[Mihai]

Too bad they didn't run the exact same render tests as with the QX6700:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content ... 700&page=7

Although it looks like the media encoding benchmarks where the same between the two, and the QX6700 is faster?? Hard to believe that one quadcore chip is faster than two quadcore chips, even if they are clocked slower. Something must be off with their testing.

edit: the media encoding benchmarks also don't take advantage of all eight cores

Still, even clocked the same the QX is faster than the quadcore Xeon.

[ivox3]

...my last one.


http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2897&p=1

[aitraaz]

‘$‰›?? ?¿±

[ivox3]

Aitraaz, ...don't forget to take your meds.

[oracio]

Hey guys,

I run the speedtest on my new QX6700 on Bad Axe2 with 2GB mem on XP 64BIT.
my result was 39mins (I'll run it again tomorrow and get the exact time and benchmark).

how come mine is over a minute slower? is it because i use xp 64bit?
any idea?

[deadalvs]

Hey guys,

I run the speedtest on my new QX6700 on Bad Axe2 with 2GB mem on XP 64BIT.
my result was 39mins (I'll run it again tomorrow and get the exact time and benchmark).

how come mine is over a minute slower? is it because i use xp 64bit?
any idea?

i think it's the ram... not enough...

* * *

deadalvs

[Mihai]

oracio, you mean different from N&Bs result of 32 min? That's because he overclocked his processor to 3.2. The difference between your time of 39 and abobs time of 37 could be due to ram speed, motherboard used, background tasks running.....it's really not such a big difference in time.

[oracio]

I meant different from the 37's...

Well my result is:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2,66GHz
Cores: 4
Ram: 2 GB
OS: XP64
Time: 00:39:01
Bench: 169,20

[Alexandre13]

for those on a low budget go to:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... i=2903&p=3

It looks like the the Core 2 Duo E4300 has some potential when overclocked

I'm curious about some practical results with Maxwell.

Alexandre

[N&B]

What are your ram settings oracio?

Mine is running at 667mhz on a 333mhz FSB (cas latency 4-4-4-12).
From what I've read synchronous memory operation is better. (RAM/FSB ration is 1:1)
The stock FSB is 266mhz, thus I get an increased memory bandwidth from that overclock. ( Approximatively 5.3Gb/s stock -> 6.4 Gb/s at 333 FSB).
By the way Mihai, my qx6700 is running at 3ghz, not 3.2ghz
Results at that speed would be even higher.

[oracio]

N&B, currently my supplier gave me 4 of these:

General
Memory type DDR2
Manufacturer (ID) Micron Technology (2CFFFFFFFFFFFFFF)
Size 512 MBytes
Max bandwidth PC2-5300 (333 MHz)
Part number 8HTF6464AY-667D7

(i copied it from cpu-z)

he will give me 2 1Gb of the same kind very soon...

do you think the current settings make it slower?

[sandykoufax]

Finally, I've got my new machine.

CPU : Intel Xeon X3210 2.13Ghz
Cores : 4
Ram : 2GB
OS : XP32
Time : 00:48:59
Benchmark : 135.01

[-Adrian]

congrats, feels good to have that speed boost eh

[N&B]

oracio,

With your setup (default motherboard settings) your memory is running at 333mhz (667 DDR) with a 4:5 ratio (FSB 266 /memory 333).
Your cas latency should be something like 5-5-5-20. You could change these, but it depends on the kind of memory you have (little cas numbers are better)

And yes it will be slower with these settings than with mine. Like I said you have actually a memory bandwidth of 5.3gb/s (more or less), with my settings I have a bandwidth of 6.4Gb/s.
However, I ignore to what extend this difference may affect the render speed in Maxwell.

[oracio]

hi N&B,

I understand clearly why my machine is slower than your overclocked machine..
but what I dont understand is why my machine is slower than abob's and angelobanjo's who got the same result...

any idea?