Anyone else notice that the LFS unofficial benchmark site has been down for a few days? I (sad, i know) keep track of the site, as I'm approaching a new pc build.
Take a look at my latest benchmark and tell me the ones that come even close to me, let alone beat me, aren't inflated. I dare you...
For those too lazy to look: I overclocked my Core 2 Duo to 3.2GHz, and my system is still only third place, with second place being a 2.85GHz Athlon 64 with an X850 Pro.
I don't distrust. I wish Sem4 and J. Gent were here to talk about there systems some. It appears J.Gent has some EXTREMELY fast RAM. DDR 600, that he claims runs at Unreal Latencies, 2-3-2- for DDR600 is probably the most extreme ddr I've ever heard of. Sem4 has some low latency ram, but also the most potent graphical setup currently available (since quad Sli doesn't really work yet).
Not to discount you Forbin at all, your setup is amazing. However, I have yet to see any benchmarks with the two lower L2-cached C2Ds. I just don't know.
You yourself admit to slow timings on your ram, and your GPU doesn't have the raw clock speed as the two raedons... again, I just can't figure. On paper I believe your sytem is by far the best, but I just have to imagine the other systems are just so tweaked and optimised....
I wish the user names were same as lfsforum names, so we could get some answers...
In most programs, the E6400 (2.13 GHz) is generally accepted as being about as fast as an X2 5000+ (2.6 GHz) or, at the very least, an X2 4600+ (2.4 GHz).
I don't know, maybe LFS is different somehow in that it rather drastically prefers AMD. Exactly how that's possible, I'm not quite sure.
Thanks for the link, good read. Interstingly how well the performance of the lower two c2ds jump with a little overclocking. While it rapidly approaches the performance of the extreme c2d, it doesn't show the performance capabilities of overclocked A64s...
Hmm. Could be.
I wonder if the ATi cards have better backwards compatability to DX8 if thats possible...
I'm running the same timings as that Alien guy, 5-5-5-15, so it's not that. There is a pretty big difference (under HL2: Episode 1) between the X1900 XT 256MB and 7900GT 256MB, but that shouldn't matter in LFS. I'm clearly CPU limited as shown by how linearly my performance increases with clock speed.
I should note that I'm using the EXACT same config file that comes with the LFS benchmark, and my drivers are set to High Quality, with all the performance optimizations OFF (although apparently turning them on and setting it to High Performance does absolutely nothing to my framerate).
I highly suspect that people are editing the config file for better performance.
Hi the ram wasn't running at DDR 600, that was just its rated maximum (Gskill LA). The speed it was running during that benchmark was 518Mhz. I had the graphics quality (driver settings) at minimum and I was running the test with the standard max or min settings.
I haven't ran LFS for quite a while as a mixture of real life and lack of second monitor for the gaming pc. However, I will do what I can to prove that the posted time is genuine. I have little interest in defrauding the system.
What I will say however, is that one of my MSN contacts has nigh on the same system as myself, and his system fails to perform in comparison to myown. Which is a similar story to my old overclocked p4 (3.3ghz) system with one of the graphics cards it featured (ati 9800 pro..demo days). However, the Gf4 TI 4800 was super quick. LFS just seems to be odd sometimes.
LOL! Of course I DO know what I'm using. I'm using ASRock ConRoe865PE mainboard with i865PE chipset supporting DDR1 and AGP with Core 2 Duo CPUs. I just didnt want to spend lots of money for DDR2 memory and PCIe graphics card when my 'old' one is fast enough for me.
It didnt have a U list anyway 
illepall 
