IntelGuy Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 23392 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctran503 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 23392 amazing score....and that disk score is pretty sweet..... You would be top if that internet score wasnt dragging ya a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJoe5434 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 very awesome IG now you should do it in 16bit and get maybe closer to 24k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelGuy Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share Posted September 16, 2009 With 16 bit the 2D score starts to get ridiculous: 25439 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry1966 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 was going to say i'm sure i'd seen you post a score over 25k.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRAM Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Very nice IG Can't wait for my GTX 295 to get here. I'll prolly toss Vista back on here for a new pit score...and bragging too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tx Redneck Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 :dumbfounded: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul442 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 23392 Great score IntelGuy. Especially the cpu (11020) and memory (3286) ... trouble is, can't tell system speed, I'm sure it's better than 4900 mhz right? Maybe can you take a couple cpuz shots so we could see? BTW amazing disk score as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelGuy Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share Posted September 17, 2009 Actually it really is 4900MHz, 196 x 25 = 4900. Windows will BSOD on the CPU test at 4925. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctran503 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Actually it really is 4900MHz, 196 x 25 = 4900. Windows will BSOD on the CPU test at 4925. so you think the CPU is maxed out or the is something limiting more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelGuy Posted September 18, 2009 Author Share Posted September 18, 2009 No, it will do 5099 in Super Pi. It just is not stable enough for the Pit CPU test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctran503 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 No, it will do 5099 in Super Pi. It just is not stable enough for the Pit CPU test. wait...how come it only says 3072mb ram on the cpu-z?or is it all like that in the new systems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelGuy Posted September 19, 2009 Author Share Posted September 19, 2009 That is all that XP will recognize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRAM Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Hey IG, what SSD's are you using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelGuy Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRAM Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Ohhhh, you can put that away now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tx Redneck Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Are those SLC or MLC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelGuy Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 MLC: http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/flas...sata_ii_2_5-ssd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tx Redneck Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 MLC: http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/flas...sata_ii_2_5-ssd I looked all through that page this AM and couldn't find it. Could you imagine the speeds if they were SLC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJoe5434 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 i thought MLC was faster then SLC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tx Redneck Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 (edited) i thought MLC was faster then SLC? http://www.supertalent.com/datasheets/SLC_...0whitepaper.pdf <------ pg 9 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=slc+vs+mlc Edited September 29, 2009 by Tx Redneck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctran503 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) http://www.supertalent.com/datasheets/SLC_...0whitepaper.pdf <------ pg 9 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=slc+vs+mlc well you will be paying the price for SLC.... for a good quality SSD the cost of the SLC in comparison to the same size in MLc is probably double or triple in price, but maybe im wrong? Edited October 2, 2009 by ctran503 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRAM Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 well you will be paying the price for SLC.... for a good quality SSD the cost of the SLC in comparison to the same size in MLc is probably double or triple in price, but maybe im wrong? Right now all SSD are being price gouged. There has to be less cost in material for these drives. I understand wanting to make money back on R&D, but seriously the prices are way off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.9d4b89b15b2cd5e65edd93a0e6823dce.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now