@ Viper
"The GPU stuff has been pure rumor. Even if they are true, you can't post rumors on Wiki".
Someone obviously sure as hell did and I am damn sure it will continue to happen on all sorts of subject matter.
Good to see you think otherwise though. :)
| justinian said: @ Viper |
By "can't", I mean you aren't supposed to.
I plan to keep an eye on it and revert any spammers until something is verified either way.
The rEVOLution is not being televised
Viper1 said:
By "can't", I mean you aren't supposed to.
I plan to keep an eye on it and revert any spammers until something is verified either way. |
I knew what you meant I was being deliberately obtuse.
I still think you should change the GPU to HD7970.... you know, for a laugh.
justinian said:
I knew what you meant I was being deliberately obtuse. I still think you should change the GPU to HD7970.... you know, for a laugh. |
Will this work for the lulz?
The rEVOLution is not being televised
Viper1 said:
Will this work for the lulz?
|
Oh yeah!! Now that's what I am talking about.
That will get the gaming forums going all over the world, giving the sites a big hits boost resulting in higer advertising revenue... all thanks to you.
Viper1 said:
IBM didn't say it wasn't Power7. That last tweet only said Power....which could mean anything. The GPU stuff has been pure rumor. Even if they are true, you can't post rumors on Wiki. |
“Pardon the error. It’s a custom chip built on Power Architecture base.”
True, without any context 'Power' alone can mean anything. However, this was a response to their previous message 'confirming' Power7. So the fact that they say that it was an 'error' leads me to believe that it is not Power7. Still, it's all a bit confusing and non-definite. Which is why it really shouldn't be on Wikipedia at this point.
Viper1 said:
IBM didn't say it wasn't Power7. That last tweet only said Power....which could mean anything.
The GPU stuff has been pure rumor. Even if they are true, you can't post rumors on Wiki. |
change it to Power Based CPU then, we don't even know how many cores or cache or anything it has.
errorpwns said:
You're wrong. OK, your task is to build a computer for 400 dollars, that can play modern games at 1080p, with at least 30 fps on high and stream the game to a second monitor. I doubt for 400 dollars that you can do it. Oh and its power draw has to be under 90 watts. |
ok but only if i get the super discounts and i get to sell at a loss like consoles are supposed to be
core i3 -$90
mobo-$80
6850 gfx card- $150
4gb of ram-$20
PSU-$50
| HoloDust said: Actually I've started with the statement that 4850 is around 1.4x more powerfull than e6760, way before I actually posted that 9500+ result....which I admit was hasty mistake on my part, cause I haven't looked at details of those results. Now, I know where you got the idea that e6760 is as powerfull as 4850....I have seen this statement back in the past, and I'm sure I'll be seeing it again....old 4850 drivers were giving really shity Vantage results, and since that's only thing people can compare e6760 against (without doing some indepth research), they jump to conclusion, without checking other sources. Now, I went through insane amount of scores in 3DMark database with all sort of different CPUs and what I stated here is what I've seen - GPU score of stock 4850 is around 7300-7400 on average. Low scores you gave me (and I witnessed on numerous occasions) all have "It looks like your PC should score better" message, so excuse me for not taking them as given. |
You do realize 3dmark looks at the overall results right? It's no surprise the lowests scores all have the "it looks like your PC should score better" when the majority of the results are overclocked results. Notice the graphic with every score? Those bars indicate whether or not a system's result is roughly the same as the majority of the similar systems. It's got nothing to do with 3dmark analyzing the system and noticing a bottleneck or something.
As for the old drivers. That's just you grasping at straws. I've shown several scores with fresher drivers which you just dismissed. Remember those hardware.info benches? October 2010? More than two years after the 4850 released. Core i7 965 with 4850 scoring 8000 points. Or are you gonna try and say the 4850 was only optimized driver wise well after it went EOL?
| yes, in 3DMark that's easily possible if it uses a newer driver version, because GPU manufacturers heavily fine tune their drivers in order to get higher scores |
No, it's not. 10% better performance? Absolutely. 15%? Possibly. 20%? Slim chance. 35% or more? Absolutely not.
The 4850 was released in 2008, as I showed before Hardware.info included the 4850 in their benchmarks up to October 2010. They always pair the fastest cpu available with the cards in their benches. The 4850 managed a score of 8000 with the Core i7 965. A processor some 130% faster than the X4 620.
So tell me, do you really think a 4850 with a 620 could score just 500 points less than the i7 965 4850 combo?
usrevenge said:
|
What about the HDD and the case? Or is a big fast HDD not required for this "super computer"?
I have a HD6800 card and no way that would run on 90 watts. AMD recommend a 500w PSU or something like that.
I paid half that total alone for my mainboard.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
