Originally Posted by ljason8eg
Well...is it stable? We don't know the temps, and we don't know the voltages. Still...a lot of unknowns, but I do know one thing, it's not as good as i thought it was going to be.
If it's having trouble when i compare it with my Q6600 3Dmark CPU runs, how is it going to reach the Yorkfield quads? I can't see a different mobo improving the clock for clock score fin a benchmark, but maybe i'm wrong. BTW i7 scores ~8000 with a 4.0 GHz OC, this isn't even in the same league as that. Guess time will tell if these benches are accurate or not.
Most of us game at such a high res that they're not CPU dependent at all. And since when was gaming the only thing people do on their PCs?
This isn't a retail chip, and the OP said it was a bad one from the batch. It is also one of the older ES chips. Maybe read a bit of the thread before posting.
EDIT: Also to mention all this is being done on a *bad chip from the batch* ES chip. So you can't use any of these scores as an actual reference. Might be close to the retail chip, but not accurate.
and of course an i7 setup will score way better in 3DMark06, you're paying way more money for it.
Since when do we judge a cpu by 3DMark06? and I never said it was only
just good for gaming. It's good for tonnes of other stuff. But since you were on the topic of 3DMark06, which is supposed to indicated 3D and gamer performance, I thought I'd post on the same topic...Edited by Slappa - 12/22/08 at 12:11am