Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: inex who wrote (239538)	8/30/2007 5:59:37 AM
From: Proesterchen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Can you explain why you believe it impossible giving similar benchmark comparisons??? Because 3D Mark 06 scores don't work like you assumed here. Doug even linked to an Xtremesystems.org forum post that had the formula the final 3D Mark 06 score is based on: xtremesystems.org If you look at that, there's no way a standard-clocked 2900 XT Crossfire system (GPU scores max ~7000/8000) could possibly reach a total score of 23768 as Theo claimed. If you assume that the cards for the 24k score were clocked at the 830/900 MHZ mark (GPU scores max ~7700/8800) mentioned for the 30k rig later, the CPU score would have to be ~ 55,000 (55k), or roughly 7 times the best overclocked quad-core Kentsfield. As for the 30k score, again, there is no way to get that with a set of 2900 XTs at 830/900. (GPU scores max ~7700/8800) It's simply impossible. For 30k to be scored on 3D Mark 06, you need (a) the two GPU scores to average out to way over 10k, something only possible with 2900 XTs clocked to way beyond 1 GHz, and an infinitely fast CPU. With the CPU at a very generous score, say 6000 @ 3 GHz (Kentsfield 3 GHz = 4600), you'd need GPU test scores to average out to ~14.5k, which is an impossible feat even with the highest clocked 2900 XTs out there. Short version: Theo's claims don't add up.

To: inex who wrote (239538)	8/30/2007 6:53:56 AM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>> Can you explain why you believe it impossible giving similar benchmark comparisons??? on i-hub, tecate posted an article that addresses this. overclockers.com excerpt: "Second, this is especially true for 3DMark 2006, which is primarily a video card, not a CPU benchmark. As you can see here, the percentage increase in 3DMark scores based on increases in CPU frequency isn't 130%, it's less than 30%. For instance, for the quad-cores listed, a frequency increase of 25% yields just a 6% increase in the score. That's a scaling percentage of 24%." ------ benchmark results with different processors, but same graphics. www23.tomshardware.com ------ tecate's post. siliconinvestor.com