McPhee Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 The card itself isn't the problem, it's the crappy reference cooler. Fit a decent aftermarket cooler to it and it's a bloody good card! But with a decent aftermarket cooler costing anywhere between £15 and £30 you're better off buying a GTS and getting a "free" speed boost. Nvidia only put that cooler on the GT to show off, it's quite an achievement getting a single slot cooler on such a powerful card! Unfortunately it isn't the most practical solution...
Guest Jordan Posted January 23, 2008 Posted January 23, 2008 I've overclocked my E6600 to 2.87ghz. New score: 11157.4 O_o
Shyguy Posted January 27, 2008 Posted January 27, 2008 Hey! Odwin my test isnt using an OC CPU :P u make mine look poo :<
Konfucius Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Got that CPU a few days ago: I actually expected it to perform better...
Marshmellow Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 I would assume that you got that "low" score because this test isn't made for quad core CPU's. But thats just my guess.
Calza Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Does it not only just test one core? I think thats what has been said before about dual and quad test results.
Problematique Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Konfucius said: Got that CPU a few days ago: I actually expected it to perform better... Where'd you get that?! I'm so frustrated right now that Intel have been screwing us around both with the Yorkfield processors and the X48-based motherboards. I should've had my hands on them last week...
Calza Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Thats odd... Why did I get about half of Moogle's if we have the exact same processor (and PC bar graphics card)?
MoogleViper Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Calza said: Thats odd... Why did I get about half of Moogle's if we have the exact same processor (and PC bar graphics card)? I heard that the sexier the user, the faster the pc.
MoogleViper Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 I havent got a clue. There's bound to be a difference as no two parts are the same. But half is quite a big difference.
Problematique Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Hmm, could be Speedstep but that's still a large discrepancy. Motherboard?
MoogleViper Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Problematique said: Hmm, could be Speedstep but that's still a large discrepancy. Motherboard? I think we have the exact same pc. Only difference is I've replaced the PSU and installed a graphics card. Would any of those affect it?
Strider Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Well this ones better than the 2387.4. This ones on me laptop:
Apple_NdiB Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 What about programs running in the background? Surely if you had enough going at once it could chop your score in half?
Calza Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 I just redid the test and got similar if not the same results with absolutely nothing running, the first time I had sidebar running but I closed it down. I'm downloading at the moment but in a few hours I'll do it again and see.
Fuzpoy Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 New Score on newer compuer Fuzpoy - Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 - 7665.3
Konfucius Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Problematique said: Where'd you get that?! I'm so frustrated right now that Intel have been screwing us around both with the Yorkfield processors and the X48-based motherboards. I should've had my hands on them last week... I got extremely lucky, http://www.stegpc.ch got about 200 OEM ones. They went on sale this Tuesday.
Problematique Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Nice...hopefully that means I should get it next week. Won't mean a thing if the X48s don't turn up. Argh. Have you tried OCing it yet? I'm *planning* to run at 3.4 or 3.6GHz (425/450FSB) depending on how far it'll go on stock volts. That's pretty much equivalent to 3.8/4GHz on a Q6600 so I hear. Hopefully it'll play nice and not have degradation issues like the Wolfdales (although I hear that they haven't actually been degrading. Or something).
Konfucius Posted March 22, 2008 Posted March 22, 2008 No I didn't really try OCing yet, although my Mainboard (Gigabyte GA-EX38-DS5) would make it incredibly easy. It comes with programs that let you change the voltage and FSB in Windows. I tried it out and overclocked 5% and it actually worked, the program did everything for me, but you can do it yourself as well. But I kept it for only a minute or so because at the moment I let the MB control my fans but it's reading wrong CPU temperatures so I think the fans wouldn't cool enough if I'd overclock. Gotta wait for a BIOS update
Problematique Posted March 22, 2008 Posted March 22, 2008 Konfucius said: No I didn't really try OCing yet, although my Mainboard (Gigabyte GA-EX38-DS5) would make it incredibly easy. It comes with programs that let you change the voltage and FSB in Windows.I tried it out and overclocked 5% and it actually worked, the program did everything for me, but you can do it yourself as well. But I kept it for only a minute or so because at the moment I let the MB control my fans but it's reading wrong CPU temperatures so I think the fans wouldn't cool enough if I'd overclock. Gotta wait for a BIOS update Can't you just download Speedfan? It's a pretty useful tool. I don't usually like motherboard-bundled software, it's usually a liability. Especially the Asus stuff. Not sure about Gigabyte though. I can't wait til I get mine though...I'm still on a single core Athlon 64 so it's going to be a massive jump
Raining_again Posted March 22, 2008 Posted March 22, 2008 Raining_again said: It seems we have a tie. E6750 Overclocked to 3.0GHZ Started to go downhill after that, so i won't push it any further. EDIT: Temps staying pretty normal, I wasn't sure if this speed would be sustainable =) I'm not on the leaderboard? Do I only get one entry or something, my first one sucked ass.
Recommended Posts