WOW thats just awful if true !:mad:

DRDNAWOW thats just awful if true !:mad:

Don't worry too much, thats a socket F(1207) not AM2+/3. It's an old preliminary core not a production release core. They are just finally allowed to release the info on test they did months ago.

Well, for one thing, his SuperPI checksum (0FDB2108) doesn't validate... (Try it yourself at www.xtremesystems.com/pi/)

EDIT:
Nope, I'm a dumbass, never mind. :P

awww mad gay mad mad gay....and how is he using cpu-z 1.41..........we better add that to the dl section....but i just downloaded mine yesterday and on the site its 1.40.5

Really liking all the caches and what not, but not too sure aboute the actual performance.

That better not be real....My Prescott Xeons can do that! (read NETBURST!)

Namslas90Don't worry too much, thats a socket F(1207) not AM2+/3. It's an old preliminary core not a production release core. They are just finally allowed to release the info on test they did months ago.

Those are truly ridiculous results - event for an "old preliminary core". If I saw that several months ago, I would seriously go back to the drawing board.

As far as I know, the Opteron 2XX series can beat those results as well.

Regards,
jtleon

jtleonThose are truly ridiculous results - event for an "old preliminary core". If I saw that several months ago, I would seriously go back to the drawing board.

As far as I know, the Opteron 2XX series can beat those results as well.

Regards,
jtleon

I think Intel posted those images :)

I was just thinking the same thing lol, they have like a million things running in the background to take up all the CPU time and what not

i'd just wait for the actual chip to be released before making assumptions on it...

If you want to see more benches on this check here........www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=157136

Guys don't be so surprised if these benchies are close to Phenom's performance. What i don't get is how a lot of people on this forum where quick to jump and say how much potential of truth theInq's benchmarks could have, but when it comes to showing poor performance there is a lot of opposite talk.
These results are a lot more solid than that of theinquirer and yet still its called false. I don't believe them myself as the performance is too low for any company to call that product competitive on todays market. But really there is lots of doudt on AMD just now and for good reason. If you had a killer product, it would be advertised like no tomorrow, despite production availability etc, as it would keep share holders happy. So for sure there is somthing wrong with this processor release, it might not be performance problems but i get the feeling this will have been a rushed product, much like ATI's latest R600.

I don't know if this can compare with the Phenom but check out my super pi result on 1M:
darkwebster.no.sapo.pt/piresult.JPG

It is soooo close to the Phenom

Hmmmm....Perhaps AMD is using REVERSE Phsycology here....

Sent1nelGuys don't be so surprised if these benchies are close to Phenom's performance.... So for sure there is something wrong with this processor release, it might not be performance problems but i get the feeling this will have been a rushed product, much like ATI's latest R600.

Perhaps now we know why AMD is promoting the LWP software fix to allow more cores to contribute to low thread count software (aka SuperPI).

However, from a product differentiation perspective, AMD is certainly unique such that new CPU's are slower than current product. This should bring new life into the older, obsolete AMD products.....lol.

Regards,
jtleon

P.S. What if these results are achieved when this processor only draws 10W of power???? Would they suck then???

I like that score, makes my computer look like a monster, when it does same 1M in half the time :) (hope more FSB give way better results, or superpi doesn't utilize all cores)

dark webster
1 u have same windows updates
2 uninstall the speed touch tools.


as for the cpu i think they are fake for a couple of reasons cpu 1.41 version,sse4a,windows 2003??

IMO that's not too bad for a stock result on a preliminary processor, and the guy who took those screenshots (Coolaler) is more than up to the job of benchmarking the new cpu. So all of you that said it's propaganda from intel have no idea what you're on about.

I don't want to see anymore of these fanboy comments.

lol... cmon, how can it be so slow? thats just stupid... put it this way, how can an AMD dual core get a better score? i think somethings not right here.

did they overclock the processor at all? coz 2ghz vs 3ghz + is ALOT of difference

why does cpuz state opteron?

btw, has any1 got any values for intels quads at similar speeds on similar setups?

jtleonP.S. What if these results are achieved when this processor only draws 10W of power???? Would they suck then???

Good point.

My E2160@1.8GHz does it faster than that...come on AMD!

mandelorewhy does cpuz state opteron?

Exactly!:toast:

mandelorewhy does cpuz state opteron?

Because CPU-Z is often wrong when dealing with pre-release processors.

newtekie1Because CPU-Z is often wrong when dealing with pre-release processors.

True, but look at the version he says he is using in that screenie!!??

Namslas90True, but look at the version he says he is using in that screenie!!??

So, what does the fact that he is using the latest version have to do with anything?

Namslas90True, but look at the version he says he is using in that screenie!!??

Yes, what about it? You can also download this version: www.cpuid.com/beta/cpuz.zip
That doesn't help much?