An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
Last 2 posts deleted to keep topic from going off-topic.
Greg, RAM must be the deciding factor because a 3500+ @ 2.62GHz by itself cannot beat an FX-55 @ 2.6GHz. But, I guess your overclock to 2.712GHz took the lead.
What settings did you tweak to get 40 seconds? I thought your RAM was giving trouble...
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top
Thanks for cleaning that up. Anyways... a normal Athlon 64 should beat my FX-55 when at the same clock speed. The FX-55 is slightly less efficient that the other Athlon 64's, but because of it strained silicon and un-locked multi, it is much more over-clocker friendly. But, I can take it to over 2.75 with both videocards and the CPU on stock cooling!
That 40 sec... that was just a joke... to show how easy it is to manipulate screenshots. If you look closely, the CPU speed, the multi, and the FSB all have less artifacting around them, and are a slightly different color than the rest. Plus, there is no '.0' after the multi, because I was too lazy to put that in. In the DOS box, there is some slight differences between the 0's (which were really 8's).
Kahrn, your Celeron D @ stock speed was 6 seconds slower than my Athlon XP @ stock. ;) And your Celeron D overclocked @ 2.8GHz is only 3 seconds less than my Athlon XP in score. :P
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top