Quote:
Originally Posted by
mybadomenÂ
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)I think its allot more then bragging rights.I benchmark more then i play games and benchmarks are way higher around 5.2 to 5.3 Ghz then they are at 5.0. I can break 10 on cinabench which isn't possible at 5 Ghz. plus in some tests i can get my 3dmark06 scores of a single 6970 close to a 7970 .here are some examples.I personally run 24/7 8 threads @ 1.46 volts 5ghz with my ram at 2136mhz i can achieve lower voltages with my ram running lower but it highly effects my ram benchmarks.Here are some examples just to show its more then just bragging rights.
Just showing 5.2 Stable also runs IBT 10 passes with no issues:
Cinabench @ 5.0
Cinebench @ 5.2
3d mark 06 @ 5.3 Ghz 4 threads
3dmark06 with 7970 and much higher speced build then mine
And my ram running 2136 mhz is whats causing me to need more voltage on 8 threads but huge increase in performance (I have tested all speeds to see if tighter timings with lower mhz really was faster.It was way slower with my setup)
I keep trying and following this thread to get voltages lower and have gotten them down a little so yes this thread is very helpful and i visit it every time i play in the bios.To me i can tell when the my CPU drops to 1.6 Ghz i can notice the small pause before the pc actually jumps back to the overclock so i run max overclock 24/7 but like i said under water with good cooling idle temps are higher then before but still only Low 30's Max load temps can hot 70c running prime or IBT.
also i get much better FPS in BF3 with all the Ultra settings maxed with the Gpu not exceeding 40c and the Cpu around 50 c so i can notice a huge difference going from 4.5 to 5 ghz also.
Just some Opinions but i also am on the mission of getting my Voltages Lower without sacrificing performance though.
Great Thread .Keep up the great work
MybadOmen
I didnt mean to strike a bad note with you, that was unintended. You asked a semi personal question and i gave a personal reason and some evidence to back it up. I in my second sentence said that i primarily use my machine for gaming. You primarily benchmark, which is different. a folder or video encoder would want as fast cpu as possible too.
I once upon a time like you primarily benchmarked on my machine but if you really boil it down, as a benchmarker its bragging rights unless your reviewing hardware or sampling hardware. Guess i maybe grew out of the bencharking scene, i dont know. My upgrade cycles have gone way down and im holding onto hardware for 3+ years because i upgrade when i cant play games with smooth framerates anymore.
My measurements were in actual games, not synthetic benchmarks, the engines written in benchmarks are actually written near-perfectly and will in fact make use of more cpu. While there may be a measurable gain in performance for +200 mhz or more in actual games, from my point of view as i touched upon in my previous post is it really worth +80-100W for 5-10 fps maybe even +20 fps In the case of the game already running at smooth frame rates? If your game is running under 60 fps you can 90% of the time point at it overburdening the graphics card, not the cpu. Not to long ago that wasnt the case however, which is why benchmarks were written in such a way to value cpu performance the way they do. first gen I5/I7 changed that however and i started observing even with my previous configuration of a 4.5 ghz 533 bus core 2 duo(only reason i upgraded was i noticed games started to actually work better enouth with 4 threads that it was worth the upgrade)
Off-topic (Click to show)Perhaps you can blame the game publishers, they all seem like they feel that they need to write there own in-house engine and spend most of there investment capital on the engine and art resources, and due to rushing end up producing a inferior engine and spend minimal resources on story and actual content when if they licensed any of the big engines and worked on it from there they could have come out with a game in the same development time that either had incredible art resources and decent gameplay, or come out with it in half the time. Im somewhat waiting for EA to have some bean counter wake up and realize this and consolidate all there artists and engine writers for a year or two and build themselves a universal engine and maybe a petabyte or so worth of best in class art resources and derive all games from then on off of that instead of reinventing the wheel for every single game, only using artists for unique content. We are already really close to the point that all the games art look the same because its made to look real, not like what an artist decided to make somthing look like.
Edited by ryuji - 2/18/12 at 9:21am
