You obviously still don't understand english you CAN read the topic title....is this correct? ...and on page 44 of the March 2009 issue of maximum PC Mag the the Core I7 965 Extreme scores.....12,859 on 3DMark06 and they too ran 3DMark06 at the default settings.....of course they creamate my lowly 5000+ on Cinebench and the Everest Memory tests.....but my point was and still is.....they spent about $2000 dollars to get a benchmark thats less than 1000 higher than mine. As a matter of fact they got crummy scores on ALL the overall benchmarks....aka PCMark Vantage Overall, 3DMark Vantage overall and 3DMark06 overall. ...and btw even in the Max PC benches they are running SATA II drive I'm running a SATA I drive....they are also running a PCI-E 2.0 card in a PCI-E 2.0 slot....my motherboard has only PCI-E 1.0 slots, even though I have a PCI-E 2.0 card.


.and that link YOU posted is an overclocked I7 it's NOT running at 3.2Ghz :/ The scores I qouted are wioth the I7 running at 3.2Ghz .....as I have said about 4 times now.....learn to read kks :/

This post was edited by ghot on Feb 25 2009 04:24pm

LOL nice pic

e6600 nice bench I also had cpu/mem instability until i switched to 1066 RAM and a 4x HT Multi.....here's a link to the final result......and the second link is for the BIOS tweaks I had to do to get it stable....I would guess a similar arrangement would also work for you and keep you stable at 3.4Ghz maybe

http://www.overclock.net/amd-motherboards/366989-asus-m2n-sli-m2n32-sli-club-72.html

http://www.overclock.net/system.php?i=21831

This post was edited by ghot on Feb 25 2009 04:44pm

As the bandiwith limit hasn't been reached yet (or maybe it just did with the 295 (not sure)) that shouldn't affect your results...

also I7 965 Extreme scores a lot more than 12,859

edit: and comparing a ~33% overclocked vs stock clock doesn't tell shit anyway

This post was edited by jelle on Feb 25 2009 05:07pm

The problem is ghot doesn't actually know what he is talking about. No amount of arguing with this guy will make him admit he is wrong.

Your right Jelle it not truly fair in one way but is in the other.....they are both running at 3.2Ghz, with mine OC'd and the Intel at stock...sure it'll get better benches when OC'd but to my way of thinking...the price /performance ratio is way out of whack. This summer Ill be upgrading CPU and motherboard to the Phenom II, probably RAM also....then I'll bet I can easily give the I7 a run for its money...overclocked or not.....

This is one of the main reasons I prefer a simpler OS like XP....to Vista or Win 7....the way its going now its a catch-22 new OS then new hardware to make up for all the cr*p that MS thinks everyone wants. I realize that SOME people do want all that extra cr*p....but when you browse the forums it sure seems to me like people want a lean mean OS thats works bat out of hell fast on any hardware. Thats one of the reason I quoted average income and IQ at start of this topic.....these are the people that are buying computers...now more than ever in the past. Almost every household has at least a P4 system floating around somewhere these days.....and a lot have much better. But if MS is to continue to stay competitive they have GOT to consider their largest market.....in the past I would agree that the largest market would be the corporate world.....but thats changing and changing fast.

I spend hours everyday on the phone with people, helping them beat their MS OS into submission so it can run on a cheaper simpler machine. The current economy isn't going to swallow Windows 7 anymore than they did Vista. When a low income household can buy a netbook for under $500, you can't expect them to pay another 350-400 for an OS. They wouldn't be buying a netbook if they could afford a full blown tricked out laptop.

Like I said in my original post it would be much more lucrative for MS to sell 200 million copies of a lean mean OS than 20 million copies of a bloated and utterly confusing (to the average user) OS. They should have learned this with Vista....and from what I've seen from Win 7....the only thing they learned was to lower the hardware requirements.....they totally missed the ease of use portion of the Vista failure. In today's economy with 2 job households, the norm....people don't have the time to re-learn every new OS MS releases. MS would sell many more copies of their OS's if they just kept the XP GUI and fixed the inards lol

This post was edited by ghot on Feb 25 2009 05:42pm

exactly what do you mean by that Rock? You keep saying things like this but offer no reason or proofs that I can see....remember post count means nothing.

The one smart thing I have read from you in the entire thread, PII giving an i7 a run for its money.

That is overclocked of course.

Not to mention its a cheaper/more feasible upgrade, and apparently uses less power ( anyone confirm this? )

Also.

ghot

Eula of M$ doesn't allow much to be posted, but in all reality it is not a hard operating system to use, or learn, and with the better performance makes it a worthy candidate for cheaper machines.

Also... inside sources :wink: say its faster than XP.

I've argued with you before, offered backing and opinions and posted proof. What did you do? You say something stupid, call me bro and go on like nothing ever happened. I think senility has taken your last brain cell.