# why is my Win7 Subscore so low?



## demonikal

In the Control Panel, under Performance Information and Tools, for "Calculations per Second" for my quad-core processor, the subscore is a 7.3

Is that perhaps because my mobo was made to be upgarded to 6-core CPUs or would it be because I have not overclocked my current processor at all?

Thanks.


----------



## claptonman

That's perfectly normal. My 960T was at 7.3, and I overclocked it to 3.7ghz, and it went up to 7.4. The windows experience index is not that great of a benchmark and doesn't reflect real performance. Don't worry about it. And a i5 2500k gets 7.4 at stock speeds, so its not accurate.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

The max score i beleive is 7.9, So yeah, its a pretty rubbish way of looking at performance.


----------



## Laquer Head

That ranking is completely useless, almost like arbitrary numbers.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I agree with Laquer Head.  The Windows ranking is almost completely useless in measuring processing power.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

Is it even possible to get 7.9 across the board?


----------



## claptonman

Only thing that isn't 7.9 on mine is RAM and CPU. I've seen RAM at 7.9 (2133mhz) but not CPU. But once again, pointless seeing as though I could get a better GPU and still be at 7.9.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

My gpu is 7.3 i think, my cpu is 5.3 or 5.9 cant remember which and my hdd is 5.6 :/ Then again i have severly rubbish hardware


----------



## jonnyp11

just saying, the thing is total crap, i score a 5.5, 5.5, 2.8, 3.1, 5.9, although i think i read somewhere it goes up 10x each number 1 is 1, 2-10, 3-100, etc. but still, if he's remembering right that's putting my e2210 up with mike's e6600


----------



## SuperDuperMe

Its a really bad indication for perfromance . EVen when it says games recommend such a thing and then im under because of my hdd :/ I mean surely my gpu (in most games) is a lot more important than my hdd.


----------



## 87dtna

I had a 7.8 on the CPU with a 2600k at 4.5ghz.  It is possible.  Two vertex II SSD's in Raid 0 gave me 7.9 on the hard drive one.  My gtx570 was 7.8, so I'm sure a 580 is 7.9.


----------



## claptonman

87dtna said:


> I had a 7.8 on the CPU with a 2600k at 4.5ghz.  It is possible.  Two vertex II SSD's in Raid 0 gave me 7.9 on the hard drive one.  My gtx570 was 7.8, so I'm sure a 580 is 7.9.



My 570 gives me 7.9, must be more mhz or just the updated drivers. And my SATA III gives 7.9. But once again, doesn't matter.


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah I had mine they day they came out.  Or maybe it was at stock with a 7.8?  I don't really remember that was months ago.

My patriot pyro sata 3 gives me 7.8.   My two vertex II's in raid 0 was only a hair faster than my patriot drive.


----------



## Okedokey

87dtna said:


> Yeah I had mine they day they came out.  Or maybe it was at stock with a 7.8?  I don't really remember that was months ago.
> 
> My patriot pyro sata 3 gives me 7.8.   My two vertex II's in raid 0 was only a hair faster than my patriot drive.



87, if you have all these parts, why do you insist on using such a POS computer?


----------



## 87dtna

POS?  My current PC can pretty much play any game at 1080p.  My I5 2300 is at 3.4ghz, which is as good as a Phenom II quad at 4ghz if not still better.

I don't HAVE all these parts, I've HAD all these parts.  I used them for benching, and then sold them off because I don't need that kind of power on a daily basis for the games I play and what I do with my PC.  I've also owned an SS phase, 3 different LN2 pots, and 2 water cooling setups.  

And most of the reason I change my hardware so much, is because I just get bored.  Hell, I've had 2 intel hex cores and 5870 Xfire, but why would I run that on a daily basis and use 300 more watts of electricity when my current PC has the same results/speed for the tasks I do.

I sold off my Mini ITX 2500k setup just because I wanted to try socket FM1.  I built an athlon II 631 and A8-3850 with an ASrock A75-pro4m and gigabyte A75m-UD2H.  Why?  Just for the fun of it and to get to know FM1.  And also so I gain more real world experience so I can give properly educated advice...unlike you who only reads about something and thinks you know everything.


----------



## M1kkelZR

bigfellla said:


> 87, if you have all these parts, why do you insist on using such a POS computer?



how is an i5 2300 and a gtx460 part of a POS compu?
i think his compu will do everything yours does, but cheaper/


----------



## FuryRosewood

Yea...no reason for insulting hardware if it does what is necessary.


----------



## Darkserge

Mine score is
Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 @3333MHz *7.0*
4 GB DDR2-SDRAM 1066 Mhz  *7.0*
Radeon HD 4870 512MB *7.5*
Radeon HD 4870 512MB *7.5*
Western Digital WD2500KS-00MJB0 ATA Device (250GB) *5.4*


----------



## Okedokey

Raz3rD said:


> how is an i5 2300 and a gtx460 part of a POS compu?
> i think his compu will do everything yours does, but cheaper/



A 460 wont play BF3 on ultra on my resolution.

It wasn't meant to be an insult, rather me trying to understand why someone would by hundreds of graphics cards (as claimed in other posts) and all the other gear to sell it on (presumably at a lower price = loss of money) and not use even a better GPU.  A 460 gets toasted in modern games at 1920 x 1080 on full.  It was simply a question to try and work out why you would sell the 460, keep the 570 for example?  Massive improvement.


----------



## 87dtna

I don't care about ultra, thats why.  It doesn't look any different to me than high, which with my 460 at 900 core clock plays it just fine.  At 900 core clock and 2100 memory a gtx460 is close to gtx560 Ti stock power.  460's are extremely underrated because of their low stock clocks, but they overclock like crazy.  All a gtx560 is is an overclocked 460....and a 560 Ti has 48 more SP's but their stock clock is 820.


----------



## M1kkelZR

i prefer the 460 over a 560 ti anyday. because of the fact that i know they are reliable, im not saying a 560 + aren reliable but from what ive seen, the 460 is just better. before you ramble, no i havent owned any GTX's but i have played on a 460, 550ti, 560ti and 580. i still preferred the 460. granting this werent on 1080p resolution, still liked the 460. 

this all comes down to choice and who wants to play games on the highest setting at 1080p is there choice, but i dont see why i would do that if i can play it at 1024x720 and still looks nice.


----------



## demonikal

I think you guys need to give it a rest. I was the one who started this post about the Windows 7 subscore and now you're all fighting over who has got the better rig. Definitely unsubscribing from my own post. I may not be a gigabyte member or a terabyte member or whatever, but totally sick and tired of getting these in my email inbox, thinking it may be something that defines the subscore a little clearer. The whole thing about the Windows 7 subscore was solved a lonnnnng time ago. However, feel free to keep bickering.


----------



## M1kkelZR

demonikal said:


> I think you guys need to give it a rest. I was the one who started this post about the Windows 7 subscore and now you're all fighting over who has got the better rig. Definitely unsubscribing from my own post. I may not be a gigabyte member or a terabyte member or whatever, but totally sick and tired of getting these in my email inbox, thinking it may be something that defines the subscore a little clearer. The whole thing about the Windows 7 subscore was solved a lonnnnng time ago. However, feel free to keep bickering.



yes true it may be solved, but if there is something to talk about, that started in this thread then its not our problem then that you subbed to a thread, and wanted emails to show you that people replied.


----------



## 87dtna

I didn't know there was people that actually used the email feature...lol


----------



## xxmorpheus

yeah i know what you guys mean, mine WEI shows 7.8 for cpu, 7.8 ram, 7.9 gpu and 7.9 graphis performance, but only 7.1 disk transfer


----------



## spirit

I get 7.3 (stock i5 760), 7.5 (8GB DDR3 1333MHz), 7.3 (GTS 450 1GB overclocked), 7.3 (same) and 7.3 (Crucial M4 SSD on SATA II). What's funny is I get 7.5 for my 8 gigs of 1333mhz DDR3 on this system, yet on another system I only got 5.9 for 4GB of the same RAM! And it was in dual-channel! bizarre.


----------



## 87dtna

What cpu is in the other system?  Memory controller makes a ton of difference, an I5 760 has an excellent memory controller.  If you were using it in AMD, I would expect a drop, but not that much.  A 5.9 would be expected from a DDR3 socket 775 board though.


----------



## kdfresh09

7.5, 7.7, 7.9, 7.9, 7.9


----------



## Perkomate

7.7 CPU, 7.9 RAM (1866mhz) 7.4, 7.4 for GPU and 7.9 for disk transfer. Winning.


----------



## kdfresh09

your not winning, even if this was a compitition, your overall average would be 7.66, as mine would be 7.78


----------



## Okedokey

Its a dumb argument, my subscore is 7.5 and my machine would probably smash anything on this forum.  Its a guide only.


----------



## 87dtna

lol.  I do believe someone has a 3930k on here so you aren't really the ''big cheese'' with only a 2600k.


----------



## Okedokey

87dtna said:


> lol.  I do believe someone has a 3930k on here so you aren't really the ''big cheese'' with only a 2600k.



If you do something massively threaded yes, but show me something in the real world that we do that beats my cheese thats worth the premium cost?  $800 less too.  Dont forget you have recently told me a 460 and your system is perfectly good, so make sure you're consistent. Suddenly the 2600K looks good.  As I knew it always would.  Under standard use, at best (bench) 3930k 15% better, real world 2% better.    Plus at 4.5 - 5GHz there is no question the 2600K owns.  So Mr No-Cheese, back in your box.  



> While we don't want to give the impression that the i7-3930K is a slow CPU for consumer applications and games, it isn't significantly faster than the Core i7-2600K.


 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/11/14/intel-sandy-bridge-e-review/12

And as this directly relates to my situation...



> If you’re gaming with one (or even two) high-end graphics cards in your system, the 2600K is a better bet



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3930k-3820-test-benchmark,3090-14.html

Hardware purchasing is like the stock market,  you gotta know when to spend big, and when to opt out.

Finally I haven't even discussed the option of Ivybridge yet, meaning I can sell my 2600K for say 200, spend another 100 and be back on top.  Not going to happen on an AMD or pretty much any other platform.  Not that I need to actually, however the extra PCIe lanes would be nice.  But never seen my 2600K maxed - yet.  But I can upgrade, very rare these days.

But yet again mate, we've detracted from this thread.  Post a new thread or a message on my PM and we can discuss.


----------



## 87dtna

Ahh yes but I didn't make the statement that my PC would ''smash'' anything on this forum.  When you say smash, it assumed it means for any PC purpose not just gaming.

If you want to talk just gaming now, a 2500k games just as well as a 2600k, there is zero difference and costs $100 less.  So if your main purpose was gaming, you literally flushed $100 down the toilet by buying a 2600k over a 2500k.

OK so you are running 4.5ghz?  Is the 3930k not overclockable or something?  It was last I checked 

Where are you getting the 2600k is $800 less?   The 3930k is $600, so it's $300 more than the 2600k.  And also, when did this become a bang for the buck argument?  You stated that your PC would ''smash'' everything on this forum, and thats simply incorrect.  But you always want to shift the conversion in your favor instead of backing up your blanket statement.


----------



## Perkomate

Woot 2500k fanboy inbound
master race reporting in


----------



## Okedokey

87, you need a new motherboard too if you want to upgrade to the 3930K, and those mobos are expensive.  Thus the 800 bucks.  Whereas I can sell my 2600K for say, 200?  and spend another 100 presumably in a few months and have a whole upgrade.  This cannot be said for the 3930k system.  Secondly the 2600K competes at stock.


----------



## FuryRosewood

the x79 boards are indeed expensive...tho the quad channel ram is sorta tasty...32 gigs of cheap ram...sure, but to spend bout 800 bucks to swap board/cpu and add more ram? i cant really legitimize the cost...1155 is far cheaper...tho is ivy bridge going to be quad channel or dual?


----------



## Okedokey

ivy fits straight into your 1155 board.


----------



## 87dtna

Guess I'll have to repeat my previous statement.




87dtna said:


> And also, *when did this become a bang for the buck argument*?  You stated that your PC would ''smash'' everything on this forum, and thats simply incorrect.  But you always want to shift the conversion in your favor instead of backing up your blanket statement.


----------



## M1kkelZR

87dtna said:


> Guess I'll have to repeat my previous statement.



yeah i have to agree, and also in theory the 2600k would be better than the 2500k but in practice, its the same. just a price performance gone wrong


----------



## xxmorpheus

bigfellla said:


> Its a dumb argument, my subscore is 7.5 and my machine would probably smash anything on this forum.  Its a guide only.



LoL..... for the sake of "smashing", i had to reply. Your saying your pc is the fastest in the forum? Faster than my core i7 2700k and dual 6990's??? Thats a broad statement friend ^_^


----------



## M1kkelZR

xxmorpheus said:


> LoL..... for the sake of "smashing", i had to reply. Your saying your pc is the fastest in the forum? Faster than my core i7 2700k and dual 6990's??? Thats a broad statement friend ^_^



This +1

also love your background in the pic listed in your sig, Asus RoG ftw! haha


----------



## Laquer Head

xxmorpheus said:


> LoL..... for the sake of "smashing", i had to reply. Your saying your pc is the fastest in the forum? Faster than my core i7 2700k and dual 6990's??? Thats a broad statement friend ^_^



No way...my c*** is bigger....

I'll see you all at the bike racks after school and we'll see whos fastest..


----------



## xxmorpheus

Raz3rD said:


> This +1
> 
> also love your background in the pic listed in your sig, Asus RoG ftw! haha




Thank you fellow Rog member! =]


----------



## Motorcharge

4.5 due to on board graphics, 7.2 otherwise.

The biggest problem with the overall score is it factors by your lowest number, not the average.


----------



## 87dtna

xxmorpheus said:


> LoL..... for the sake of "smashing", i had to reply. Your saying your pc is the fastest in the forum? Faster than my core i7 2700k and dual 6990's??? Thats a broad statement friend ^_^



Yes I think we all agree he's a legend in his own mind.


----------



## M1kkelZR

xxmorpheus said:


> Thank you fellow Rog member! =]



Woop! My CH2 formula wont disappoint me! ROG is Asus, Asus = epic sauce.

but i get 3.9 on onboard Graphics, otherwise with the 3870 id get like 5.6 so not the best but still useable


----------



## xxmorpheus

Thats not too bad. My compaq presario and its single core 333mhz scored 0.9 -.-


----------



## 87dtna

hahaha


----------



## M1kkelZR

xxmorpheus said:


> Thats not too bad. My compaq presario and its single core 333mhz scored 0.9 -.-



wow thats epic. still think it has better performance than my laptop, even tho its supposed to be "good" at 3.9 it still performes like shite haha


----------



## FiveSeven

mikeb2817 said:


> The max score i beleive is 7.9, So yeah, its a pretty rubbish way of looking at performance.



It only goes up to 7.9.


----------



## Okedokey

xxmorpheus said:


> LoL..... for the sake of "smashing", i had to reply. Your saying your pc is the fastest in the forum? Faster than my core i7 2700k and dual 6990's??? Thats a broad statement friend ^_^



It is and thats exactly what it was meant to be, a broad statement.  Meaning that the Windows sub score thing doesn't mean much.  However of course there will be faster computers, but in your case, a 2700K is identical (when overclocked) to a 2600K and 6990s in CF are so retarded due to poor driver support.  In fact they have some of the worst scaling ever, so on paper, your machine (btw very nice) should be seriously fast, but in practice, the driver support for quad crossfire is lame at best.  I am yet to see a game that benefits over a a pair of 6970s which is cooler, cheaper and faster.  And given the fact that GTX580s are faster than that.. .



> (Compared to HD6990 in quad CF) A pair of Radeon HD 6970s *sacrifices nothing except *space in your case. *That combo is faster*, *quieter*, and more effective at dealing with heat. A pair of GeForce GTX 570s would be a great alternative, too. You give up a bit of speed in some situations, but they’re even quieter than the 6970s.
> 
> *Skip the Radeon HD 6990 altogether and take advantage of fantastic CrossFire and SLI scaling using more elegant single-GPU cards. *


 Here

But yeah, if you have massive monitor resolutions, multi gpus are a great options, just not the HD6990s - they're woeful.


----------



## 87dtna

Well, 6990+6970 is the best option.  Trifire scaling is much better, and easliy beats gtx580 SLI.
If he disables one of the GPU's for trifire, his PC is ultimately stronger than yours.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/11/amd_radeon_69906970_crossfirex_trifire_review/5

So, once again, your PC does not ''smash'' everything on this forum.

AND for the love of God don't bring up bang for the buck again.  When you make the blanket statement that your PC will smash everything on the forum, that has NOTHING to do with how much you spent on it.


----------



## M1kkelZR

87dtna said:


> Well, 6990+6970 is the best option.  Trifire scaling is much better, and easliy beats gtx580 SLI.
> If he disables one of the GPU's for trifire, his PC is ultimately stronger than yours.
> 
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/11/amd_radeon_69906970_crossfirex_trifire_review/5
> 
> So, once again, your PC does not ''smash'' everything on this forum.
> 
> AND for the love of God don't bring up bang for the buck again.  When you make the blanket statement that your PC will smash everything on the forum, that has NOTHING to do with how much you spent on it.



this. +1.

because the build im making will cost a total of maybe $150 and will still perform extremely well. so i dont think the amount of money you spent on a build doesnt count, its the way you use the money for the components, not just plainly get all the best stuff and regret buying it later.


----------



## Okedokey

Raz3rD said:


> this. +1.
> 
> because the build im making will cost a total of maybe $150 and will still perform extremely well. so i dont think the amount of money you spent on a build doesnt count, its the way you use the money for the components, not just plainly get all the best stuff and regret buying it later.



For $150 you will be struggling.

Secondly, I didn't read that he has disabled a core, so until then, i haven't seen a system that does 87.    Thirdly i don't remember bringing up bang for buck at all?  And also, doesn't the mere idea of disabling half your $1000 GPU to make it beat something half the cost just sound retarded?  Its because its a joke.  The HD6990s in quad CF is utterly a dumb idea.

Ill agree though, the 6970 and 6990 in trifire is nice, if you can get it to work in a game.  

Nevertheless, that wasn't my point, my point is that the subscore in Windows means jack all.


----------



## M1kkelZR

bigfellla said:


> For $150 you will be struggling.
> 
> Secondly, I didn't read that he has disabled a core, so until then, i haven't seen a system that does 87.    Thirdly i don't remember bringing up bang for buck at all?  And also, doesn't the mere idea of disabling half your $1000 GPU to make it beat something half the cost just sound retarded?  Its because its a joke.  The HD6990s in quad CF is utterly a dumb idea.
> 
> Ill agree though, the 6970 and 6990 in trifire is nice, if you can get it to work in a game.
> 
> Nevertheless, that wasn't my point, my point is that the subscore in Windows means jack all.



i wont struggle with a budget of 150$. i can get a nice x4 940 for 50 and still need 4gb more ram and a new gpu. total cost of thise would crank it up to 100$ and my mobo was 35$, PSU was free.


----------



## Okedokey

Post the specs on this bad boy for $150, and it wont, no matter what "perform extremely well'. LOL


----------



## M1kkelZR

Asus Crosshair 2 Formula
AMD Phenom 2 X4 940 BE
4GB G.Skill DDR2 1066
Sapphire Radeon HD3870
NexusTek RX-7000 700W
7200RPM 320gb WD

not much but will get me a nice FPS on cod. now before you ran that im using a Radeon card on a SLI ready mobo, i am going to upgrade the card to a double 550TI for SLI. this gpu im getting is my friends and he needs to get rid of it and i need a temporary one.


----------



## Okedokey

Lol 150 yeah right.  pfft.


----------



## M1kkelZR

bigfellla said:


> Lol 150 yeah right.  pfft.



yes 150, dont try to be a wise ass now. not everyone goes for the most expensive stuff just to show off and say: my pc will smash everyones here...

idiot


----------



## 87dtna

Raz3rD said:


> Asus Crosshair 2 Formula
> AMD Phenom 2 X4 940 BE
> 4GB G.Skill DDR2 1066
> Sapphire Radeon HD3870
> NexusTek RX-7000 700W
> 7200RPM 320gb WD
> 
> not much but will get me a nice FPS on cod. now before you ran that im using a Radeon card on a SLI ready mobo, i am going to upgrade the card to a double 550TI for SLI. this gpu im getting is my friends and he needs to get rid of it and i need a temporary one.



getting 4gb of 1066 is your biggest problem, the going rate of that used is $50 or so right now it's quite expensive.  If you settled for 800, you could pick some up for $30ish if you waited it out for a good deal.

But for what you are going to have in it, yeah it's a capable gaming setup.  The GPU is definitely the bottleneck, even in the newer COD games it will struggle.  What resolution are you on?  BUT, even with a single gtx550 Ti it will blast through all COD games with ease.  

However, I would stay on the lookout for a gtx460.  It smashes (lol) the gtx550 Ti for about the same price (both used are going for $90-100 or so).  Even the 768mb is way stronger and very cost affective.


----------



## M1kkelZR

87dtna said:


> getting 4gb of 1066 is your biggest problem, the going rate of that used is $50 or so right now it's quite expensive.  If you settled for 800, you could pick some up for $30ish if you waited it out for a good deal.
> 
> But for what you are going to have in it, yeah it's a capable gaming setup.  The GPU is definitely the bottleneck, even in the newer COD games it will struggle.  What resolution are you on?  BUT, even with a single gtx550 Ti it will blast through all COD games with ease.
> 
> However, I would stay on the lookout for a gtx460.  It smashes (lol) the gtx550 Ti for about the same price (both used are going for $90-100 or so).  Even the 768mb is way stronger and very cost affective.



well the 1066 RAM i can get quite cheap from a friend, for about 35$ but might go for 800 not sure yet. the reso im playing at is 1024x1280 if im right so not too demanding as my intergrated card can take that. might get a single gtx460 and after awhile get a second one for SLI.


----------



## xxmorpheus

bigfellla said:


> It is and thats exactly what it was meant to be, a broad statement.  Meaning that the Windows sub score thing doesn't mean much.  However of course there will be faster computers, but in your case, a 2700K is identical (when overclocked) to a 2600K and 6990s in CF are so retarded due to poor driver support.  In fact they have some of the worst scaling ever, so on paper, your machine (btw very nice) should be seriously fast, but in practice, the driver support for quad crossfire is lame at best.  I am yet to see a game that benefits over a a pair of 6970s which is cooler, cheaper and faster.  And given the fact that GTX580s are faster than that.. .
> 
> Here
> 
> But yeah, if you have massive monitor resolutions, multi gpus are a great options, just not the HD6990s - they're woeful.






I know my graphics cards suck balls. Thanks


----------



## 87dtna

rofl


----------



## Spesh

bigfellla said:


> Its a dumb argument, my subscore is 7.5 and my machine would probably smash anything on this forum.  Its a guide only.



My computer would pwn your computer


----------



## xxmorpheus

Spesh said:


> My computer would pwn your computer





 +1

:good:


The true question is, can my pc pwn yours or can yours pwn mine?


----------



## Spesh

xxmorpheus said:


> +1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The true question is, can my pc pwn yours or can yours pwn mine?



I feel a bench-off coming on


----------



## M1kkelZR

Spesh said:


> I feel a bench-off coming on




wut? bench-off? really they exist nowadays? How awesome! Im not playing along, my laptop or pc would just suck so bad the benchmarker would show a popup saying: Your Computer and/or Laptop suck so bad they should explode.

haha


----------



## Spesh

Well I did reply to a post from Stranglehold, but he seems to have thought better of it....


----------



## xxmorpheus

bench off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Perkomate

the first rule about bench club, is that you DO NOT TALK about bench club.


----------



## M1kkelZR

Perkomate said:


> the first rule about bench club, is that you DO NOT TALK about bench club.



okay so there is not not going to be a bench-off?


----------



## wolfeking

I'm pretty sure that was a fight club reference.

and http://www.computerforum.com/176118-official-superpi-mod-ranking-thread.html is a good place for a bench off. I think there are other such threads, but that one is stickied.


----------



## Spesh

I was thinking more along the lines of Unigine Heaven and 3Dmark11, seeing as we both have fairly extreme graphics solutions. Superpi is just a cpu speed test. Also, that thread doesn't seem to get updated.


----------



## wolfeking

eh, I'm not too up on benchmarking. Either way you go you could start a thread to allow others to compare their computers too. 

I'm almost sure that there is a 3Dmark11 thread here already.

edit: there is http://www.computerforum.com/187388-3dmark11-rank-thread.html.


----------



## Spesh

wolfeking said:


> eh, I'm not too up on benchmarking. Either way you go you could start a thread to allow others to compare their computers too.
> 
> I'm almost sure that there is a 3Dmark11 thread here already.
> 
> edit: there is http://www.computerforum.com/187388-3dmark11-rank-thread.html.



I know lol, I'm top in the 3Dmark11 thread.

I actually think Heaven is a better benchmark to use. It gives a very good indication of how the GPU's will handle heavy tesselation in games. The scores that it gives are also a little more meaningful. 

My main computer is in bits atm so I won't be able to do any benching until the weekend. I will most likely start a heaven thread then.


----------



## wolfeking

sounds good. Ill be sure to run that bench when I build, should be within feburary sometime.


----------



## xxmorpheus

where do i get uninengine heaven? i wanna bench off


----------



## Spesh

xxmorpheus said:


> where do i get uninengine heaven? i wanna bench off



http://unigine.com/products/heaven/

I should be ready for a bench off at the weekend lol.


----------



## xxmorpheus

cmonnnnnnnnn brooooooooooooo


idk tho, your ram and cpu are faster than mine


----------



## Spesh

xxmorpheus said:


> cmonnnnnnnnn brooooooooooooo
> 
> 
> idk tho, your ram and cpu are faster than mine



Tbh, in a benchmark like Heaven, cpu and ram speed are going to be less important. I mean, yes it will make some difference, but it's much more gpu dependant.


----------



## wolfeking

what you will basically be comparing is 4xHD6970 vs [email protected] 

Its a compare I really look forward to seeing.


----------



## Spesh

wolfeking said:


> what you will basically be comparing is 4xHD6970 vs [email protected]
> 
> Its a compare I really look forward to seeing.



Yes I think the result should be very close.


----------



## trewyn15

not sure if this was posted already but i just noticed that the rating only goes to 7.9 so you don't seem to be doing too bad


----------



## xxmorpheus

trewyn15 said:


> not sure if this was posted already but i just noticed that the rating only goes to 7.9 so you don't seem to be doing too bad



lol your a bit late friend




im gonna bench in unengine heaven


----------



## Aastii

I love the fact people are bickering about who has the best, yet for the uses, mine smokes all of yours for the price paid. Can't exactly get better than max settings in every game with 60+FPS, right . Keep your overpriced rigs


----------



## Spesh

Aastii said:


> I love the fact people are bickering about who has the best, yet for the uses, mine smokes all of yours for the price paid. Can't exactly get better than max settings in every game with 60+FPS, right . Keep your overpriced rigs



It's just a bit of fun mate. I'm personally quite interested to see how 6990 CF will do against 580 SLI.


----------



## 87dtna

Aastii said:


> I love the fact people are bickering about who has the best, yet for the uses, mine smokes all of yours for the price paid. Can't exactly get better than max settings in every game with 60+FPS, right . Keep your overpriced rigs



Uhh, OK sure lets see BF3 on ultra at 1080p, metro 2033, or skyrim....if you get over 30 FPS in any of them I'd be surprised.  I don't play those games so I don't care, but I don't claim to get 60+ fps in everygame on max settings either.

I built my current sig rig for $600.


----------



## xxmorpheus

Aastii said:


> I love the fact people are bickering about who has the best, yet for the uses, mine smokes all of yours for the price paid. Can't exactly get better than max settings in every game with 60+FPS, right . Keep your overpriced rigs





BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN and ha.

its all in good fun were not trying to stroke our pc man ego's just tryin to see how his tri sli would stack up against 4 x 6970


----------



## Aastii

87dtna said:


> Uhh, OK sure lets see BF3 on ultra at 1080p, metro 2033, or skyrim....if you get over 30 FPS in any of them I'd be surprised.  I don't play those games so I don't care, but I don't claim to get 60+ fps in everygame on max settings either.
> 
> I built my current sig rig for $600.



I didn't mention anything about 1080p, did I  I will repeat, for the uses, mine smokes all of yours for the price paid. Can't exactly get better than max settings in every game with 60+FPS, right.

It is what happens when you play at 1280x1024, you can play BF3, Metro and Skyrim, all at max settings at 60+fps.

No dissing to the benchmarks either, just went through the full thread and laughed a little at the epeen on show


----------



## xxmorpheus

I just scored 4044 points on uningine. Is that good? Im a noob


----------



## 87dtna

Aastii said:


> I didn't mention anything about 1080p, did I  I will repeat, for the uses, mine smokes all of yours for the price paid. Can't exactly get better than max settings in every game with 60+FPS, right.
> 
> It is what happens when you play at 1280x1024, you can play BF3, Metro and Skyrim, all at max settings at 60+fps.
> 
> No dissing to the benchmarks either, just went through the full thread and laughed a little at the epeen on show



1280x1024 blows, what kind of crap gaming experience is that?  Honestly I'm not super happy with 1080p I'd love a 2560x1440 monitor.


----------



## Aastii

87dtna said:


> 1280x1024 blows, what kind of crap gaming experience is that?  Honestly I'm not super happy with 1080p I'd love a 2560x1440 monitor.



YEA you tell me that I don't have any fun playing games, you sure told me how I feel about using my computer!!


----------



## xxmorpheus

Aastii said:


> YEA you tell me that I don't have any fun playing games, you sure told me how I feel about using my computer!!





huh?


dont take it personal man  he just doesnt like playing on low resolutions

lol this thread is funny, why do people get so upset when enthusiasts are just havin a good ol' enthusiast computer stroking session?


----------



## Aastii

xxmorpheus said:


> huh?
> 
> 
> dont take it personal man  he just doesnt like playing on low resolutions
> 
> lol this thread is funny, why do people get so upset when enthusiasts are just havin a good ol' enthusiast computer stroking session?



I have played on higher res monitors and the difference isn't exactly night and day, not when you only have a (relatively) small monitor, and not when you play a game rather than look at a game for each individual pixel. All of my games still look very pretty, even if they are at a resolution which apparently prevents the game from being enjoyable any more


----------



## 87dtna

Whats the largest monitor you've played on and what res?

I play on a 23'' 1080p....wish I had a 27'' :/

When I first started gaming I used a 1280x1024 17'', then I got a 1600x1200 19'' which was awesome at the time (10 years ago).  Then I stepped up to 1080p widescreen, which was really hard to get used to but when I realized that I could see more and better it became a better gaming experience.  I would never go back to a non 16:9 monitor.

You are not taking my words at the proper meaning.  You can still ''enjoy'' a game on a crappy monitor, thats not the definition of crappy gaming experience which I just explained above.

If you can see more, and clearer, you can play better.


----------



## jonnyp11

Aastii said:


> YEA you tell me that I don't have any fun playing games, you sure told me how I feel about using my computer!!



on my 17" 1280x1024 looks great, and games (the few that get enough fps) are still great fun

as far as getting a 2560x1440, yeah those are amazing, con't blame you for wanting one of those, if only they didn't cost so much. my dad's 27" iMac is that res and it's like the best screen ever.


----------



## Aastii

87dtna said:


> Whats the largest monitor you've played on and what res?
> 
> I play on a 23'' 1080p....wish I had a 27'' :/
> 
> When I first started gaming I used a 1280x1024 17'', then I got a 1600x1200 19'' which was awesome at the time (10 years ago).  Then I stepped up to 1080p widescreen, which was really hard to get used to but when I realized that I could see more and better it became a better gaming experience.  I would never go back to a non 16:9 monitor.
> 
> You are not taking my words at the proper meaning.  You can still ''enjoy'' a game on a crappy monitor, thats not the definition of crappy gaming experience which I just explained above.
> 
> If you can see more, and clearer, you can play better.



On this system, 1080P on my TV, ever, 3x27" @ 7680x1600.

And yes, seeing more clearly would be an advantage, but if you mean to complete a game, no, skill and perseverance are more important, if you mean online, no, skill is more important. 9 times out of 10 I carry my team, I finish top of the board, I come first and this is on a monitor that you claim will make me bad at the game. Having faster reactions, more accurate aim, more precise movements, better judgement of the game will do more. It is all well and good seeing others, but not being able to react to them is like buying a pair of gloves when you have no hands


----------



## xxmorpheus

My resolution is L33tPwn3r x KkThxBai


----------



## Perkomate

i'm still on 19" of 1280x1024 power


----------



## wolfeking

Perkomate said:


> i'm still on 19" of 1280x1024 power


18" of 1366*768 on HD4200, no games though. 
15.4" on 1440*900 on a Quadro NVS135m OCd to its max. plays pretty well, but not really heavy games.


----------



## Spesh

Once you've had 2560x1600 it's simply horrible going back to anything smaller.

@ Aastii, I don't mean any disrespect, but you're obviously not an enthusiast. However, as a moderator on a computer forum, I would expect you to have some degree of tolerance towards those that are.


----------



## Perkomate

1280x1024 is good because it means I can still run everything on the highest setting there is. The only problem is that when I open up a few tabs, I run out of screen space. Same as if I open too many programs, the taskbar fills up.
One day, i'll have enough money to buy a GPU, PSU and a nice, phat monitor.
One of these days.


----------



## Aastii

Spesh said:


> Once you've had 2560x1600 it's simply horrible going back to anything smaller.
> 
> @ Aastii, I don't mean any disrespect, but you're obviously not an enthusiast. However, as a moderator on a computer forum, I would expect you to have some degree of tolerance towards those that are.



I have used high resolutions, it doesn't take away from the experience for me at all going back

I have no problem with anyone that feels the need to splash out on their system, fair play to them, it is their money, if that is how they choose to spend it, good for them. My point was that you can sit their and say you have spent more money on your system than a small car is worth, but it won't do anything mine can't, even with it costing far less


----------



## Spesh

Aastii said:


> My point was that you can sit their and say you have spent more money on your system than a small car is worth, but it won't do anything mine can't, even with it costing far less



Well that's completely wrong, but anyway.

It's like saying people who buy exotic cars are stupid, because a cheap car would also get them from A-B. True, but it's not exactly the same is it? There is always going to be someone in the world with more disposable income than you and therefore, the way they value money will be different to that of your own. 

It's just people living by their own means.

EDIT: Also, nowhere at all had I mentioned money until now.


----------



## 87dtna

> it won't do anything mine can't



lol, really?


----------



## StrangleHold

Spesh said:


> Well that's completely wrong, but anyway.
> 
> It's like saying people who buy exotic cars are stupid, because a cheap car would also get them from A-B. True, but it's not exactly the same is it?


 
I agree with Aastii to a point. You just down graded his statement to fit your view. He has far from what you would call a cheap car. Say I buy a Corvette and someone buys a Ferrari. Sure the Ferrari out performs the Corvette, but for the 250,000 price difference you get ripped off not matter how you try to equal it out. Doesnt matter if you have the money 
to buy it or not. You paid 250,000 more then he did for 40 more MPH and a little better cornering. So the price difference doesnt equal out, even if you have the extra money to buy it. Its nothing but look at me syndrome.


----------



## Spesh

StrangleHold said:


> I agree with Aastii to a point. You just down graded his statement to fit your view. He has far from what you would call a cheap car. Say I buy a Corvette and someone buys a Ferrari. Sure the Ferrari out performs the Corvette, but for the 250,000 price difference you get ripped off not matter how you try to equal it out. Doesnt matter if you have the money
> to buy it or not. You paid 250,000 more then he did for 40 more MPH and a little better cornering. So the price difference doesnt equal out, even if you have the extra money to buy it. Its nothing but look at me syndrome.



You can't compare a Ferrari to a Corvette. It's not just about the way a car performs, it's all to the way driving a Ferrari makes you feel and the way it drives. 

Your argument is based on people buying only things that they need rather than things they desire. If Aasti neither needs nor desires a faster computer, or a bigger monitor then good for him. But, inevitably there will always be hobbyists/enthusiasts that are happy to pay the price premiums for top end equipment, regardless of whether or not they actually need it. I just don't understand what he intended to achieve by posting in this thread the way he did.

He has made some pretty absurd claims aswell.


----------



## jonnyp11

Spesh said:


> He has made some pretty absurd claims aswell.



Not really, maybe the way you took them to mean yes, but how he meant them not so much. For his purposes his computer will do just as good as your computer only at a lower resolution, which he doesn't care too much about, games still look good at 1280x1024, and since your not playing them at it then what does it matter to you?


----------



## 87dtna




----------



## Spesh

Ok, tired of this now.


----------



## 87dtna




----------



## StrangleHold

Spesh said:


> You can't compare a Ferrari to a Corvette. It's not just about the way a car performs, it's all to the way driving a Ferrari makes you feel and the way it drives.
> 
> Your argument is based on people buying only things that they need rather than things they desire. If Aasti neither needs nor desires a faster computer, or a bigger monitor then good for him. But, inevitably there will always be hobbyists/enthusiasts that are happy to pay the price premiums for top end equipment, regardless of whether or not they actually need it. I just don't understand what he intended to achieve by posting in this thread the way he did.
> 
> He has made some pretty absurd claims aswell.


 
You did the same thing to my post as you did to Aastii post. By twisting what people say to fit your view point. Yes you can compare a Corvette to a Ferrari. Plus nobody really needs a Corvette either. Money vs. performance the Ferrari loses every time. Just because you pay the extra large amount for the Ferrari doesnt doesnt mean your getting the same amount of peformance difference. The same applies to computers. Just because you use the words (there will always be hobbyists/enthusiasts that are happy to pay the price premiums), thats true. But it doesnt mean your getting a massive amount of performance difference between the cars (computers) that your paying for.

There is nothing wrong with having a Ferrari or a Enthusiasts computer. But it doesnt mean that the mid to upper mid range computer or Corvette is by any means slow even vs. the Enthusiasts computer or Ferrari. For the large amount of money difference.

As far as why he even posted in this thread. The thread is about why the OP windows score was low, so whats any of this about the OP/Thread question?


----------



## 87dtna




----------



## Aastii

Spesh said:


> Well that's completely wrong, but anyway.
> 
> It's like saying people who buy exotic cars are stupid, because a cheap car would also get them from A-B. True, but it's not exactly the same is it? There is always going to be someone in the world with more disposable income than you and therefore, the way they value money will be different to that of your own.
> 
> It's just people living by their own means.
> 
> EDIT: Also, nowhere at all had I mentioned money until now.



Well yes it is the same. In a game, it is like being on a road with a 30MPH limit. You can keep your sports car, my Fiat Panda costing 200k less will do the same that yours does. So you get to 30 a second quicker, but you are still getting the same thing I do.




87dtna said:


> lol, really?



Yes, really. Yours may do things faster in synthetic benches or in tasks that aren't done daily (extraction and compressions and the such), but for everything I do, mine does it just as well as yours



StrangleHold said:


> I agree with Aastii to a point. You just down graded his statement to fit your view. He has far from what you would call a cheap car. Say I buy a Corvette and someone buys a Ferrari. Sure the Ferrari out performs the Corvette, but for the 250,000 price difference you get ripped off not matter how you try to equal it out. Doesnt matter if you have the money
> to buy it or not. You paid 250,000 more then he did for 40 more MPH and a little better cornering. So the price difference doesnt equal out, even if you have the extra money to buy it. Its nothing but look at me syndrome.



This



Spesh said:


> You can't compare a Ferrari to a Corvette. It's not just about the way a car performs, it's all to the way driving a Ferrari makes you feel and the way it drives.
> 
> Your argument is based on people buying only things that they need rather than things they desire. If Aasti neither needs nor desires a faster computer, or a bigger monitor then good for him. But, inevitably there will always be hobbyists/enthusiasts that are happy to pay the price premiums for top end equipment, regardless of whether or not they actually need it. I just don't understand what he intended to achieve by posting in this thread the way he did.
> 
> He has made some pretty absurd claims aswell.



So with the computer doing everything that a "lesser" system would, at just the same rate, makes you feel better because you can look at the computer and know that it cost more and consumes more power?


Guys, the thread started out asking about the scores. The OP was told the correct information then it turned into a benching test and a look what I have. In future, I won't make throw away comments about how my system compares to yours, I'll leave it to you "enthusiasts"


----------



## 87dtna

Aastii said:


> So with the computer doing everything that a "lesser" system would, at just the same rate, makes you feel better because you can look at the computer and know that it cost more and consumes more power?



Same rate?  What are you smoking?

Consumes more power?  Intel consumes less power and pwns AMD across the board on everything.

You are delusional.  

Looks pretty damn lopsided to me, sometimes taking less than half the time to do a task-

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=83


I'll make the comment I've made many times before, unless you've tried it you can't critisize it.  If you've never owned sandy bridge, you have no a clue what you are missing.  EVERYTHING is faster, down to the milliseconds that actually make a difference like things like opening an internet window and loading to the home page.  With AMD, even with a hex core at 4ghz which I've owned, and even with the same SSD I have now, there's a slight delay.  With intel, it's instant.  Like I said, milliseconds of difference but it's just one example of hundreds.  Maps load faster on intel with games as well.  

And so what if you don't do these things everyday!  If I compress a 300mb file I'd rather it take 1 minute instead of 2.

So, if you don't care about waiting those extra few seconds or minutes to do stuff, good for you.  But they all add up.  But don't for one second think that your mighty 3 core AMD does everything ''at the same rate'' as a sandy bridge quad.  Thats just nonsense and like I said, delusional.


----------



## jonnyp11

i believe his point was for everyday things like web surfing and things like that it will be just as quick, and i don't think there would be much of a difference between your 2 using chrome or whatever, on this its super fast, so with either of those it should be next to instant, and in this case your internet would be the bottleneck and probably cause almost all the difference.


----------



## 87dtna

Re-read my post I explained that.  I use the same browser with both AMD and intel, and with intel it opens faster.  Yes it's only a few milliseconds like I said, but *everything* is snappier with intel.  And OMG for like the last time thats ONE example out of tons.

Just because you AMD fanboys want to feel better about what you have.....sigh.....I've built 2 dozen setups of each and I can tell you Intel PWNS amd in everything....thats an unbiased (to start) conclusion based off real world experiences with many builds of each.

Hell, I SOLD my 2500k rig to build a socket FM1 rig....how much more unbiased could I be?  And you know what, intel pwns FM1 stuff too. The only thing AMD got better with FM1 is the memory controllers and onboard video (which still isn't strong enough to play modern games anyway), other than that they suck.


----------



## claptonman

Being an enthusiast and wanting the fast computer is fine. Great. If I had the money, I would do it to.

But I wouldn't do is go on a forum and say things like, "I will pwn you all!"

Childish.


----------



## 87dtna

I agree, but the same goes to the delusional comment of ''my PC will do everything yours will at the same rate''.


----------



## claptonman

I'm not gonna get into the AMD/Intel argument, but...

I compared my system with my friend's 2500k and a 560ti (So same price, mine has less CPU, his has less GPU power) and my system had better framerates. Yes, right now, the upgradibility is bad, but I am happy. That's all I'm gonna say about that.


----------



## 87dtna

With what game(s)?

A 2500k typically yields 10-50 FPS better in most games (VS am3 quad of the same clockspeed) if the GPU isn't the bottleneck....comparing to a PC with a different GPU is no comparison at all.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=102

And on top of that, load power consumption is 50 watts less than a 965be.


----------



## Aastii

87dtna said:


> Same rate?  What are you smoking?
> 
> Consumes more power?  Intel consumes less power and pwns AMD across the board on everything.
> 
> You are delusional.
> 
> Looks pretty damn lopsided to me, sometimes taking less than half the time to do a task-
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=83
> 
> 
> I'll make the comment I've made many times before, unless you've tried it you can't critisize it.  If you've never owned sandy bridge, you have no a clue what you are missing.  EVERYTHING is faster, down to the milliseconds that actually make a difference like things like opening an internet window and loading to the home page.  With AMD, even with a hex core at 4ghz which I've owned, and even with the same SSD I have now, there's a slight delay.  With intel, it's instant.  Like I said, milliseconds of difference but it's just one example of hundreds.  Maps load faster on intel with games as well.
> 
> And so what if you don't do these things everyday!  If I compress a 300mb file I'd rather it take 1 minute instead of 2.
> 
> So, if you don't care about waiting those extra few seconds or minutes to do stuff, good for you.  But they all add up.  But don't for one second think that your mighty 3 core AMD does everything ''at the same rate'' as a sandy bridge quad.  Thats just nonsense and like I said, delusional.



Because my 720 + 560Ti consumes more power than a 2600k @ 5.1 and 3 GTX 580's? If I had quoted your system, you would have a point, but guess what, I didn't.

I don't own, never have owned a SandyBridge chip, that isn't to say I haven't built systems with them or used them and they are very nice, yes, but no difference in performance. Spending ~£150 for a CPU + Mobo rather than doubling that and getting the same performance, or even a second here and there, isn't worth it at all. If I was on a £150 a second wage, I would take it, but no.

And you want to know how often I ever compress or decompress files? Maybe once or twice a month, tops. That is 1 minute out of 44640 saved for that month. I can see the appeal now.

You are speaking as though you are the only person who has ever graced the planet to use the systems you talk about when no, you aren't. I'm not pulling stuff out of the other end, quoting benches, saying what other people have said, I am talking from experience. For (Let me make this bit clearer for you) *MY USES*, the system I have performs as well as one that costs twice as much.

Sitting here playing CoD4, MW2, MW3, WaW, BF2, BF3, Skyrim, Portal, TF, Fifa, Empire, Rome & Shogun Total War, CoH, L4D, SC2, LoL, HoN, all of them, max settings, full AA, highest res my monitor will run, 60+fps. So you know what, you can quote stuff as much as you like, you saying "Spend twice as much, you will save 2 seconds here and there!!" is what is delusional. So what you say that on paper they are faster, irl, no difference at all, and this is me using systems running 2600k's + 2 580's compared to my humble 720 + 560Ti.


You want to get down to it, fine, feel better because your system will do better than mine when you are looking at numbers, but I would rather use my computer than look at numbers on a synthetic benchmark. What you said about load times, well that too is just dandy, you get to sit there waiting for the map on a game to start whilst I wait for it to load, and still get in before the game actually starts. Let's go back to the car analogy, you can spend an extra 200k on a car that has a top speed of 200MPH, but when will you be able to actually use that on the roads?

If on single player, I don't play enough SP games for it to be an issue and even then you are talking an absolute max of 15-20 secs load time in every game. Bare in mind too that 99% of games have cutscenes during the load sequence, so that still isn't any time lost. If you load in in 10 seconds, but have a minute of cutscenes and I load in in 30, I still have that 30 seconds of cutscene to watch.

Let us sumarise then:

1. No game performance
2. No load performance for games,because you too have to wait
3. No significant performance outside of games (1-2 seconds is not enough given the extra cost)
4. Lower benchmark scores, but who the hell cares unless you are having an epeen measuring contest?

I'm out of this thread now because it is obvious that things aren't quite sinking in that there is a difference between people's uses and that my uses are different to yours and that my system will do every single thing to perfection as well as yours does. Yes, I will continue to upgrade as games and programs get more demanding, but I am not going to spend over the odds to see not a single bit of performance gain


----------



## jonnyp11

Really this thread is just so far off topic and turning in to a huge argument, supprised it hasn't been locked yet


----------



## 87dtna

I guess I have to quote this again



Aastii said:


> So with the computer doing *everything *that a "lesser" system would, at just the same rate, makes you feel better because you can look at the computer and know that it cost more and consumes more power?




When you say *everything*, that kinda implies more than just YOUR uses.  So be as clear as you want in your current post I was simply replying to your previous post with the bogus claim.


----------



## Perkomate

everyone should just buy SSDs and forget about it. Thats what will make a difference.


----------



## Spesh

Aastii, you'll have top forgive me for thinking it's ok to come onto a computer forum and talk about high spec computer parts. Don't know what I was thinking.


----------



## claptonman

Spesh said:


> Aastii, you'll have top forgive me for thinking it's ok to come onto a computer forum and talk about high spec computer parts. Don't know what I was thinking.



But the difference is that everyone is basically insulting his system, saying its worthless.

@87 We tested a lot of games, BF3, different CoD games, Skyrim, borderlands, and a few other ones. And we did it in the way where we had another 3rd person load up the game on the computer and not show us which system was plugged into the monitor. We at least tried to get all variables out of the way. And every time, I preferred my system over his.


----------



## Spesh

claptonman said:


> But the difference is that everyone is basically insulting his system, saying its worthless.
> 
> @87 We tested a lot of games, BF3, different CoD games, Skyrim, borderlands, and a few other ones. And we did it in the way where we had another 3rd person load up the game on the computer and not show us which system was plugged into the monitor. We at least tried to get all variables out of the way. And every time, I preferred my system over his.



I never insulted his system. He was the one that jumped into the thread telling everyone they had wasted their money on performance rigs. The simple fact is, I have a desktop area of 4960x1600, so I need a powerful system to run the resolution adequately.


----------



## mx344

wtf happened to this thread -.-


----------



## Ischinel

mx344 said:


> wtf happened to this thread -.-



Ego and Pride took over


----------



## xxmorpheus

Spesh said:


> I never insulted his system. He was the one that jumped into the thread telling everyone they had wasted their money on performance rigs. The simple fact is, I have a desktop area of 4960x1600, so I need a powerful system to run the resolution adequately.





+1000.

I dont care if anyone feels like i wasted money. Who the hell cares? Its my money lol, if i feel like blowing part of a well earned paycheck on a expensive computer part, so be it. Its like you have to be "PC buying politically correct" around here with your money.


----------



## 87dtna

claptonman said:


> I'm not gonna get into the AMD/Intel argument, but...
> 
> I compared my system with my friend's 2500k and a 560ti (So same price, mine has less CPU, his has less GPU power) and my system had better framerates. Yes, right now, the upgradibility is bad, but I am happy. That's all I'm gonna say about that.



http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/306?vs=330


The 570 beats up the 560 Ti pretty good in raw GPU power.  Like I said, not a good comparison at all.


----------



## claptonman

87dtna said:


> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/306?vs=330
> 
> 
> The 570 beats up the 560 Ti pretty good in raw GPU power.  Like I said, not a good comparison at all.



But that's my point. Going with AMD saved me an extra $100, which I then used to get the 570 instead of the 560 ti. I get better performance for the same price if I would've gone with the i5 and 560 ti.


----------



## 87dtna

Ahh I see.  Point taken.


----------



## Okedokey

Spesh said:


> Once you've had 2560x1600 it's simply horrible going back to anything smaller.
> 
> @ Aastii, I don't mean any disrespect, but you're obviously not an enthusiast. However, as a moderator on a computer forum, I would expect you to have some degree of tolerance towards those that are.



^+1

Gaming is always better on higher resolutions.  17" is just rubbish - go the 90's 

I reckon pcs are a system, you purchase the best system you can for what you need.  Doesn't mean though, that a better system is as good as a shit system simply because the owner of a shit system meets his/her needs.


----------



## Laquer Head

No way guys... my c*** is bigger... grow up..


----------



## FuryRosewood

^ Thats what she said.


----------



## Okedokey

Laquer Head said:


> No way guys... my c*** is bigger... grow up..



Huh?  This is a computer forum mate, where we discuss things.  If it makes you 'uncomfortable' may be unsubscribe.  

Assatti is a mature and big enough guy to defend his own views from my experience.


----------



## Laquer Head

bigfellla said:


> Huh?  This is a computer forum mate, where we discuss things.  If it makes you 'uncomfortable' may be unsubscribe.
> 
> Assatti is a mature and big enough guy to defend his own views from my experience.



You've proven yourself to say dumb things time and time again, therefore I choose not to take your advice~


----------



## Okedokey

All good mate, as long as you're happy   *inferiority complex alert maximum*


----------



## jonnyp11

But do you actually get what he was saying by that? He was saying they were acting like kids pulling their stuff out to show off and trying to reason after defeat, in this of course, Spesh was like the one (not racist but stereotypical) black guy against whities.


----------



## Jiniix

My rig hits 7.9 on all scores. You can see the specs in the signature. According to Microsoft, you can't get better than me.


----------



## spirit

Jiniix said:
			
		

> According to Microsoft, you can't get better than me.


...and this just proves why WEI is so irrelevant. Your system is very good, but definitely not the fastest in the world. I could have a 3960X, that would outperform your 2600K, I could have a 6990 or two 6990s in Quad CrossFire, that would outperform your 6950, I could have 2000MHz 16GB DDR3 RAM, that would outperform your RAM, and I'd get 7.9 too. So even though my system would be faster than your's, we'd still get the same score, see where I'm coming from?


----------



## 87dtna

1600 ram doesn't usually go 7.9 on WEI.  Is it cas 8 or 7?  Cas 9 usually goes 7.8 on sandy bridge.


----------



## spirit

Usually overclocked 2500Ks and 2600Ks @ ~4.5-4.8GHz 'only' get 7.8 as well? I heard it was very hard to get 7.9 on CPU with the WEI. I think one of the only CPUs that can get it is the i7 3960X I believe?


----------



## Perkomate

i think that and the 990x from the last socket.


----------



## spirit

I think the 990X did score 7.9 but I can't remember. Vista's Experience Index was so much easier to get top score on, all you needed was a Q6600, 4GB DDR2 800MHz RAM, a 9800 GT, and a 7200RPM HDD and there you had it, top score. With Windows 7 it's a lot harder...


----------



## G80FTW

WEI is almost the most useless benchmark in the world.  Tells you virtually nothing about how good your computer is.


----------

