Sorry, that means nothing to me. First of that is not the standard version of wprime that everyone compares. wprimev1.55 is. That version shows the actul speed in the browser. Nothing here tells me what settings the test where actually run at, nor the NB/HTT/RAM speeds. Your tester couldn't even install the RAM correctly, which was installed in single-channel mode. The OCN mod had nothing to do with these tests, you just supplied him with a feed. So you seem to be trying to buy legitimacy by associating yourself to OCN. And I was watching. Again
wprimev2.05 with an hwbot tag and no CPU system info. The right bench should be like this
You expect me to believe that? It is very easy to take a screenshot of a bench, then change the frequencies and load CPUz on top of the screen shot. I'm not saying this is or isn't true BD performance, I'm just not willing to accept vague benchmark results as my proof.
Secondly, what part of THESE BENCHES WERE PERFORMED LIVE BY AN OCN MODERATOR do you not get? Easy to take a screen shot and then modify? What on earth are you talking about?
I guess Bassplayer (the mod that tested this) also has a DeLorean time machine that he used while running these things LIVE so he could modify the results so all the HUNDREDS of other viewers watching LIVE would be fooled?
And lastly, that version of wprime was used because the standard version wouldn't run.
But again, if you'd have just read that thread, or watched the benchmarks, or listened to what we've been saying, you would've known that.
I get so tired of repeating myself. Read the original thread people, or just read this summary:
BD is not what AMD made it out to be. Let's hope for a BIOS fix or some magical patch from AMD\\MSFT that will fix it. Because right now it's a disappointment (at current prices).
Edited by black96ws6 - 10/10/11 at 11:32am