#1387
Hat most tudsz rola. :P
Voltak furcsa dolgok.
Eloszor is. A nehany hettel ezelotii Intel dev forumon mutattak be a Conroe-t, de egy mukodo peldany sem volt kint, bezzeg Anan bacsinal meg ugyanabban a korai orakban megfordult egy ilyen peldany. (az IDF megnyitojaval szinte egyidoben)
A tesztkepek erdekes kepet mutattak, BIOS kep amiben nincs az orajel es processzor tipus feltuntetve.
Ati chipsetben mert AMD es hasonlok.
Es akkor arrol nem beszelve, hogy senkit nem engedtek a gep kozelebe meg a tesztprogramok lefuttatasat is az Intel mernokei vegeztek.
Meg fenykepet sem engedelyeztek a geprol, hogy meglehessen nezni a processzor huteset, vagy a foglalatat.
Ez meg nem is lenne nagy dolog.
De hogy 25%al lasssabb lenne egy FX60 + SLIbe kotott X1900XTX, egy sima FX-57 6800GTnel az azert mar kicsit tulzas.
If we go and check out the numbers on Anandtech we’ll see the Unreal Tournament 2004 benchmark showing 160fps on the unknown AMD X2 processor while the Intel Conroe at 2.66GHz came in significantly higher at 191fps.
Though this isn’t exactly conclusive, if you go back and re-read some old FX-57 reviews on Tom’s Hardware you’ll see a benchmark for the same game set at the same resolution (and the same color depth), the FX-57 running at 2.8GHz scored 183.4fps. The thing is it’s using an Nvidia Geforce 6800 GT which seems to me that there are many variables here when it comes to benchmarking. Perhaps it's somewhere locked in the settings, but I won't know until I sit down and compare our own benchmarks with consistant settings. Note that a single core Athlon 64 4000 achieved a better score in the benchmark run by Tom (160.5fps) than the one provided by Intel (160.4) at IDF. Like I said, I don't view this as conclusive, but it shows that there are variances depending on how the benchmark is setup. Here is a link to Tom’s review.
![[Jakuza]](https://media.sg.hu/forum/avatars/10427091571053517846.jpg "[Jakuza]")
#1387