(06-09-2012, 09:30 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]*That feeling when you realize you've created a monster that will grow up to be like squall* (no offense squall, you are awesome in your own way)
*That feeling when you've now doomed the thread to offtopic discussion since the only reasonable response to this will be an offtopic response*
*That feeling when you tell yourself there was nothing left to get out of the thread anyways*
*That feeling when part of you wants AMD to fail just so the obnoxious AMD fanboys will shut up about everyone else being so biased against them*
*That feeling when you wonder if you'll get warned for this*
*That feeling when you realize you've seen too many memes and should probably stop talking like this*
One thing I can't stand is an Intel fanboy who thinks they know everything, Until you see the proof for your own eyes don't put someone down just because your a geeky Intel fanboy with no life.
And just to let everyone know, I never said Amd is better then Intel.
Intel does have a better cpu but what I am saying is unless you see it with your own eyes then don't believe it.
I have connected to d3monr3no using team viewer and have seen what fps it was running.
And it would have been faster but team viewer does slow it down just a little bit.
Like I said that's one person's hardware, it's not like that for everyone and that's no proof anyways. Where is the video? Someone just typed that up, where is the proof?
There needs to be video, not typed down to show what it does.
(06-09-2012, 07:31 PM)Squall Leonhart Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2012, 04:53 AM)azerty16 Wrote: [ -> ]With 2 module enabled=4 core
59.70 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-8120 Two Module=4 Core - 4.5GHz (OC) - azerty16 - Turbo Boost OFF http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2260937
60.72 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-8120 Two Module=4 Core - 4.6GHz (OC) - azerty16 - Turbo Boost OFF http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2260956
62.02 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-8120 Two Module=4 Core - 4.7GHz (OC) - azerty16 - Turbo Boost OFF http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2260972
I can't get higher than 4.7GHZ, maybe my motherboard is not able to OC more.
mmmk
mmmk
Why are you showing me pics from pcsx2 emulator when this is on dolphin?
And that's not video, someone clearly stated d3monr3no's video's was not long enough.
And the pics just show one place in the game not fully shows anything.
I give up.
Call me when this thread gets locked.
but the cheaper CPUs still outperform Bulldozer
Quote:59.70 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-8120 Two Module=4 Core - 4.5GHz (OC)
60.04 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition - 4.3 GHz OC - lilmario321
60.72 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-8120 Two Module=4 Core - 4.6GHz (OC) - azerty16
60.84 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 2720QM - 2.2 GHz Stock (3.0 GHz w/TB) - Hippolytus (Laptop CPU)
63.12 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 2100 - 3.1 GHz Stock - Shadow Lady (PCSX2 administrator)
63.49 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 - 4.12 GHz OC rama (PCSX2 coder)
65.17 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 530 - 4.2 GHz OC - Butz_san
102.24 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 5.2 GHz OC - unr3al
Expecially the i3 2100 (can't not be overclocked) beats AMD FX-8120 4.6Ghz although the i3 use much less power than AMD FX 8000 series
FX 8150 use all 8-cores to beat the i5 2500k 4 cores in multi-threaded benchmark (not much difference anyway)
i5 2500k rape FX 8000 series in single-threaded benchmark
Any further discussion is meaningless
Why we should pay 200$ for the CPU that can't run games with LLE back end full speed , cost electricity like crazy