Originally Posted by Omega329
Yes... its like 1TB mechanical VS 64GB SSD.
Either way that score doesn't mean crap.
Hmmm ? Didn't make sense.
A 1TB mechanical vs a 500 GB mechanical would make sense, they are both capped at 5.9
Going to an SSD however is a different story altogether. I got 7.7 on mine, versus 5.9 for a 1TB Caviar Black, 64MB of cache.
Originally Posted by Nugu
Actually, amount matters just as much as speed if not more.
My HTPC w/ 8gigs DDR2 @ I think 800 or 1066? scores 7.3 - not overclocked at all.
My gaming rig shown below scores 7.4 (much faster, with the timings I get better scores than 1600 with 9-9-9 timings) Edit: 4 gigs
Hmm ? Your reasoning didn't make any sense.
You DDR2 setup performs a little worse than your DDR3 setup. That is to be expected. What does amount have to do with it ?
Originally Posted by DoomDash
I went from 8 ( see sig ), to 16, and my score did not change at all ( 7.5 ).
Yeah, it's pretty normal. The number of memory operations that can be done in the same timeframe is the same for the dataset the benchmark uses. Other benchmarks could eventually show different results tough.
I also upgraded from 4 GB to 8GB a few days ago and the result didn't change.
It did change when I overclocked the CPU, from a 1333 MHz FSB to a 1600 Mhz FSB, the memory went from 7.2 to 7.4, along with the CPU which also went from 7.2 - stock 2.83 Ghz - to 7.4 at 3.4 Ghz. All the while the memory is still working at DDR2 800, but it can now communicate faster with the CPU (higher FSB, synced), that can also work faster (higher clockspeed).
Adding more memory with the same timings alone won't change anything.Edited by tpi2007 - 6/25/11 at 12:06pm