New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ThePath

Do you mean by "no more than 33%" that difference between 6-core and 4-core nehalem could not get over 33% in any benchmark ?If that what you mean then you are very wronglook at this difference between 980X and similar clocked i7 975 is nearly 50% in x264 HD Video Encoding (2nd pass) and in pov-ray
Intel never sold an extreme edition for under $1000 They may drop the price of i7 970 or they might release non-extreme i7-980 for cheaper price
Intel already have CPU close to i7 980X, and cost only $300 (i7 2600) Actually, core for core i7 2600 does beat 980X. 980X is only better in heavy multi-threaded applications but usually not by much Also, not forgot the possibility of dropping the price of non-extreme Gulftown i7 970 in the future
Phenom II 840 should be called Athlon II X4 650 Why AMD is using phenom name for a processor that lack L3 cache ? The older PII 800 series had 4MB L3 cache
Are you sure that we are looking at same review ? i5 2500 was faster in almost every single benchmark. Even i5 2400/2300 was faster in many of these bechmarksI going to show you some benchmarks hereSome games are GPU limited, so even you overclock the CPU to 4GHz you won't see much performance gain.But for some odd reason i5 2300 (2.8GHz) performed better than i5 2500(3.3GHz) in metro 2033 even though i5 2300 is clocked lower.EDIT: Also i5 2300 performed better than i5...
No, Athlon II is much faster.Reviews for Zacate E-350 (1.6GHz dual core) are already out. You probably never checked any of them.Here is a review from anandtech Athlon X2 3250e 1.5GHz is overall faster than Zacate 1.6GHz in most cases. We are talking about old K8 processor, not Athlon II which is a K10 processorAnd Zacate GPU doesn't perform as good as HD5450 in gaming...
Review for SB notebook (i7-2820QM + HD3000)
According to anandtech, the die size of Sandy bridge quad core is 216mm^2What is more important that SB has integrated GPU and PCI-E lanesThuban doesn't have integrated GPU or PCI-E lanes.Have you read the rest of my post ? I did explain why
No, i7 2600 performs better than any of the current i7 quad core while at same time consume less powerEDIT: After checking these review again, I can tell you that even i5 2500 is overall better than i7 950
Clock for clock is a useless comparison, it is not importantIf you are not overclocker, clock for clock comparison is uselessIf you are overclocker, the clock for clock is still useless because SB overclock better and can reach higher clock speed. So, why would anyone limit the clock speed of SB for a silly clock for clock comparison.One of the big improvements of SB is that it can achieve higher clock speed while the power consumption remains lower than the current i7/i5
New Posts  All Forums: