but if he goes somewhere else because he feels too "unwelcomed" then you only have yourself to blame.


----------



## tkpenalty (Oct 12, 2008)

So mate, is it really that difficult to validate CPUZ? I REALLY doubt a school student would have access to this sort of NDA-covered hardware; the Core i7s, as well as information. I'd expect a seasoned engineer or journalist, not you, not to offend. 

In the time you made that post toloratedmeat you could have at least taken us a screenshot. Sure, you COULD Be one of those underage IT prodigies, who works at top-end jobs without qualifications (i know one), but don't give us an excuse like "i had to return the system"


----------



## Darknova (Oct 12, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> Ok... I'll post the new benchmarks with the processors at the same speed next Saturday because I have school this week. I'll include the CPU-Z stuff too. I need to run back down to iSkytech and I cant do that on weekdays.
> 
> I promise I'll get back to you guys soon.
> 
> Since the Q9650 is stock at 3.00GHz, what should I set the FSB to to make it 2.93GHz. I just dont wanna do the math.



Tk, read the whole thread before you make a comment


----------



## Kursah (Oct 12, 2008)

I'm interested to see further results...this isn't the first I've heard that the i7's may perform sub-par to current faster processors due to single-thread issues and such. With your access to this hardware, I'm hoping to see more results and some validation, you gave us your word, and for now that should suffice.

To all those not interested or think this post is worthless...I don't feel it is, I think it could've initially been written and filled with screenshots and validations making a more solid point, but really it's not something we haven't already heard about and been warned of before. This is not new, but seeing some better proof of it could surely be interesting...but with future games hopefully supporting multi-core's more and more I'm sure the i7's will pull ahead...wonder how a 4 core i7 does against a quad core2 in Supreme Commander...only game I can think of that can utilize up to 4 cores..

This thread has hope, and I look forward to seeing it grow positively...no need for harshness imo, if ya don't believe it or dislike the results...what's the point of increasing post-count for negative comments that aren't helpful? Sure the results could be bogus, guess we'll have to wait till next weekend, I for one will be watching and waiting.


----------



## Darknova (Oct 12, 2008)

Kursah, you speak a lot of sense my friend 

Everyone else needs to stop ruining this for those who are interested in seeing the results. We have to wait until next weekend to see what happens, stop being so impatient, and stop with the inane comments.


----------



## SimFreak47 (Oct 12, 2008)

imo a good comparison would be:

use the core2 with x GB of RAM in Dual Channel
use the i7 with x GB of RAM in Tripple Channel

this would be benching the CPU's with their potential. 

They should also be clocked at the same GHz (3.2GHz would be efficent)

For testing games, you should have the same kind of hard drive. using a SSD and a HDD to bench games = fail. You need to have the same drive to get the most accurate results. IE, a 74GB Raptor. 

I'm not trying to sound like a rude prick. I'm just giving you a few suggestions 

And when you get a chance, we'd all like to see some CPU-Z validation, with your TPU name under "Submitted by:"


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 13, 2008)

Yup. The screenies are comin right at cha. They will be up by Sunday.

TPU name?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 13, 2008)

Um, what are you actually trying to prove?  The best way to compare something is to follow the guidelines of the scientific method:

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyzer Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

At this point, I think we're stuck at step 1.  Your post started out talking about the memory channel scheme (which is completely dependant on motherboard manufacturer implementation by the way) and ended with benchmarks comparing FPS.  What exactly are you trying to prove?  That triple channel is not as good as dual?  That Nehalem's virtual-core approach is not as good as sticking to just physical cores?

Science is only as good as the processes through which it is conducted. 


Edit: It should be noted that games are not a very good source for processor benchmarks because a lot of it depends on the game design more so than anything else.  The best benchmark for a processor is asymmetrical arithmetic and floating-point operations that engages all cores in non-repetitive work.  Games, by nature, are symmetrical and as such, go no faster than the most burdened component (usually the graphics card).  Because of this, most processor clocks are put to idle use and very little processor time is actually needed.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 13, 2008)

Whatever the Op's intentions (and those of you who know me know I am always suspicsious of new members joining to post stuff like this, did they not recognise the merit of the forum before they had a message to spread?)   But to be honest, there is some useful stuff here, and if he really does have the kit at his disposal then we may just get an early insight into the Pro's and Con's of Bloomfield, much of what he actually says is fairly logical, nevertheless I agree, he needs to be more consistent in his testing and provide more evidence but this may simply be down to over enthusiasm!

I look foward to his further results.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 13, 2008)

All I want to know is, how far does it overclock, and on what voltages?


----------



## SimFreak47 (Oct 13, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> Yup. The screenies are comin right at cha. They will be up by Sunday.
> 
> TPU name?



When you submit a validation to the CPU-Z official validation site, you can put your name in, and for these, you should use your TPU name.. toloratedmeat


----------



## Silverel (Oct 13, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> Yup. The screenies are comin right at cha. They will be up by Sunday.
> 
> TPU name?



 It's Monday morning...


----------



## Castiel (Oct 13, 2008)

Wile E said:


> All I want to know is, how far does it overclock, and on what voltages?



Same here.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 13, 2008)

Silverel said:


> It's Monday morning...



Lol, you noticed as well


----------



## Kwod (Oct 13, 2008)

I hated Nelly before I got my C2D, and I hate it even more now


----------



## Woody112 (Oct 13, 2008)

Wile E said:


> All I want to know is, how far does it overclock, and on what voltages?



I second that


----------



## D4S4 (Oct 13, 2008)

I don't buy this. The difference is too big on highest resolution where GFX card should be the bottleneck.


----------



## Dan2312 (Oct 14, 2008)

I just sold my Pc, now im waiting for nehalem, 

If this guy was telling the truth, would it still not be better getting the system setup for future proof reasons? 

Maybe Tri Channel and Bloomfield is not effective now, but maybe in the next 12 months it could be, i think i'd rather splash out on a Bloomfield setup now, as im without a PC. lol

im currently using my dads laptop that scored 197 in 3dmark06, YES thats 197!! terrible.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 14, 2008)

Well he has not come back with the promised goods, an indication perhaps that it was all a pile of Bulls*it????....who knows.


----------



## newconroer (Oct 14, 2008)

Darknova said:


> Kursah, you speak a lot of sense my friend
> 
> Everyone else needs to stop ruining this for those who are interested in seeing the results. We have to wait until next weekend to see what happens, stop being so impatient, and stop with the inane comments.




Ok what are you now Wayne Rooney turned hall monitor?


The reason people are scoffing is because he's presented absurd results based off an absurd test scenario.

Personally I find this just another waste of space on our forums, as so many things are these days and until something solid is provided, then why should we be accepting of it? It's our forums too....and we don't want bullshit on it.


----------



## niko084 (Oct 14, 2008)

I love the massive spike of new users lately, some completely smash the new chips, and some completely praise them...

Sounds like a bunch of guys that work for $7.50 an hour and know how to install windows to me...


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 14, 2008)

I see where he is coming from about it having 8 threads and that the hypertrhreading effectively halves one core's speed. Although you could make the benchies more accurate by making the only two differences between the systems being the motherboard and the cpu, everything else identical including clock speeds on the graphics cards etc.


----------



## niko084 (Oct 15, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> I see where he is coming from about it having 8 threads and that the hypertransport effectively halves one core's speed. Although you could make the benchies more accurate by making the only two differences between the systems being the motherboard and the cpu, everything else identical including clock speeds on the graphics cards etc.



"Hyperthread" and no it doesn't work that way... The way you are saying it the P4 HT's would have been slower than the standard P4's... Not the case.


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 15, 2008)

niko084 said:


> "Hyperthread" and no it doesn't work that way... The way you are saying it the P4 HT's would have been slower than the standard P4's... Not the case.



My bad lol  but how does it not work that way  explain I just assumed it split the core into two logical processors.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 15, 2008)

teh facts, where are they, i needs them.


----------



## niko084 (Oct 15, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> My bad lol  but how does it not work that way  explain I just assumed it split the core into two logical processors.



Sort of, but remember you can't do that in a physical manor because its "logical" not "physical".

There was a really nice little flash movie on intels website that showed it before, I'll try to find it.

Not the one I was looking for but this should give you a better idea-
http://cache-www.intel.com/cd/00/00/24/49/244978_244978.swf


----------



## Sc1mitar (Oct 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted by toloratedmeat
> Ok... I'll post the new benchmarks with the processors at the same speed next Saturday because I have school this week. I'll include the CPU-Z stuff too. I need to run back down to iSkytech and I cant do that on weekdays.




that was posted on the 11th



> Yup. The screenies are comin right at cha. They will be up by Sunday.



that was posted yesterday. 13th.

i believe hes referin to the fact that he has school all week, an wont be able to get the hardware till NEXT weekend. Probly the 18-19th of october.

use your brains here people, give the dude a chance to prove his benchies.

if he cant then tar and feather!!!


----------



## Darknova (Oct 15, 2008)

newconroer said:


> Ok what are you now Wayne Rooney turned hall monitor?
> 
> 
> The reason people are scoffing is because he's presented absurd results based off an absurd test scenario.
> ...



Well I do apologise for trying to keep the peace and trying to get some information on a platform I am really interested in, next time I'll be really unwelcoming and jump on him because he's new ok?

I wouldn't be surprised if the guy has no motivation to come back here after the way everyone's treated him. Oh well, your loss.


----------



## bigtye (Oct 15, 2008)

Agree with Darknova, keep an open mind and ask for further evidence to substantiate the claim made. Maybe op had nothing but maybe he did. Possibly wont find out now and will have to wait longer for official reviews.

Ahh well, I'm good at waiting.

Tye


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 15, 2008)

D4S4 said:


> I don't buy this. The difference is too big on highest resolution where GFX card should be the bottleneck.


Agreed.  If anything, the results should narrow at higher resolutions.  However, what is also wrong, is looking only at min and max fps. What are those statistics? A worse case driven by the HDD cache or SSD latency?

Average FPS and screenies, or it aint true.

Personally, I'm not all that convinced in the new Nehalem architecture bringing big gains in 99% of sitations compared to a Core 2 Quad.  I'd like to base this on actual data rather than just hunch based on:

1./ Essentially the "same" core  (=)
2./ Better L1 cache (small +)
3./ But less L2 cache and more L3 cache, but L2>>L3 (small -)
4./ *Triple *channel memory (potentially big +), although early benchmarks of single, dual, and triple, dont look to scale well at triple for some reason. Perhaps because for most scenarios the cache is big enough and dual channel can feed the cache predictors sufficiently (=)
5./ Socket and platform and memory change requiring completely new investment (--)

net net is - unless there is an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE change in performance, ie 2x or better.  If not, then Intel should have gone LOWER voltage/power on Core 2 and added HT or 6 cores on s775. After all, they manage 6 cores on s771.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 15, 2008)

SSD drives, do have a massive latency problem if its one of the Jmicron/samsung combos. There was reports of 900ms delays on random writes.

If it had one of those drives, it'd be a really, really shit performing rig.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Oct 15, 2008)

so the same theory still about quad which is (phenom=4 real quad core's , c2q=not real quad core's)


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Oct 16, 2008)

like i said before. delete this thread. and make a new one when you have sufficient evidence and test data, because right now, it's just a bunch of BS to almost everyone here. yes we are all interested in Nehalem, but not fudges benches and theories.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 18, 2008)

yep the screenies comin ure way i got the hardware today


----------



## Mussels (Oct 18, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> yep the screenies comin ure way i got the hardware today



sweet


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 19, 2008)

Darknova said:


> I would run 2 different benches. One with the i7 in Dual Channel, and one with the i7 in triple channel. With the dual channel run the same amount as the C2Q (Say 4Gb) and then with the Triple run the closest you can (say 6Gb).



There is no dual channel. MSI Eclipse only works with Triple Channel.

And for people who say to close this thread? 
You don't have the hardware to do the benchmarks.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 19, 2008)

The Promised Goods are Coming.... One by One

SH*T I speled my naame wrong

I've already overclocked it back to 3.2GHz. Now I'm building the i7. Oh btw they didnt give me the SSD back so what should I do?

Can someone suggest a way of doing this that people wont call bullsh*t?

The other screenshots will be posted one by one as I get the systems ready.


----------



## SimFreak47 (Oct 19, 2008)

Come on man! I'm getting excited!

Plz hurry!


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 19, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> The Promised Goods are Coming.... One by One
> 
> SH*T I speled my naame wrong
> 
> ...




Make the only difference between the two systems the motherboard and the cpu, keep the clocks speeds, ram speed, amount of ram, HDD, OS etc etc the same.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 19, 2008)

But I cant have the same amount of RAM because of the channels. 

Both machines will have an identical 750GB Hard Drive. I'm just installing the OS now.

It will probally be vista.


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 19, 2008)

Well one should have two and the other three to compare the difference between tri and dual channel.

Do some memory benchmarks like on everest ultimate for this.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 19, 2008)

huh?


----------



## imperialreign (Oct 19, 2008)

Wile E said:


> All I want to know is, how far does it overclock, and on what voltages?



 


Dedicated OCer right there! 




I'm surprised Morgoth hasn't popped up for this thread, yet . . . time to get the popcorn out . . .


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 19, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> huh?



I mean the core I7 should use 3gb of ram and the core2 use 2gb of ram if you get what i mean.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 19, 2008)

Primetime is coming. I'm "borrowing" a second 4870X2 to benchmark on.

Just because im lazy. I'm going to use Counter Strike: Source's "Video Stress Test" feature in order to benchmark. I'm already capped and I dont have any more usage. My internet is f*cking slow.

Yeah I see.


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 19, 2008)

Gimme that system, I'm dying to bench it


----------



## SimFreak47 (Oct 19, 2008)

I wouldn't bother with the CSS benchmark. My old computer did pretty good on it, and iirc, it's capped at 300FPS...

3DMark, CPUMark, SuperPI, etc!


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 19, 2008)

Damn, you're in Scotland. I was just about to say you can come over. I live in Australia. So LOL

Vista keeps blue-screening during install. I'll try once more and I switch to XP.

I cant download them because I'm capped. But I'll try the version that comes with the graphic cards. Ill keep you posted.

I might have to go out later so I'll post the results tomorrow if possible.


----------



## SimFreak47 (Oct 19, 2008)




----------



## DrPepper (Oct 19, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> Damn, you're in Scotland. I was just about to say you can come over. I live in Australia. So LOL
> 
> Vista keeps blue-screening during install. I'll try once more and I switch to XP.
> 
> ...



Post it to me  I bet the royal mail would lose it though :shadedshu

I wish I could bench and review new systems  would give me something to do.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 19, 2008)

Going on what you posted before:

Benchmark #1 (cover everything you can):
Intel Core i7 940 @ 2.93 MHz stock
2 x 2 GiB DDR3 sticks in dual channel
ATI HD 4870 X2 
MSI Eclipse 
750 GB HDD

Core 2 Quad Q9650 @ 2.93 GHz (slight underclock)
2 x 2GB DDR3 sticks in dual channel
ATI HD 4870 X2 
ASUS P5Q3 Deluxe
750GB HDD

Make sure the memory is running at the same speed for both systems...


After those benchmarks.  Fill up the DIMM slots (the Core i7 should have 1/3 more memory) and rerun memory benchmarks to see how tri-channel plays into things...


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 19, 2008)

It keeps blue screening on Vista. Any help?

Ford.. I'll use you're idea. If you figure all the numbers out for me. ^^ hehe


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 19, 2008)

I like Excel.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 19, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> Damn, you're in Scotland. I was just about to say you can come over. I live in Australia. So LOL
> 
> Vista keeps blue-screening during install. I'll try once more and I switch to XP.
> 
> ...



I've  been reading this thread and find it very interesting and would also like to see your results that you get from this new i7. I agree that most games seem to be still single threaded and that maybe all these threads that the new i7 puts out, could be slowing it down in certain areas. i did alot of benchmarking on 3 different machines myself here, took all dam day, but in the end found out that a high end single core CPU will still match or beat a new dual core at gaming,(AMD's i tested) untill you get to games that are multi threaded and or Supreme commander =/

I see you keep getting a BSOD? what other GPU's do you have there? try to use a GPU that isnt so OMG and see if the BSOD goes away?

Were in Australia do you live? and i hear ya , it sux big time getting capped, most Americans have no idea what that is, but here in Australia its were we get a limited amount of downloads per month, and if we go over this amount it slows down to 64k, until the rollover comes up, witch is every month from the date you started from.

Keep up the good work, be good to see some real benchtests from someone at home, i find them more reliable sometimes. i don't trust all the reviews on the net, some are just like WTF? because its so different from another review, so i look at the whole lot and do a average.

I'm impressed that you got your hands on a new i7  well done.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 19, 2008)

the BSOD's could be due to SATA/AHCI drivers. Make sure you add them in via a USB stick when installing vista.


----------



## SimFreak47 (Oct 19, 2008)

You know, you could always just send me the stuff to test =)


----------



## Mussels (Oct 19, 2008)

SimFreak47 said:


> You know, you could always just send me the stuff to test =)



well since i'm an aussie, its easier for him to send it to me


----------



## SimFreak47 (Oct 19, 2008)

Mussels said:


> well since i'm an aussie, its easier for him to send it to me



But I asked first  lol


----------



## ShadowFold (Oct 19, 2008)

I magically live in Australia now, send it to me.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 19, 2008)

Hehe. No One's touching the stuff. My fingers are on the line. I will never overclock this thing much because if I break it I'm a paraplegic.


----------



## SimFreak47 (Oct 19, 2008)

You're a what?? I never heard of paraplegic.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 19, 2008)

I've never heard of a toenaill.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 19, 2008)

SimFreak47 said:


> You're a what?? I never heard of paraplegic.


they're people without toenails



toloratedmeat said:


> I've never heard of a toenaill.



See?



lets go back on topic guys! nehalem benchies!


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 19, 2008)

installing os...


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 19, 2008)

you aint done yet?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

jk, tighten up man, alot of us are waiting


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 19, 2008)

sorry but vista keeps blue-screening


----------



## farlex85 (Oct 19, 2008)

What's the error code? And what about turbo mode (turning off two cores to give more power to the other two), are you gonna try that at all?


----------



## btarunr (Oct 19, 2008)

Can I see a CPU-Z validation of that i7 please? Post the link to the validation page. Submitted by < your TPU username >



SimFreak47 said:


> You're a what?? I never heard of paraplegic.



A person with dysfunctional legs/parts of legs because of spinal injury/disease.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 19, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Can I see a CPU-Z validation of that i7 please? Post the link to the validation page. Submitted by < your TPU username >
> 
> 
> 
> A person with dysfunctional legs/parts of legs because of spinal injury/disease.



he cant cpu-z verify the os wont install imo its a simple error the poor guy is having but since were acting like a pack of wolves he's probably going about building insanely fast and he might be making mistakes i suggest we all calm down and be civil  he's doing us a favor and he doesnt need to.


----------



## Bundy (Oct 19, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> sorry but vista keeps blue-screening



I suggest you try...

a) recheck that you have all your RAM inserted properly.
b) post us pictures of the BIOS and your settings, especially the screen where the voltages are set.
c) if you have changed the drive, suggest you post pictures of the BIOS page where the HDD options are set e.g. IDE/AHCI etc.

Oh - WELCOME TO TPU!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 19, 2008)

What is the STOP code on the BSOD and when does it occur?  For the purpose of benchmarking, it may be best just to stick to XP.  It would not invalidate the results as long as both computers are using the same OS.  I wouldn't rule out that a component has gone bad either...


----------



## btarunr (Oct 19, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> he cant cpu-z verify the os wont install imo its a simple error the poor guy is having but since were acting like a pack of wolves he's probably going about building insanely fast and he might be making mistakes i suggest we all calm down and be civil  he's doing us a favor and he doesnt need to.



When you start a "Future CPU is bad" discussion, the first thing I'd expect from you, is your experience with the CPU, and before which, your validation. I'm as calm as a cucumber, and civil as ever, but I'd still like a validation.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 19, 2008)

I screwed with Vista. XP works on it. I'm just installing the discs now. I'll do the benchmarks tomorrow after school. I have a gigantic headache trying to make Vista to work. I might take a shower rest and go to sleep. Because when I move my head hurts ><.

EDIT: I meant my head hurts when I move. I really need to sleep.


----------



## wahdangun (Oct 19, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> he cant cpu-z verify the os wont install imo its a simple error the poor guy is having but since were acting like a pack of wolves he's probably going about building insanely fast and he might be making mistakes i suggest we all calm down and be civil  he's doing us a favor and he doesnt need to.



we are the TPUers, and we are hungry for new benchies.wolf wolf

and please come on fast.


b'coz i can't stand anymore. my fingger can't stop pressing "reffres" button,.


----------



## wahdangun (Oct 19, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> I screwed with Vista. XP works on it. I'm just installing the discs now. I'll do the benchmarks tomorrow after school. I have a gigantic headache trying to make Vista to work. I might take a shower rest and go to sleep. Because when I move my head hurts ><.



up's sorry mate, keep cool don't rush yourself, we dont want you to get sick because it will be bad for us. 

and we can wait the benchies


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 19, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> But I cant have the same amount of RAM because of the channels.
> 
> Both machines will have an identical 750GB Hard Drive. I'm just installing the OS now.
> 
> It will probally be vista.



The ram quantities wont make any difference for straight synthetic benching, 2gig and 3gig will be fine.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 19, 2008)

he could technically run 3GB or 6GB and have it compare directly.


2x2GB + 2x1GB = 6GB dual channel, its working in my PC in specs.
Then just 3x2GB for triple channel on the other.


----------



## Dia01 (Oct 19, 2008)

The BSOD issues wouldn't be caused by the >3GB RAM issue upon installing Vista would it?  Run with 2GB, install, patch, add remaining RAM, or am I missing something?


----------



## Mussels (Oct 19, 2008)

Dia01 said:


> The BSOD issues wouldn't be caused by the >3GB RAM issue upon installing Vista would it?  Run with 2GB, install, patch, add remaining RAM, or am I missing something?



is there a 3GB problem? I've never heard of it, and i've installed vista with 4 and 6GB's


----------



## Dia01 (Oct 19, 2008)

Mussels said:


> is there a 3GB problem? I've never heard of it, and i've installed vista with 4 and 6GB's



Any more than 2GB and installing Vista 64 I BSOD, everytime.  SP1 has the hotfix included.


----------



## qubit (Oct 19, 2008)

*Missing something*

The early posts saying that the system can't be compared properly are right on the clock frequencies and RAM, but wrong on the storage device: using a HD or an SSD makes absolutely no difference to the result. After all, we are not measuring how fast the system's I/O is, are we?

All the benchmarks should be quoted when all the data has been loaded into RAM, as is the case after the second run and sometimes even during then first, depending on the benchmark. Therefore, the performance of the storage device will be isolated and hence irrelevent to the result.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 19, 2008)

qubit said:


> The early posts saying that the system can't be compared properly are right on the clock frequencies and RAM, but wrong on the storage device: using a HD or an SSD makes absolutely no difference to the result. After all, we are not measuring how fast the system's I/O is, are we?
> 
> All the benchmarks should be quoted when all the data has been loaded into RAM, as is the case after the second run and sometimes even during then first, depending on the benchmark. Therefore, the performance of the storage device will be isolated and hence irrelevent to the result.



if it was a Jmicron/samsung SSD drive, the 900ms random read latency could have caused system stalls, screwing up tests even if they were running from memory. IO subsystem lag tends to slow a whole PC down (try ejecting/inserting DVD's while gaming, for example)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 19, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> The ram quantities wont make any difference for straight synthetic benching, 2gig and 3gig will be fine.


There's a question about tri-channel having some latency issues which is why it needs to be tested in dual-channel and tri-channel.


----------



## qubit (Oct 19, 2008)

Mussels said:


> if it was a Jmicron/samsung SSD drive, the 900ms random read latency could have caused system stalls, screwing up tests even if they were running from memory. IO subsystem lag tends to slow a whole PC down (try ejecting/inserting DVD's while gaming, for example)



While ejecting a CD does indeed cause Windows to stall for a bit, I'd be surprised if an SSD would have such an effect, especially if all the data is in RAM and it's not being accessed from it.

Heck, if in doubt, just repeat the bench using identical hardware other than the storage device. Then one will have an objective result, free of anyone's opinion. 

EDIT: thinking about it, comparing ejecting a CD to the access time of a drive is not the same thing at all and therefore irrelevant. There's no eject function on a HD or SSD for a start. A relevant comparison would be the access time of a CD drive to access the files on it, which would take ages, as these devices are very slow. Then, as the files are loaded into RAM, the access and load times become irrelevant, don't they?


----------



## Mussels (Oct 19, 2008)

qubit said:


> While ejecting a CD does indeed cause Windows to stall for a bit, I'd be surprised if an SSD would have such an effect, especially if all the data is in RAM and it's not being accessed from it.
> 
> Heck, if in doubt, just repeat the bench using identical hardware other than the storage device. Then one will have an objective result, free of anyone's opinion.
> 
> EDIT: thinking about it, comparing ejecting a CD to the access time of a drive is not the same thing at all and therefore irrelevant. There's no eject function on a HD or SSD for a start. A relevant comparison would be the access time of a CD drive to access the files on it, which would take ages, as these devices are very slow. Then, as the files are loaded into RAM, the access and load times become irrelevant, don't they?



You're missing the point. most SSD's on the market currently are *bugged* and they cause lag problems of upto 900ms. thats nearly a second, during which the entire PC would lag, just like the DVD problem. Its not like the benchmark needs to be the one reading either, there's usually something accessing a HDD, be it a program or the OS.


----------



## qubit (Oct 19, 2008)

*The penny drops *



Mussels said:


> You're missing the point. most SSD's on the market currently are *bugged* and they cause lag problems of upto 900ms. thats nearly a second, during which the entire PC would lag, just like the DVD problem. Its not like the benchmark needs to be the one reading either, there's usually something accessing a HDD, be it a program or the OS.



I see - thanks for setting me straight; I didn't realise they were bugged like this. This fault would then definitely then be comparable to ejecting that DVD. I'd not seen that reported anywhere, even though I do read the tech news regularly.

If I bought one and saw this on my system, I'd be returning it for a refund sharpish, I can tell you. Especially at the stupid prices and low capacities they currently sell for.

Given this problem, I wouldn't use them for benchmarking games, either.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 19, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> This requires Triple Channel DDR3 RAM.



Besides all the other BS you posted, this is just flat out wrong.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 19, 2008)

btarunr said:


> When you start a "Future CPU is bad" discussion, the first thing I'd expect from you, is your experience with the CPU, and before which, your validation. I'm as calm as a cucumber, and civil as ever, but I'd still like a validation.



ahh i see good point as for the attitude part that was not directed tword you but as a general thread statment.


----------



## Morgoth (Oct 19, 2008)

oh god... nice flame war keep it up guys!


----------



## Silverel (Oct 20, 2008)

Morgoth said:


> oh god... nice flame war keep it up guys!



Tons of fun when a kid in school claims to have uber-sexy hardware that he's gonna bench... Then doesn't... 

I stopped holding my breath last week.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 20, 2008)

Silverel said:


> Tons of fun when a kid in school claims to have uber-sexy hardware that he's gonna bench... Then doesn't...
> 
> I stopped holding my breath last week.



thats almost as bad as putting a system in your system specs that you dont really own.


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 20, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> thats almost as bad as putting a system in your system specs that you dont really own.



The OP hasn't filled his specs in though  or have i missed something  < me


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 20, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> The OP hasn't filled his specs in though  or have i missed something  < me



morgoth


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 20, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> morgoth



hehe  I thought you meant the op


----------



## imperialreign (Oct 20, 2008)

I've kinda been floating this thread as well, something just seems a bit odd about it too me . . .


this might be another "toothpaste" thread . . .


----------



## Dia01 (Oct 20, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> I've kinda been floating this thread as well, something just seems a bit odd about it too me . . .
> 
> 
> this might be another "toothpaste" thread . . .




I was thinking the same exact thing!  I'm giving this thread until end of school time today, that's only fair.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 20, 2008)

qubit said:


> I see - thanks for setting me straight; I didn't realise they were bugged like this. This fault would then definitely then be comparable to ejecting that DVD. I'd not seen that reported anywhere, even though I do read the tech news regularly.
> 
> If I bought one and saw this on my system, I'd be returning it for a refund sharpish, I can tell you. Especially at the stupid prices and low capacities they currently sell for.
> 
> Given this problem, I wouldn't use them for benchmarking games, either.



http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=8

^ to make it clear to everyone (including the OP) here is the link saying why we dont want no SSD's in the test 

This guy shows 250ms, the 900 i got was from another source (however i think anandtech is far more credible)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 20, 2008)

He said he would try to benchmark it after school.  I wouldn't give up on him yet.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 20, 2008)

There was a kid in here when the C2D was about to come out talking shit, he cried and wet himself, then left. Perhaps?


----------



## ShadowFold (Oct 20, 2008)

Steevo said:


> There was a kid in here when the C2D was about to come out talking shit, he cried and wet himself, then left. Perhaps?



Link?


----------



## Steevo (Oct 20, 2008)

Long time ago, but I can search.


I'm not saying it is the same person, just the same scenario.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 20, 2008)

Hi, I'm back from school. I'm going to attempt to put XP on now. Ill get back to you in half an hour.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 20, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> Hi, I'm back from school. I'm going to attempt to put XP on now. Ill get back to you in half an hour.



your the man.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 20, 2008)

Here it is... The Next Promised Good. The i7 Screenie. I just installed XP. I'm installing the HD4870X2 3DMark06 now. Ill be back in a couple hours. Can someone tell me where to download this GPU-Z program? 







Does anyone know why it says 0MHz for Bus Speed.

Bench Mark: My Own System the i7 One is coming





This is


----------



## Darknova (Oct 20, 2008)

From the download section of this site


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 20, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> Here it is... The Next Promised Good. The i7 Screenie. I just installed XP. I'm installing the HD4870X2 3DMark08 now. Ill be back in a couple hours. Can someone tell me where to download this GPU-Z program?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



cpu-z may not support it all the way make sure you have the latest version.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 20, 2008)

it is the newest version LOL.

Oh i see. I found it. Ok.. See you guys in 2 hours I'm trying to install 3dMark06 now. Ill post the bench results if it works. Bye for now.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 20, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> Here it is... The Next Promised Good. The i7 Screenie. I just installed XP. I'm installing the HD4870X2 3DMark06 now. Ill be back in a couple hours. Can someone tell me where to download this GPU-Z program?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




am i the only one that cant see the pics?


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 20, 2008)

no. It works for me.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 20, 2008)

i can see the pics as well. they're in the post you quoted as well.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 20, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> no. It works for me.



can i have the direct link ? for some reason it isnt showing up and im wicked excited for you but i cant see the pics so its mixed with sadness and i ran out of ciggs so its making me feel razy awfull.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 20, 2008)

wait. ill post them through imageshack. wait a sec

Number 1






Number 2


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 20, 2008)

thnx man preciate it i see now  odd i couldnt even see them in IE

btw would you care to oc for us? see how far she can go? i have a 920 on pre order and im anxious to see if they can be pushed. (im a reveiwer so im incredably intrested in prelaminary tests as i wont be getting one before release)


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 20, 2008)

nononononononono if i break it i'm dead no way dude no f*cking way


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 20, 2008)

It screws up on bus speeds and the like because of CSI.  Why is the processor overclocked?  940 has a stock clock of 2.93 GHz.

How about Raring a several GiB worth of data?


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 20, 2008)

im trying to overclock it a little. not to much just a little. yeah. ill move a vista image over.
im about to go to sleep so yeah. its 10 o'clock in aus. i've got school tomorrow so yeah.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 20, 2008)

Hi tolorated. Now this thread has finally got interesting!

We need a SuperPI http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/126/Super_PI_Mod_v1.4.html, a Cinebench10 http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/697/Cinebench_v10.html, and a "Generic Benchmark" http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=73579  in addition to the 3Dmark06 you are doing. Thanks!


----------



## Mussels (Oct 20, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> im trying to overclock it a little. not to much just a little. yeah. ill move a vista image over.
> im about to go to sleep so yeah. its 10 o'clock in aus. i've got school tomorrow so yeah.



no it isnt. its 8:20PM....

your post was made at 7:45PM, what state are you in?


----------



## Dia01 (Oct 20, 2008)

Mussels said:


> no it isnt. its 8:20PM....
> 
> your post was made at 7:45PM, what state are you in?



I was waiting for your post, it's 7:28pm in Queensland.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 20, 2008)

Dia01 said:


> I was waiting for your post, it's 7:28pm in Queensland.



ok so current time is 7:30 in queensland, 8:30 in vic... wheres the OP? unless he's over in WA or something, i didnt think we had such a timespread over Au.


----------



## Dia01 (Oct 20, 2008)

Mussels said:


> ok so current time is 7:30 in queensland, 8:30 in vic... wheres the OP? unless he's over in WA or something, i didnt think we had such a timespread over Au.



I don't believe there is such a difference, somethings strange.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 20, 2008)

shuddup. fine it was 7:45 but i wasss trying to sneak off to watch border security


----------



## Wile E (Oct 20, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> shuddup. fine it was 7:45 but i wasss trying to sneak off to watch border security



lol. Busted.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 20, 2008)

I'll do the i7 benchmark tomorow. I have my geo yearly tomorrow and my maths one next week so im packed.


----------



## Dia01 (Oct 20, 2008)

Well, I'm calling BS.  You are an Aussie though (Border Security).  27203 3DMarks is a very good score.  What was your system specs when you got that?


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 20, 2008)

First page bub.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 20, 2008)

lol, you got owned.

anyway, for tests

superpi (we have a superpi thread on here, grab their modded XS version) - run a 1M, 4M and 16M test.

3dmark 06 (1024x768 res, and whatever the highest res you can do is)

Generic CPU benchmark - run both x86 and x64 versions.


Those three should be pretty easy to do and take less than an hour all up, while giving us a good comparison points.

(i am aware lemonade soda reccomended mostly the same things, i just wanted to mention some settings for each program)


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 20, 2008)

I'm caling BS too. How does a younster still at school who wants to watch TV soap get his hands on a Core i7 system AND not want to bench it?

The is a wild goose story. Vote to close. Vote to slap.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 20, 2008)

tv soap? border security? LOL


----------



## Dia01 (Oct 20, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> tv soap? border security? LOL



     and


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 20, 2008)

Reality TV at it's worst. Pay-per-view next.


----------



## Dia01 (Oct 20, 2008)

Seriously, thanks Toleratedmeat, was entertaining.


----------



## bigtye (Oct 20, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> I'll do the i7 benchmark tomorow. I have my geo yearly tomorrow and my maths one next week so im packed.



What exams are you doing, yr 11/12 or uni? 

Also that's a fair system you got there, especially to afford as a student. For instance that q9650 is nearly $900 here in Aus. 

http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=187_346

More power to you though, looking forward to seeing some more screenies. I know everyone has asked for different things, but any game tests you can run would be great. That's all I care about.

Cheers
Tye


----------



## btarunr (Oct 20, 2008)

Mussels said:


> lol, you got owned.
> 
> anyway, for tests
> 
> ...



Gee I didn't know you were selling SSDs for Intel. That link 

And yes, the CPU-Z screen looks good, but where's the link to the validation on x86Secret?


----------



## Mussels (Oct 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Gee I didn't know you were selling SSDs for Intel. That link
> 
> And yes, the CPU-Z screen looks good, but where's the link to the validation on x86Secret?



damnit, wrong link. thats what i get for using copy paste. i'll edit it now.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Oct 20, 2008)

Yeah I'm with btarunr, I'd appreciate some validation tbh.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 21, 2008)

Umm.. I'm having some problems with 3Dmark06 on the i7 system. When I press go it says:

Error: An unknown error occurred.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 21, 2008)

I'm asking for a CPU-Z validation. If you were able to run it, you'll sure be able to validate it.


----------



## toloratedmeat (Oct 21, 2008)

sure ill do it now.
How long will it take?


----------



## Mussels (Oct 21, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> sure ill do it now.
> How long will it take?



less time than it took to post this message.


----------



## ShadowFold (Oct 21, 2008)

I wanna see some validation


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Oct 21, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I wanna see some validation



I think we all do. I so want my 920 set up.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Oct 21, 2008)

I think this is a total hoax, and I think the images he posted off 3dmark with an ungodly 27K is faked as well. I pulled the image into Photoshop and zoomed in on the 272, the 2's both look different at the pixel level. A standard font should not show any difference.

Also the highest score off Alcopones 3dmark is 26K belonging to Fitseries..thats at 5Ghz with 1 4870x2 and 1 4870.

So unless this kid is running Ln2 @ 6.0Ghz with his 4870x2 oc'd like crazy...no f'ing way.


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 21, 2008)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> I think this is a total hoax, and I think the images he posted off 3dmark with an ungodly 27K is faked as well. I pulled the image into Photoshop and zoomed in on the 272, the 2's both look different at the pixel level. A standard font should not show any difference.
> 
> Also the highest score off Alcopones 3dmark is 26K belonging to Fitseries..thats at 5Ghz with 1 4870x2 and 1 4870.
> 
> So unless this kid is running Ln2 @ 6.0Ghz with his 4870x2 oc'd like crazy...no f'ing way.



Where did he post that he had a score of 77k in 3dmark. I saw one with 27k though and if you look closely at successful even the two cc's are different so that doesn't mean its fake since the two 2's are slightly different.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Oct 21, 2008)

Im just saying how easy it is to manipulate images...he didn't do 77773, I did.

But 27K? I know the top is 33K in 3dmark06 and it's a seriously OC'd rig.


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 21, 2008)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Im just saying how easy it is to manipulate images...he didn't do 77773, I did.
> 
> But 27K? I know the top is 33K in 3dmark06 and it's a seriously OC'd rig.



 I was seriously confused by that image. I thought 27k might be possible since its a new cpu because my friend got 22k I think with his 4870X2 and a q6600 maybe it was 20k I can't remember.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Oct 21, 2008)

Well check out this thread...no one in the top ten scores above 27K. Those are some serious overclocks...I am just having a hard time believing this...and he stated it was with his current machine, not the i7.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=72114


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 21, 2008)

validation will be the only proof on his post...

I would want to see a validation of 3Dmark06


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Oct 21, 2008)

I am all for the OP proving me wrong. Please validate.


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 21, 2008)

Bench Mark: *My Own System* the i7 One is coming





he did say his own system and his i7 is coming

what is fitseries cpu score?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 21, 2008)

I'll just throw this out there: 3D Mark has never been very good for processor benchmarking and that's what matters here...


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 21, 2008)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'll just throw this out there: 3D Mark has never been very good for processor benchmarking and that's what matters here...



Agreed, we need to see some PC Mark Vantage or perhaps a SuperPI 32M, in fact Sceincemark would be really good as it benches several different CPU calculations as well as memory bandwidth and latency.


----------



## Dan2312 (Oct 21, 2008)

Im not taking any hyped nonsense, im just gonna wait for the official release, with REAL people posting REAL scores with GENUINE opinions.


----------



## Kwod (Oct 21, 2008)

Oh FFS  guys settle down, can't we just give this guy another 7 pages to produce


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 21, 2008)

Dan2312 said:


> Im not taking any hyped nonsense, im just gonna wait for the official release, with REAL people posting REAL scores with GENUINE opinions.



my i7 is coming and thats my take on it like when i got my 9600's early i benched them...all real world no BS


----------



## Dan2312 (Oct 21, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> my i7 is coming and thats my take on it like when i got my 9600's early i benched them...all real world no BS



Then ill await your opinion n scores, because you've been on the site a while.

but as for kids with a single figure post count claiming absoloute rubbish deserve a grilling off TPU.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 21, 2008)

toloratedmeat said:


> Umm.. I'm having some problems with 3Dmark06 on the i7 system. When I press go it says:
> 
> Error: An unknown error occurred.


Show us a screenie of the error, or it aint true. 
Run a different benchmark.  People have suggested plenty.

I vote to ban this guy.  This is worse than SPAM.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 21, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Show us a screenie of the error, or it aint true.
> Run a different benchmark.  People have suggested plenty.
> 
> I vote to ban this guy.  This is worse than SPAM.



im going to have to agree i was totally on this guys side...and while i know that new tech can cause alot of probs i know that if i had something not released yet i would totally being shuveling out and posting everything that would run on it..like when i got my 9600's AQ3 refused to run on it so i moved on to the next thing and just banged out benchmarksfor you guys...i mean he may get delayed yes..but i remember when i got new stuff even if it wasnt like just coming out i even went as far as taking a day off from school to play and i sure as hell know i wouldnt take a break and watch TV with ~$1500 in new unreleased components in my case. my 9600's never got a rest if i didnt sleep neither did they same with the coolers etc that i reveiw


----------



## Silverel (Oct 21, 2008)

There's always the possibility that this kid gets off on making us all wait. Which, if it were the case, would make him an ever bigger prick...

No one on our 3dmark list comes close to his score.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 21, 2008)

Silverel said:


> There's always the possibility that this kid gets off on making us all wait. Which, if it were the case, would make him an ever bigger prick...
> 
> No one on our 3dmark list comes close to his score.



while iv seen preliminarys of the i7 they did have amazing scores thats for sure but to beat our team he would need to OC everything in his rig way high and he would need specs id have to rob a bank to afford..though im willing to let it all go if i get proof.

EDIT: what really gets me is didnt he say he was using the eclipse? and the cpu-z he posted is the lattest version but since 1.47.x cpu-z has supported the i7 other sites have SS of the i7 with 1.47.x on the eclipse and it shows the bus etc....and further more he is using the 3.2Ghz model which if i remember correctly is like the EE correct? if so why is his i7 logo in cpu-z blue and not black? the EE logos are black.

EDIT2: nvm the 965 logos are black i bealive. what gets me is the clock havent 940's been confirmed at 2.9ghz?


----------



## Zehnsucht (Oct 21, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> EDIT: what really gets me is



That he hasn't submitted a valid.x86-secret.com.

I timed it. 
It took 30 seconds blank.


Here's how you do *toloratedmeat*
1. Start CPU-Z
2. Go to About tab
3. Click on Validation button
4. Press Save Validation File
5. Save it so you can find it
6. In Step #2, click on validation web page
7. Fill in name and email, browse for the validation file.
8. Post link


----------



## niko084 (Oct 21, 2008)

Silverel said:


> There's always the possibility that this kid gets off on making us all wait. Which, if it were the case, would make him an ever bigger prick...
> 
> No one on our 3dmark list comes close to his score.



Heh I'll give a run tonight on 3dmark06 I'll bet I can score 30+k on a single 4850...

Sounds like a bunch of useless child making up **** to be "cool".


----------



## Steevo (Oct 21, 2008)

I still call bullshit.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 21, 2008)

Steevo said:


> I still call bullshit.


I call ban. This guy is scamming the TPU community "goodwill". More of this kind of stuff would bring the TPU reputation (and member goodwill) to its knees.


----------



## erocker (Oct 21, 2008)

I choose patience says the Jedi.  Trust no one on the web, everything is subjective.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 21, 2008)

Seeing how nearly all posts made by a certain user are in this thread and the ones that aren't are not exactly the brightest I'd say this is a waste of everyone's time. And being the arrogant bastard that I am I just decided everyone should spend their time better. Useful discussions for example. Have a nice day.


----------

