i9 benchmark

[Atech]

http://pclab.pl/art39718.html

i9, good look, suffer from early BIOS....enjoy.

 

[mzs_biteme]

Looks pretty [H]ard to me......

 

[butterfliesrpretty]

fake look at the left 4 dead benchmark. It's possible the core 2 quad can come ahead in benchmarks as we've seen in the past, but absolutely no reason it should be i5, core 2 quad, then i7, when all clocked at the same speed.

 

[ivandurago]

looks really fake

 

[Michaelius]

i5 has much more agressive turbo than i7 so maybe that;s why

Then again that site has rather low quality reviews so it's possible they fucked up some testing.

 

[noIinteam]

fake look at the left 4 dead benchmark. It's possible the core 2 quad can come ahead in benchmarks as we've seen in the past, but absolutely no reason it should be i5, core 2 quad, then i7, when all clocked at the same speed.

From the website: "But Left4Dead based on the same engine clearly shows that this is of little help in gaming – the number of frames per second is determined by the rest of the code, unfortunately most often single- or dual-threaded. The LGA1366 processors’ low score on Left4Dead is an anomaly resulting from an error in the Nvidia drivers and does not occur any more with the latest driver versions."

 

[butterfliesrpretty]

i5 has much more agressive turbo than i7 so maybe that;s why

Then again that site has rather low quality reviews so it's possible they fucked up some testing.

clocked the same..... the nvidia issue could be correct though.

Although I don't recall hearing about this driver issue previously.

When are review sites going to realize that using low settings doesn't make any sense due to the fact that different settings effect cpu performance, just like it happens with video cards. Shit should be common sense when you do the tests and have cpu's trade places when you up the settings.


edit: this was put up yesterday so why don't they just use the new nvidia drivers? I think they threw that in just to add some sense of realism I don't believe this at all.

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

From the website: "But Left4Dead based on the same engine clearly shows that this is of little help in gaming – the number of frames per second is determined by the rest of the code, unfortunately most often single- or dual-threaded. The LGA1366 processors’ low score on Left4Dead is an anomaly resulting from an error in the Nvidia drivers and does not occur any more with the latest driver versions."

Reading comprehension FTW boys!

 

[Elios]

if the mem limitations persist then its a bust for overclocking 1333 is kinda on slow side now

 

[butterfliesrpretty]

Reading comprehension FTW boys!

who are you talking to?

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

All of the posters that didn't read the quote that the issue is related to NV video drivers.

 

[Shadowssong]

article has been removed

 

[Atech]

article has been removed

I guess Intel didn't like info before the NDA on a beta-sytem

 

[butterfliesrpretty]

All of the posters that didn't read the quote that the issue is related to NV video drivers.

this was already established before you posted, also note my post which states that if he claims the new drivers that are out fixed this issue, why didn't he use them since the article was posted yesterday

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

obviously it was posted before mine, my point was to enforce his statement and they should RTFA.

As for why he didn't use them ask him.

 

[butterfliesrpretty]

obviously it was posted before mine, my point was to enforce his statement and they should RTFA.

As for why he didn't use them ask him.

then why are you defending it by using that statement he made , which doesn't make any sense, due to the reason I gave(if the new drivers are here and you just made the article....), and it is the first any of us have heard of such a driver issue existing.