building a new computer

[ocgw]

I have never heard of anyone having a fast time w/ a dual core cpu w/ BD Rebuilder, it would be "interesting" to see someone do this

ocgw

peace

I second this. I have a dual core 3.0 ghz intel that takes a minimum of 24 hours to encode. But most average around 36 hours.

This might be a tough request as anyone w/ a new fast C2D cpu is probably a gamer and not interested in encoding

but I bet we can "google up" some results from Tom's Hardware or something

ocgw

peace

[gll99]

Back in early September 2007 I faced similar questions.

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic336144.html

A few of life's distractions got in the way and it took me almost a year before I finally bought something.

My needs were different than yours since I no longer do much complex editing. My main interest is on the fly capturing and divx encoding and a bit of video cutting.

The bottom line is to get according to your needs. After re-educating myself that's what I ended up doing but allowing enough flexibility for a quad cpu upgrade to handle possible HD video capture/playback and editing.

Initially before adding a sataII hdd and burner, for the mboard, dual core cpu, 4gb ram and a case, I spent about $300 can. plus tax. At the time, a Q6600 (quad) at $329 would have added another $250 and brought the total to around $600 after taxes. I didn't want to spend that on a 65nm quad and was willing to wait for the price to go down on a 45nm quad which my board also supports. The lesser Dual Core processor does everything I currently need, so I'm still waiting but just out of curiosity I do keep an eye on cpu sales

[DarrellS]

My Q6600 (2.4 Ghz) is about 10 times faster than my 3.2Ghz P4 at encoding DivX. My friend bought an E7500 (2.93Ghz) as a cheap backup to his 920 I7 machine. I'll do some encodes on it when I get a chance. I'm sure my Q6600 will smoke it in encode speeds.

[budz]

You can utilize all your cores by running more instances

Yes, sure -- but the per-core speed is lower than the dual-core per-core speed, so it's still slower than having two dual-cores on a KVM. In some cases, it's even slower than a 5-year-old single core! The idea that quad cores are "faster" is proving itself to be bullshit. The software simply is not there. A high-end dual-core is a much better performer!

I have KVM switch with a C2Q Yorkfield Q9550 system & C2D Wolfdale E8400 system. For me the Q9550 is always going to be faster than the E8400 because DVD REBUILDER "PRO" utilizes all 4 cores. Yah, I know most programs and even games have yet to utilize all 4 cores.

[gooberguy]

wow this thread evolved! haha.

well im looking at these two cpus right now, along with everything else on this list

Intel

and

Amd

they were the two top sellers on newegg, under "anything over 3.0ghz" can someone inform me why the amd is considerably cheaper, even though they seem to have the same specs. i've always been a amd buyer, but maybe its time to switch to intel
are those good choices ive made? i would like to vigorously record and edit complex music, as well as hd video.

[ocgw]

wow this thread evolved! haha.

well im looking at these two cpus right now, along with everything else on this list

Intel

and

Amd

they were the two top sellers on newegg, under "anything over 3.0ghz" can someone inform me why the amd is considerably cheaper, even though they seem to have the same specs. i've always been a amd buyer, but maybe its time to switch to intel
are those good choices ive made? i would like to vigorously record and edit complex music, as well as hd video.

They have different architectures so clock speed is irrelevant to performance, that 6000+ is 3 years old, you should be comparing that 8400 Wolfdale to a Phenom II X4 810

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103650 (within $10USD)

AMD is a smaller company and has to undercut intel cpu's in price @ certain performance levels and accept lower profits to stay in business

You can get better performance from a AMD cpu @ the entry and mid levels but the drawback is that if you run into extra money and want to treat yourself to a hi-end cpu you would be stuck having to change mobo's and memory

in my most humble of opinions

ocgw

peace

[ocgw]

Back in early September 2007 I faced similar questions.

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic336144.html

A few of life's distractions got in the way and it took me almost a year before I finally bought something.

My needs were different than yours since I no longer do much complex editing. My main interest is on the fly capturing and divx encoding and a bit of video cutting.

The bottom line is to get according to your needs. After re-educating myself that's what I ended up doing but allowing enough flexibility for a quad cpu upgrade to handle possible HD video capture/playback and editing.

Initially before adding a sataII hdd and burner, for the mboard, dual core cpu, 4gb ram and a case, I spent about $300 can. plus tax. At the time, a Q6600 (quad) at $329 would have added another $250 and brought the total to around $600 after taxes. I didn't want to spend that on a 65nm quad and was willing to wait for the price to go down on a 45nm quad which my board also supports. The lesser Dual Core processor does everything I currently need, so I'm still waiting but just out of curiosity I do keep an eye on cpu sales

Actually live capture is more critical than encoding, w/ encoding you can take all day if you have to, but w/ live capture if the cpu falls behind you will have dropped frames

ocgw

peace

[budz]

wow this thread evolved! haha.

well im looking at these two cpus right now, along with everything else on this list

Intel

and

Amd

they were the two top sellers on newegg, under "anything over 3.0ghz" can someone inform me why the amd is considerably cheaper, even though they seem to have the same specs. i've always been a amd buyer, but maybe its time to switch to intel
are those good choices ive made? i would like to vigorously record and edit complex music, as well as hd video.

INTEL is the KING at the moment....Get yourself a low end Q8400 if you're going to to HD video.
Just my 2 cents!

Intel Q8400, $174.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115057

[ocgw]

[quote="budz"]

wow this thread evolved! haha.

well im looking at these two cpus right now, along with everything else on this list

Intel

and

Amd

they were the two top sellers on newegg, under "anything over 3.0ghz" can someone inform me why the amd is considerably cheaper, even though they seem to have the same specs. i've always been a amd buyer, but maybe its time to switch to intel
are those good choices ive made? i would like to vigorously record and edit complex music, as well as hd video.

INTEL is the KING at the moment....Get yourself a low end Q8400 if you're going to to HD video.
Just my 2 cents!

Intel Q8400, $174.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115057[/quot

A review @ mad shrimps concludes that the Phenom II 940 is the way to go @ stock speeds, and that the Q8400 has more potentual with overclocking

http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/intel-core-2-quad-q8400-vs-amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-a-63550/

ocgw

peace

[ocgw]

In this benchmark we can see that the AMD 940 is a clear winner over the Q8400 in x264 encoding

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3559&p=6

ocgw

peace

[gll99]

ocgw wrote

Actually live capture is more critical than encoding, w/ encoding you can take all day if you have to, but w/ live capture if the cpu falls behind you will have dropped frames

When I first got the Dual Core Intel E2180 cpu mainly for sd capture, I wasn't 100% sure what to expect. When I put it through it's paces I found it to be more than enough for my current needs. Using a bt878 capture card at 720x480, interlaced and the Divx Pro 6.xx codec, Home Theater Profile, "Better Quality" encoding mode, with a bitrate around 2000 kbps, I have captured many hours and the cpu stays in the low 50% or often less. I even tried some very high bitrate captures up to 8000 kbps to test my Philips 5990 by changing only the profile to "Unconstrained" or "1080HD" but still at "720x480" and the cpu went up to a stable 85%. That tells me that if I move to HD capture with the proper full HD resolution I would have to upgrade my cpu but then I allowed for that when I bought the motherboard. If you (the op) need HD capture right now then get a higher end Core2 duo or jump to a similar spec Quad right away.

If like me you can wait then get a motherboard with cpu upgrade potential. Unless price is no object, once you eliminate the "Would like to have" and go with the "Must have now" the decision is much simpler but it would be a waste if the new motherboard was already maxed out right out of the box.

btw) No dropped frames but that's no big feat since I could do that with my old P4 1.6. It was just overtaxed running at 90% + to near 100% in "Balanced Mode" so I had to use FFDshow (mpeg4 simple profile) which at similar settings, is about 5 to 10% less demanding on the cpu.

[rallynavvie]

Yeah I run into more issues with disk access causing dropped frames than I do with CPU output. When you get into critical applications like that you need to start looking at nested RAID. At the very least don't run your applications or scratch space on the same drive you're capturing to.

[ocgw]

ocgw wrote

Actually live capture is more critical than encoding, w/ encoding you can take all day if you have to, but w/ live capture if the cpu falls behind you will have dropped frames

When I first got the Dual Core Intel E2180 cpu mainly for sd capture, I wasn't 100% sure what to expect. When I put it through it's paces I found it to be more than enough for my current needs. Using a bt878 capture card at 720x480, interlaced and the Divx Pro 6.xx codec, Home Theater Profile, "Better Quality" encoding mode, with a bitrate around 2000 kbps, I have captured many hours and the cpu stays in the low 50% or often less. I even tried some very high bitrate captures up to 8000 kbps to test my Philips 5990 by changing only the profile to "Unconstrained" or "1080HD" but still at "720x480" and the cpu went up to a stable 85%. That tells me that if I move to HD capture with the proper full HD resolution I would have to upgrade my cpu but then I allowed for that when I bought the motherboard. If you (the op) need HD capture right now then get a higher end Core2 duo or jump to a similar spec Quad right away.

If like me you can wait then get a motherboard with cpu upgrade potential. Unless price is no object, once you eliminate the "Would like to have" and go with the "Must have now" the decision is much simpler but it would be a waste if the new motherboard was already maxed out right out of the box.

btw) No dropped frames but that's no big feat since I could do that with my old P4 1.6. It was just overtaxed running at 90% + to near 100% in "Balanced Mode" so I had to use FFDshow (mpeg4 simple profile) which at similar settings, is about 5 to 10% less demanding on the cpu.

If you were capturing analog video @ 480x720 you will find that 1080p HD won't be taxing your system @ all as there is just a transfer of digital, not encoding

analog capture and encoding right?

ocgw

peace

[SatStorm]

Just finished set up my new el cheap PC for encoding.

AMD Phenom II940 - 172 Euros
DFI LANPARTY DK 790FXB-M2RS mobo - 117 Euros
Transcend JetRam DDR2 800 2X2 - 48 Euros

I had the other needed parts.

I overclocked it on air at 3.5Ghz. Now, for 1 pass encodes like the ones I do, it is equal an icore7 920 on encoding speeds.

On 2 Pass encodes, my phenom eat the dust of icore7 920. But I don't use at all 2 Pass encodes anymore. I'm a CQ fellow.

The difference with my C2D E6600, is astonishing: A project that combined Neat Video, deemon's Video Enhancer, MSU Smart Deblock, MSU Smart sharpen and Video Denoise and needed 50 min, now with my new system is ready on 9 min. I can't even believe it myself...

For 1 pass encodes, phenom II940 is the cheap way to go. Not icore, not phenom II 955, no Q9650...

Of course, for other tasks, the other CPUs can perform better. I'm speaking stricly for 1 pass encodes, mpeg 2 and H264.

[ocgw]

Just finished set up my new el cheap PC for encoding.

AMD Phenom II940 - 172 Euros
DFI LANPARTY DK 790FXB-M2RS mobo - 117 Euros
Transcend JetRam DDR2 800 2X2 - 48 Euros

I had the other needed parts.

I overclocked it on air at 3.5Ghz. Now, for 1 pass encodes like the ones I do, it is equal an icore7 920 on encoding speeds.

On 2 Pass encodes, my phenom eat the dust of icore7 920. But I don't use at all 2 Pass encodes anymore. I'm a CQ fellow.

The difference with my C2D E6600, is astonishing: A project that combined Neat Video, deemon's Video Enhancer, MSU Smart Deblock, MSU Smart sharpen and Video Denoise and needed 50 min, now with my new system is ready on 9 min. I can't even believe it myself...

For 1 pass encodes, phenom II940 is the cheap way to go. Not icore, not phenom II 955, no Q9650...

Of course, for other tasks, the other CPUs can perform better. I'm speaking stricly for 1 pass encodes, mpeg 2 and H264.

bump up that voltage to 1.45v-1.475v and get 3.8Ghz easily

ocgw

peace

[lordsmurf]

AMD Phenom II940 - 172 Euros
deemon's Video Enhancer,

I have a Phenom quad-core, Windows Vista 64-bit, and Deemon is unstable on it.

A VirtualDub encode on the quad-core is beat by a single-core system built in 2003. I can run more Vdub sessions on the quad, but it still takes a whole day to encode through the videos. The only good thing about the quad is h.264 encoding in MainConcept, or DVD Shrink -- those go fast. Everything else is the same speed as my dual-cores or single cores. Sorry folks, software simply has not caught up to the hardware. I'm also more anti-AMD now than I ever was in the past -- these systems are simply poor performers compared to an Intel box.

[SatStorm]

Well, when I use virtualdub with neatvideo, msu denoise, msu smart sharping and msu smart deblocking and frameserve to TMPGenc plus 2.5, the boost I have is still great. Something done in 30 minutes, now is ready in 11 minutes!

Video Enhancer is unstable with some files, yes. Batch could be impossible sometimes. But the way I use it, it doesn't matter.

Regarding intel / amd, I have both and I buy according my pocket! At the time being, this phenom II 940 is a nice choice (same way a c2q6600 was 15 months ago). Not the best thing to buy, but the clever one. Of course, I'm not a pro like you, I'm a hobbiest. If something is not that stable, it's not a big deal, just a reboot. For a pro, stability is a great deal.

[gll99]

ocgw wrote

If you were capturing analog video @ 480x720 you will find that 1080p HD won't be taxing your system @ all as there is just a transfer of digital, not encoding

analog capture and encoding right?

This is getting too far OT for this thread so I'll start another one in the proper forum soon. Please watch for it. It's an interesting subject but we may be talking apples and oranges.

[ocgw]

AMD Phenom II940 - 172 Euros
deemon's Video Enhancer,

I have a Phenom quad-core, Windows Vista 64-bit, and Deemon is unstable on it.

A VirtualDub encode on the quad-core is beat by a single-core system built in 2003. I can run more Vdub sessions on the quad, but it still takes a whole day to encode through the videos. The only good thing about the quad is h.264 encoding in MainConcept, or DVD Shrink -- those go fast. Everything else is the same speed as my dual-cores or single cores. Sorry folks, software simply has not caught up to the hardware. I'm also more anti-AMD now than I ever was in the past -- these systems are simply poor performers compared to an Intel box.

I am puzzled by your remarks, dollar for dollar Intel can not match the performance of the Phenom II according to the benchmarks

I am now going to provide a benchmark I spoke of earlier when rallynavvie said Intel had the better memory solution

Memory Bandwith of DDR2 1066 @ 12.4GB/s (very near DDR3 1333) on a AMD Dragon platform



ps. lordsmurf what 2003 single core cpu are you saying beats a AMD quad core in...........anything????

ocgw

peace

[rallynavvie]

An old high-clock P4 (like the EE versions) might still be able to beat an entry-level quad with non-SMP applications. That may be what he is referring to. I'm not saying just because it's the difference between 1x3.8 versus 4x2.0, you can't simply compare the numbers between the chips because of other architecture changes. However those EE versions were expensive for a reason and they're going to last longer than most of their other P4 brethren.

[ocgw]

An old high-clock P4 (like the EE versions) might still be able to beat an entry-level quad with non-SMP applications. That may be what he is referring to. I'm not saying just because it's the difference between 1x3.8 versus 4x2.0, you can't simply compare the numbers between the chips because of other architecture changes. However those EE versions were expensive for a reason and they're going to last longer than most of their other P4 brethren.

"2003", please

"I am from Missouri, show me"

ps. am I the only guy around here that posts ss to back up my claims??"

btw I see what lordsmurph did, "4x2.0", he "blew his wadd" prematurely and bought a Phenom, not a Phenom II, Phenoms could not OC worth a damn and needed more cache, everybody knew the original Phenom was a "dog"

the lowest clock Phenom II is the 810 @ 2.6Ghz per core (current entry level AMD quad)

I am talkin' 4x3.8

ocgw

peace

[rallynavvie]

The P4 EE came out in late 2003. A simple search will yield this result. Most benchmarks these days are made to show off the power of multiple cores. Find a single-threaded benchmark and run it on a base Phenom quad and a P4 EE and post a screenshot. I would wager in such a test that even my system is slower than the 5-6 year old system in that regard.

Interpreting the screenshot you posted of memory bandwidth proves two things:
1. The Intel i7 has better memory bandwidth performance than the AMD platform by just over 15%.
2. The AMD system's price-to-performance (in this case $ per GB/s of memory bandwidth) is better than the Intel i7 by about 28%.
* This tosses out your overclocked system's example because there isn't a representative overclocked Intel sample. Numbers are calculated from your screenshot and from the cheapest MSRP prices on NewEgg for AM3 and i7 processors.

Which would lead to these two conclusions:
1. When the system builder's scope is based on budget limitations the AMD solution is the better of the two.
2. When the system builder's scope is based on maximum performance the Intel solution is the better of the two.

Actually in most cases in the past several years the above statements have been mostly true. Of course there are exceptions when sales occur or when there is overlap in most recent architecture between the two competitors.

Of course there is more to it than simply memory bandwidth. Unfortunately I don't see any results on graysky's HD x264 benchmarks for either i7 or Phenom II chips just yet.

[redwudz]

I don't know if graysky is still updating that list. But I did run some tests on my Phenom II after I first installed it: https://forum.videohelp.com/topic362953.html#1930454 I've made a few minor adjustments since then, but I'm limited by the Micro-ATX MB in the HTPC. I have done a few BD>MKV encodes on it and does well enough. About the same as my OC'd Intel Q9300.

[rallynavvie]

Thanks, reduwdz. That is exactly what we needed to see here.

[ocgw]

The P4 EE came out in late 2003. A simple search will yield this result. Most benchmarks these days are made to show off the power of multiple cores. Find a single-threaded benchmark and run it on a base Phenom quad and a P4 EE and post a screenshot. I would wager in such a test that even my system is slower than the 5-6 year old system in that regard.

Interpreting the screenshot you posted of memory bandwidth proves two things:
1. The Intel i7 has better memory bandwidth performance than the AMD platform by just over 15%.
2. The AMD system's price-to-performance (in this case $ per GB/s of memory bandwidth) is better than the Intel i7 by about 28%.
* This tosses out your overclocked system's example because there isn't a representative overclocked Intel sample. Numbers are calculated from your screenshot and from the cheapest MSRP prices on NewEgg for AM3 and i7 processors.

Which would lead to these two conclusions:
1. When the system builder's scope is based on budget limitations the AMD solution is the better of the two.
2. When the system builder's scope is based on maximum performance the Intel solution is the better of the two.

Actually in most cases in the past several years the above statements have been mostly true. Of course there are exceptions when sales occur or when there is overlap in most recent architecture between the two competitors.

Of course there is more to it than simply memory bandwidth. Unfortunately I don't see any results on graysky's HD x264 benchmarks for either i7 or Phenom II chips just yet.

You are not reading the chart right, an Intel i7 platform w/ X58 chipset and DDR3 1333 has less than 10% higher memory bandwith than my AMD 790X chipset w/ DDR2 1066, and 15% more bandwith than a AMD chipset 790FX chipset w/ DDR2 1066

That is NOTHING to brag about, it's sad actually

I am not overclocking the memory, just the cpu multiplier, my memory is @ stock speed (DDR2 1066) so it is as they say, "apples and apples"

The orange color reference is an AMD @ 1066

The green color reference is an Intel @ 1333

My Phenom II on a Gigabyte "2 ounce" mobo w/ 790X chipset and DDR2 1066 @ STOCK speed (and low latency) is almost as high in bandwith as a Intel X58 chipset w/ DDR3 1333

The AMD memory controller/chipset/DDR2 architecture is far superior to Intel in thruput

I didn't buy my AMD quad because of budget constraints, I made my purchase because I did my own research instead of listening to Intel fanboy propaganda, and I made the smartest purchase

ps. no one is suggesting the OP buy a base phenom, that is an old (sub $100USD) cpu, but I doubt a "2003" single core will beat it in a single core benchmark, since lordsmurph makes the claim let him prove it, and post the results, if he is basing his assessment on his own machines, it could be a problem w/ his machine, if it is true it will also be true of a Intel sub $100USD quad if you could find one

I am not "anti-Intel", but AMD pwns the cpu market in the $250USD level and below, and not too far above $250USD the "point of diminishing returns' kicks in hard

Factor in the high cost of DDR3 into the "total cost of ownership", and the fact that this years flagship cpu is next years "paperweight" and you won't see me getting onboard that bandwagon any time soon

Is this the cpu we are talking about? (the P4 3.73EE came out in 05')



Phenom 9600

http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=423034#post423034



I am assuming SSE3 is harder to run than SSE2 and the 9600 has 5 times the MFLOPS and more than 3 times the MIPS making a single core of a base original phenom X4 as good if not superior than the best of the best Intel single core cpu OVERCLOCKED (limited quantity paper launch I might add) of 2003 even in an unfair comparison

Here we go SSE and SSE2 (5 times better on both)




I don't see how low-end and mid-level Intel cpu owners maintain their air of superiority, I just don't get it, @ least get a Q9550, or a i7 920 cpu, something AMD can't match in performance for less $ before you are go on bragging about Intel superiority lol

btw even in the P4 EE days AMD FX cpu's ruled the roost

ps. I do agree w/ 1 poster, the Phenom II 940 is the smart buy like the Q6600 was 15 months ago

ocgw

peace

[ocgw]

To illustrate a point, here is my currently under $200USD Phenom II X4 940 w/ a milder summer OC of 3.62Ghz comparing not too shabbily w/ the best Intel has to offer (Intel retail prices of $550-$1550USD) in this benchmark (it got up to *80F today and I didn't want to turn on the air)

The i7 965 really costs a $1000????



ocgw

peace

[rallynavvie]

Why are you still arguing this? The 2 points I made above are still valid through all of your posts. Of course there are diminishing ROI on more expensive platforms. Do you think I automatically get 2x the performance of a single quad core with my system? No! I knew that going into it and I knew that with every dual-socket system I've built. Does that make me stupid for not going with a single-socket system? By your logic of price-to-performance and "not listening to the Intel herd" I must be.

Did you look at the x264 benchmarks redwudz posted above? His Q9300 and Phenom 2 920, both overclocked, posted nearly identical results. Those two platforms are very similar in price.

And why do we keep seeing your OC results next to non-OC reference systems? Why not at least set one of those reference results to your system as stock so you can compare what baseline performance is. You can post screenshots and artificial benchmarks all you want but I don't see how it's proving your point. Also comparing SSE2 to SSE3 isn't really even since each SSE build has different instruction sets which are optimized for the latest architecture. And the 3.2 EE did come out in late 2003, it was based on the same architecture as the chips in my last DH800 except they were s478 and s604.

So what's next?

[lordsmurf]

If I weren't actually using my systems nearly 24/7, maybe I could also play with benchmarks. Is it just me, or are the people who sit around all day "testing" shit not actually using it?

[ocgw]

Why are you still arguing this? The 2 points I made above are still valid through all of your posts. Of course there are diminishing ROI on more expensive platforms. Do you think I automatically get 2x the performance of a single quad core with my system? No! I knew that going into it and I knew that with every dual-socket system I've built. Does that make me stupid for not going with a single-socket system? By your logic of price-to-performance and "not listening to the Intel herd" I must be.

Did you look at the x264 benchmarks redwudz posted above? His Q9300 and Phenom 2 920, both overclocked, posted nearly identical results. Those two platforms are very similar in price.

And why do we keep seeing your OC results next to non-OC reference systems? Why not at least set one of those reference results to your system as stock so you can compare what baseline performance is. You can post screenshots and artificial benchmarks all you want but I don't see how it's proving your point. Also comparing SSE2 to SSE3 isn't really even since each SSE build has different instruction sets which are optimized for the latest architecture. And the 3.2 EE did come out in late 2003, it was based on the same architecture as the chips in my last DH800 except they were s478 and s604.

So what's next?

You were and are still wrong w/ all three of your points in your interpetation of the memory bandwith ss

What part of my memory is running @ stock speed do you fail to grasp?

I have overclocked the multiplier only, not the fsb, or the memory

& in what reality does the 790X/PII/DDR2 1066 almost equalling X58/i7/DDR3 1333 in memory bandwith does not make the AMD combo the better architecture?

But don't get me wrong, I do not think you are stupid, as a matter of fact if I were making money w/ my PC everyday I would have a dual socket system, I would have to do some "in depth" analysis before I decided on a Xeon, or a Opteron system, but I would definitely go "dual socket" too

ps. If you don't like my ss, make some on your system, a Sandra benchmark only takes 5 minutes

ps. II I know the P4EE came out in 03', you are the one that gave the 1x3.8 vs 4x2.0 comparison when the P4EE was @ 3.2Ghz in 03' and didn't get up to 3.73Ghz until 05'

ps. III The 2nd ss shows SSE2 performance of 5x the Intel single core in a SSE2 vs SSE2 comparison, & it was you guys idea to compare the worst AMD quad ever (from last year) in a core vs core comparison w/ the fastest Intel single core of 03', I knew it was silly when I heard it

ocgw

peace

[ocgw]

If I weren't actually using my systems nearly 24/7, maybe I could also play with benchmarks. Is it just me, or are the people who sit around all day "testing" shit not actually using it?

Well, "I", don't post claims I can't back up, & not wanting to do a 5 minute Sandra bench because "I don't have time", & trying to shift the focus to me is an more than obvious "cop out"

ocgw

peace