intel burn test question

  • 68 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2598 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Eh, what's done is done, but I don't understand why people chose to ignore the Bulldozer reviews and get one anyway. After turning your 8150 into a quad, you've effectively got a CPU you could have gotten late 09 for half the price.way2funny

Lol i didnt even look at any reviews and i wasnt into the forums at the time. although i had been years ago. I got the best CPU according to the tech specs. obviously the times have changed. and with it overclocked im on par with 2600k

Really now?

really now

#52 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (4141 posts) -

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

Lol i didnt even look at any reviews and i wasnt into the forums at the time. although i had been years ago. I got the best CPU according to the tech specs. obviously the times have changed. and with it overclocked im on par with 2600k

_SKatEDiRt_

Really now?

really now

 3.6GHz 8150 vs 3.4GHz 2600k

#53 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2598 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

Really now?

acanofcoke

really now

 3.6GHz 8150 vs 3.4GHz 2600k

im @4.6

#54 Posted by C_Rule (9755 posts) -

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

really now

_SKatEDiRt_

 3.6GHz 8150 vs 3.4GHz 2600k

im @4.6

2600K can overclock too... On top of that, you've told us you have half your cores disabled, so you mas as well use the FX 4300 for comparison.
#55 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2598 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]

 3.6GHz 8150 vs 3.4GHz 2600k

C_Rule

im @4.6

2600K can overclock too... On top of that, you've told us you have half your cores disabled, so you mas as well use the FX 4300 for comparison.

okay? I said it is on par with 2600k.. STOCK. dont get whiny

#56 Posted by darksusperia (6943 posts) -

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

im @4.6

_SKatEDiRt_

2600K can overclock too... On top of that, you've told us you have half your cores disabled, so you mas as well use the FX 4300 for comparison.

okay? I said it is on par with 2600k.. STOCK. dont get whiny

apples to apples comparisons. no point comparing a overclocked cpu to a stock one.
#57 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2598 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] 2600K can overclock too... On top of that, you've told us you have half your cores disabled, so you mas as well use the FX 4300 for comparison.darksusperia

okay? I said it is on par with 2600k.. STOCK. dont get whiny

apples to apples comparisons. no point comparing a overclocked cpu to a stock one.

Uh yes there is. 

#58 Posted by Ben-Buja (3069 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

Ram? I have faster ram / in quad channel. I dont know the rest of your specs

way2funny

I have 16GB DDR3 quad channel RAM but running at 1600 Mhz. you think that makes that much difference? Well, at least in this test...

Yeah some tests (especially in physics calculations) cache and memory spead play a huge role. But it shouldnt be THAT big of a difference. Try some other cpu test like that cinebench and let me know what u get

My CPU got 11.29 points in the cinebench test. Is that about what you would expect from this CPU?

#59 Posted by kraken2109 (13125 posts) -

Well if you're only running 4 cores that explains the low result

[/thread]

#60 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2598 posts) -

Well if you're only running 4 cores that explains the low result

[/thread]

kraken2109

No. 4 cores gets better fps than eight. in just about everything.

#61 Posted by way2funny (4570 posts) -

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

Well if you're only running 4 cores that explains the low result

[/thread]

_SKatEDiRt_

No. 4 cores gets better fps than eight. in just about everything.

Not since your also disabling your floating point units, meaning you have 2 floating point units and 4 integer units, so in floating point heavy games you essentially have a dual core.

#62 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2598 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

Well if you're only running 4 cores that explains the low result

[/thread]

way2funny

No. 4 cores gets better fps than eight. in just about everything.

Not since your also disabling your floating point units, meaning you have 2 floating point units and 4 integer units, so in floating point heavy games you essentially have a dual core.

I never thought of that. Although sadly my frames show otherwise :/
#63 Posted by way2funny (4570 posts) -

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

No. 4 cores gets better fps than eight. in just about everything.

_SKatEDiRt_

Not since your also disabling your floating point units, meaning you have 2 floating point units and 4 integer units, so in floating point heavy games you essentially have a dual core.

I never thought of that. Although sadly my frames show otherwise :/

Well can you post benchmarks of both?

#64 Posted by kraken2109 (13125 posts) -

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

Well if you're only running 4 cores that explains the low result

[/thread]

_SKatEDiRt_

No. 4 cores gets better fps than eight. in just about everything.

Burn test isn't a game though....
#65 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2598 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"][QUOTE="way2funny"]

Not since your also disabling your floating point units, meaning you have 2 floating point units and 4 integer units, so in floating point heavy games you essentially have a dual core.

way2funny

I never thought of that. Although sadly my frames show otherwise :/

Well can you post benchmarks of both?

What benchmarks?

#66 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2598 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

Well if you're only running 4 cores that explains the low result

[/thread]

kraken2109

No. 4 cores gets better fps than eight. in just about everything.

Burn test isn't a game though....

Not in burn test.. In games.

#67 Posted by kraken2109 (13125 posts) -

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

No. 4 cores gets better fps than eight. in just about everything.

_SKatEDiRt_

Burn test isn't a game though....

Not in burn test.. In games.

What I'm saying is that since burn test is better threaded than games cutting off half your CPU will have a large impact on burn test.
#68 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2598 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="kraken2109"] Burn test isn't a game though....kraken2109

Not in burn test.. In games.

What I'm saying is that since burn test is better threaded than games cutting off half your CPU will have a large impact on burn test.

I see. I tried both 8 and 4 and got same results oced and not oced