AMD's 3GHz K10 to break 30,000 3DMark06

[dario03]

I don't think that the inquirer flat out lies, but I do think they post unconfirmed stories so they can claim to have reported it first. However these articles are not always right. They do seem to be right most of the time and I really hope they are this time. I'm hoping to build a new comp early next year and I would love for a new great tech to come before then.

I built my last comp 3 months before c2d came out and now I'm upset because I'm stuck with a skt 939

 

[Trotter]

I don't think that the inquirer flat out lies, but I do think they post unconfirmed stories so they can claim to have reported it first. However these articles are not always right. They do seem to be right most of the time and I really hope they are this time.

Exactly. TheInq is not afraid to run with the ball, and have consequently made a few mistakes with some stories. there's not a news service out there who hasn't done the same thing. At least Mike and the boys do try to find the latest and bring it to the fore. I guess that's why several of the tech companies are reluctant to let TheInq anywhere near a press conference... they know that they will get the word out ASAP.

 

[mrfluffles]

When running at 2.5GHz, the 3DMark06 score ended at 23.768, so we were thrilled to see such a good score coming from two 512MB cards. This showed the clear potential of this four core processor marchitecture, but the helter skelter ride happened after we overclocked the processor to 3.0GHz.

When clocked at 3.0 GHz and equipped with two overclocked HD2900XT cards in CrossFire, Agena FX or single-core Barcelona smashed an index of 30,000 3DMarks 06. Yes, you've read it right - the barrier of 30,000 was passed to, barely, 30.031.

So a .5ghz clock increase caused over a 6k 3dmark difference? No way. I'd bet my life on it that this article came out of the Inq's butt, even if the phenoms really do lay eggs on c2ds

 

[Apokalipse]

So a .5ghz clock increase caused over a 6k 3dmark difference? No way. I'd bet my life on it that this article came out of the Inq's butt, even if the phenoms really do lay eggs on c2ds

it wasn't just the 0.5GHZ clock increase, if you actually read it.

When clocked at 3.0 GHz and equipped with two overclocked HD2900XT cards in CrossFire

which were clocked at 930mhz

TheInquirer have lied to us many times

Here we go

The Inquire claimed once that R600 is going to have 64-pipelines !!!
ATI's R600 has 64 real pipes

We previously wrote that the chip will have sixty four Shader units but we never realised at the time that the design is actually built around a full sixty four physical pipes. That is what various high-ranking sources are telling us.

I would say that he genuinely did believe that. And I am thinking that R600 might have actually been planned for 64 pipelines at some stage, but then changed later on.

Not only that but The Inquire claimed that DirectX 9.L will be a DirectX 10 for Windows XP !!!
DirectX 9.L will be a DirectX 10 for Windows XP

Which he believed, also.

I would say that Microsoft probably did consider making DirectX 10 for XP in some form, but decided against it later on.

See, that's what a lot of companies do. they change their minds.
Intel changed their mind to stop using Netburst, and stop their pursuit of 5GHZ with Prescott etc.. just one example.

There was a genuine look at "reverse hyperthreading" by some of the people at AMD. It just never went ahead.

I think TheInquirer did actually find out about the ATI/AMD merger, for example

There many and many other fake news from The Inquirer

I don't think they're fake. I think he genuinely believes (or did believe at one point) the articles he writes.

LOL ^^ !!

Have any one read this sentence ^^ from the THE INQUIRER ?? !!

This is an evidence that this news from THE INQUIRER is a ********

What, you can't believe that a Laptop can get stolen?

Plenty of hardware got stolen from the guys who broke the 3Dmark06 world record.

If this article turns out to be false, I'll concede. But this does remind me of the days before C2D's release.

if he could afford the dual 2900XT's

he could afford a lowjack device for his laptop.

I can afford plenty of things that I don't get.

*edited*
fixed quote tags

 

[Wildside]

dude Apokalipse, u sound almost like a computer geeky guru lol.

 

[maroon1]

The Inquirer is the only source in the net that claimed that DX9.0L is DX10 for Windows XP

If Microsoft did consider making DirectX 10 for XP called DX9.0L. Then why other sources like dailytech, techreport etc didn't mention that ?

And why would Microsoft call the DX10 version of XP "DX9.0L" ?? Why not DX10 instead of DX9.0L ? Don't you feel that there is something wrong with The Inquirer ??

And yes I can't believe that his laptop was stolen.
First: The Inquirer claimed that 3GHz K10 scores much more than 5GHz C2Q !! Which is unbelievable because if you do math the K10 would be twice as fast per clock in 3dmarks. Even the Athlon64 was only 1.5 the speed of Pentium 4 per clock not 2 times the speed. If K10 is 2 times the speed per clock compared to Intel C2D then K10 would be even more that 2 times the speed of K8

Second: He claimed that his laptop was stolen. What a coincidence ?? Doesn't this make you feel that The Inquirer is hiding something ?

 

[maroon1]

ِAs far as I know AMD barcelona are based on K10

If K10 was very powerful, then why Barcelona performed worse than Xeon quad core in Cinebench according to dailytech ??

DailyTech - Quick and Dirty AMD K10 Cinebench

 

[Nagasama]

yeah but that xeon had faster ram, and it also is clocked higher. they did say that the xeon was 58% faster with a 50% faster clock speed. so, at the same clock speed, with the same ram....which would be faster i wonder? i dont think that the ram would make up the 8% if they were running the same clock speed, but it might.
i know one thing for sure...its faster than k8.
EDIT:
now, im no mathematical genius...
but how does that equal 58% faster? its 58% (actually i calculate 62% faster 17/27?) faster than 17 seconds, not 58% faster than 27seconds. where does 58% come from?
27 - 17 = 10, right?
its only 37% (27 - 17 = 10 / 27)faster than 27 seconds...and the intels clock speed is 50% more than the amd.
i could be horribly wrong here lol...english and language are my strong points, not math, heh.

 

[Trotter]

Laptops are stolen every day. My boss had both his work lappy and his personal lappy stolen from his car in broad daylight. So, accepting the fact that dude's laptop was stolen is no big deal for me. I would have emailed the pics to myself, though, to be safe.

Why is it so hard to admit that AMD might actually bring out a good chip, maroon? Was the Athlon a bust? Or the 64 line? or even the X2's? Admittedly the AM2 weren't a whole lot better than the 939's to begin with, but they have gone a lot further than the 939 did now.

An overclocked native quad core pushing overclocked 2900XT's in Crossfire... hitting 30K doesn't sound that preposterous to me.

[sarcasm]Oh, it wasn't an Intel...? BLASPHEMY!!!!! [/sarcasm]

 

[UA_Iron]

What, you can't believe that a Laptop can get stolen?

Plenty of hardware got stolen from the guys who broke the 3Dmark06 world record.

If this article turns out to be false, I'll concede. But this does remind me of the days before C2D's release.
I can afford plenty of things that I don't get.

*edited*
fixed quote tags

some proof would be nice.

After all, they made the assertion this hardware was capable of such benchmarks, its their job to support it with evidence, not mine to disprove it.