my god... thats one hell of a vdrop and vdroop... wat mobo r u using again???

btw, just tested me 3dmark vantage... 3.6ghz gets me 14k+ score on cpu T_T

Abit IP35P is the mobo.

btw 14k on cpu score???

got screenies?? proof man proof

arg.. itchy² to do 3.5-3.6ghz.. sure yummy..

here

errr, due to C1E, u noe la


Attached thumbnail(s)

too bad i aint got no 1k to grab ur proc.

Hmm.. quad on 3.6Ghz should score better than that. I think shall be around 20k perhaps? 15k is just too low I think

show yours please.. but no physics..

keep more money ... my proc not for sale till i found myself an i7 proc

if with physx or core i7 can la... i remember those times my q6600 with nvidia card, 3ghz oredi 19k T_T

Hehee.. I think I made the wrong comparison
My mistake


Yeahh, I compared the Quad CPU score with my i7..

kena poisoned by u guys >"<... ended up doing 3dmark vantage bench @@

add 400mhz get 2k extra marks oni haihhhhhh


Attached thumbnail(s)

Wanna share my score



I figure u can judge it by yourself....

This post has been edited by campsol2k: May 25 2009, 06:03 PM

nice score guys.. thanks for sharing..
thought want to push more.. so can see the less cache difference..

try 400xthe max multplier u can do and run the ram at 1:1 at the tightest timing u can do and i'll match it and we can see the cache different.

thats the highest.. due to 7.5x multiplier.. but now using 9++ ram..

found some reference



Source

no vantage score..
i can see Q6600 extra cache will take advantage if the core speed is high..
but the power supplied also increase..

Yeah. That is why I rather spend more money on Q9300. That time Q9450 haven reach our shores.

@hilmiangah
IIANM, that is stock vs stock right? They are not compared using the same clock speed.

-pWs-

thats why i ask 8tvt to run the as i suggest.

No wonder. Should be more or less the same.
The most difference is the power consumption IMO.

-pWs-

ya man.

this 65nm SOI gonna make my power consumption rise as high as the temp.