My 7900GTX is runing hot

[wagex]

http://anrieff.net/ucbench/download.php

 

[EarthDog]

So this chip is no slouch as many think cause its so old.

It most certainly isn't a slouch... in its time. Its a slouch now compared to the newest chips out.

That said, I had a Q9550 up to almost 5Ghz on water myself... four years ago, so I know of its potential. Even a 5Ghz Yorkfield will probably still lose out to a stock Haswell... that is how much performance per clock has increased across the four generations of CPU since that was out.

 

[MAD450r]

again as I said from the start, if I spend 1000$ on cpu or more I can see major gains. Any low cost i7 which most have arent as fast as all these on this site.

im curious why this test wont use both level2 caches, mine has 2x6megs but it only uses 6 is there a reason for that.
of course my score will be lower using only half the l2 cache. or is it using both just saying they are only 6 meg ram size?

I been looking hard and trying to save to build a faster pc using an i7 but the chip I want is still $$$$ to have 15 megs cache.

so your saying the i7 with 8 megs cache will still be faster ? im not arguing im trying to learn something here. Since you made the switch already.

Again im on disability so buying used has always been only way I get things. Ive never had my hands on and i7 extreme to see actual seat of pants speed if you get me.

Thats what I meant earlier by side by side gaming and loading.

I do appreciate all you all have said I know looking back seems like im arguing but that not what I want. I was just stating my experience since I not have job to earn enough to buy new pc when the new tech is new. I need wait 5-10 years then buy fastest I can cheap

I use my pc mostly for video encoding more than anything and thats why I always want so much cache to start then I realized how much the cache helped with loadtimes as well as SSD of course. Many try say the cache not make a difference but it does really help.

 

[wagex]

why wouldnt that bench use l3 cache?
cache doesnt make a cpu that much faster.
i my server has two xeon quad cores that have 12MB l3 cache each (basically two core 2 quads like yours) still barely as fast as my i5 quad core(second gen current price? you can get them for ~$175 now days).

 

[EarthDog]

again as I said from the start, if I spend 1000$ on cpu or more I can see major gains. Any low cost i7 which most have arent as fast as all these on this site.

What about a $320 CPU like we have been talking about the entire time (2600, 3770, 4770)?

How do you know this test doesn't use the cache levels? What are you monitoring that shows cache saturation? I don't know much about UCbench, but if it isn't multi-threaded, and since Yorkfields are two dual cores on a single die, it would make sense that only one set of the cache would be used. IIRC, it is NOT shared... but not sure on that.

I been looking hard and trying to save to build a faster pc using an i7 but the chip I want is still $$$$ to have 15 megs cache.

so your saying the i7 with 8 megs cache will still be faster ? im not arguing im trying to learn something here. Since you made the switch already.

You need to get off the cache thing MAD... it really does not make as much of a difference as you think due to the architecture differences in modern CPUs.

Yes we have said that ad nauseum throughout this thread that it would be faster. If you are not arguing you are certainly not listening and believing what we say and the facts (links) we presented either that points to the contrary.

Thats what I meant earlier by side by side gaming and loading.

I dont get it.. are you missing some text or something? I read nothing that has to do with that statement (and sorry, its quitting time at the job so perhaps my mind shut off).

I do appreciate all you all have said I know looking back seems like im arguing but that not what I want. I was just stating my experience since I not have job to earn enough to buy new pc when the new tech is new. I need wait 5-10 years then buy fastest I can cheap

I use my pc mostly for video encoding more than anything and thats why I always want so much cache to start then I realized how much the cache helped with loadtimes as well as SSD of course. Many try say the cache not make a difference but it does really help.

Again, if you are not arguing. Listen . You insist we are wrong but bring nothing to the table to support your assertion (for the 3rd time, loading games are from the HDD/SSD not CPU and for game smoothness as well that is mostly GPU at 1080p resolutions).

So, either prove your assertion by providing relevant supporting information or just concede that the facts we presented are what they are... modern processors from SB to Haswell will smoke your CPU, stock for stock, in encoding according to the links in #26 (and any other review you look at that tested yorkfield against SB+ CPUs.

 

[MAD450r]

when I ran the test it says it in the dos window that pops up while testing just read as it tests

 

[EarthDog]

when I ran the test it says it in the dos window that pops up while testing just read as it tests

I don't know much about UCbench, but if it isn't multi-threaded, and since Yorkfields are two dual cores on a single die, it would make sense that only one set of the cache would be used. IIRC, it is NOT shared... but not sure on that.

 

[MAD450r]

I work on many pc's its my side job so you not going to change my mind about cache and side by side usage of new i7 3930k is what my friends dell has btw he finally answered


so if that cpu is faster than this old thing why is it slower in using explain to me please.
he has faster ddr3 ram as well [1866 to my 1333] on his dell/aleinware, why is mine faster at encoding, or doing his animation builds. or game at better fps as well as load faster, you said again its the SSD, we have the identical HD.



both have win 7 64bit since we both hate windows 8

 

[MAD450r]

ah ok that makes sence on why only sees the 6 megs on each half I see.

 

[wagex]

when I ran the test it says it in the dos window that pops up while testing just read as it tests

yea and it will eventually finish with a list of scores the highest one is your score.

so if that cpu is faster than this old thing why is it slower in using explain to me please.
he has faster ddr3 ram as well [1866 to my 1333] on his dell/aleinware, why is mine faster at encoding, or doing his animation builds. or game at better fps as well as load faster, you said again its the SSD, we have the identical HD.

how do you know its faster.what are you comparing. what is it? game fps? that is GPU, not cpu.
is it boot times? THAT IS HARD DRIVE/SSD not CPU.
load times? that is drive / SSD as well not cpu.

crunching numbers to see how many passwords you can generate to crack it that is a good test. (uc bench is multi threaded and tests how fast your CPU is)

rendering an image using the cpu. is a good way to tell how fast the cpu is. (cinebench)

if your cpu scores higher than his in those tests then his computer is broken. end of story. compare your benchmarks to benchmarks of other cpu's online. my q8300 (with 4mb cache) with an overclock beats a q9650(12mb cache). dont believe it? look at my scores on the hwbot.

cache doesnt make a cpu faster, it helps yea. but architecture and cpu clocks help more, lots more.

 

[MAD450r]

Guess then from what you are saying about the i7 achitecture or however spelled, I can understand that, but from hands on use I guess my Gigabytes mainboard just has better throughput or something, there has to be an explainable reason y his 3930k i7 is running slower than my old cpu,
again alienware overclocked it too from factory. Now makes me want to do more tests on his to find what is slowing his then. I'll make him happy if I find what it is making his run slower than mine,

First thing I did notice when copying dvdr to his pc is it doesn't write as fast as mine, but I thought was caused by blueray drive reading slower or something, Now im starting to think the dells/alienware has slower north or south bridge maybe? something has to be slowing his HD maybe ?

cause that right there would account for all the boot time loading encoding speed mine has over his if mine writes faster and reads faster ? Am I correct here ?

remember we both own the exact same ocz vertex 3

 

[wagex]

First thing I did notice when copying dvdr to his pc is it doesn't write as fast as mine, but I thought was caused by blueray drive reading slower or something, Now im starting to think the dells/alienware has slower north or south bridge maybe? something has to be slowing his HD maybe ?

he has some driver issues or something if he has the same solid state drive then something is configured wrong. ahci/sata setting in bios or something. because he also has 6gb/s sata ports which with that SSD would have alot more throughput.


but still none of that has anything to with core 2 quad vs i7. end of story.

i7 is faster. core 2 quad is slower.

he broke something. either that or alienware put so much bloatware on it its bogging down the system. either that or he doesnt know what he has in it.

 

[OptyTrooper]

AsRock Extreme4 124.00

3570K 219.00

G.Skill DDR3 1866 84.99

427.99 and will completely smoke your C2Q.

I'll put my 3770K up against your C2Q in any bench you want to run.

 

[wagex]

we dont need to be in CT for you to take screenshots of benchmark scores.

theres the ucbench to compare to when you get the chance to run it.

 

[MAD450r]

wow they have been dropping some in price but I would never own asrock sorry built a few and worked on few dont like them and never seen one last 3 years.

I swore by abit, once they went out business started to use gigabyte and msi, my dad likes ASUS, but I find them a bit pricey for some.

 

[MAD450r]

not talk of scores I said hands on seet of the pants speed get it

scores mean nothing to me. I know you can tweak things to get higher scores so till I see an i7 run 3d studio max renders side by side and beat or even keep up with then i'll be proved wrong

no picture willl prove anything

 

[wagex]

whats wrong with asrock? that screenshot above your post same asrock board had 3 world records on my account.

 

[wagex]

not talk of scores I said hands on seet of the pants speed get it

scores mean nothing to me. I know you can tweak things to get higher scores so till I see an i7 run 3d studio max renders side by side and beat or even keep up with then i'll be proved wrong

no picture willl prove anything

well. a cpu can only get a score if its that fast... anyways here is your comparison of video rendering.

a little oder core 2 quad but still...

and another (albeit the core2 is also a TINY bit slower)

another this one is a direct comparison from your cpu to mine. which mine is slower than an i7

 

[MAD450r]

let me get cpu z now to make that one too but im not on my game pc. told my brother and I share it so he gaming.

i'll test this gigabyte with qx9650 and slower ssd ddr2 667 ram 7900gtx on here but its not my gamer the MSI is fastest of my pc's

 

[wagex]

the 9650 is faster than any other cpu listed in your sig..... so it will be faster than your gamer.