CPUZ Thread

Windows is fucking trash.

>>55951546
Comes to CPU-z thread to complain about other people's OS choices. Okie dokey :^)

File: bench for OP.png (37KB, 804x404px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 804x404px

I'll bite.

>>55951750
Not bad, also bump for potentially good thread

File: i7-3610qm.png (71KB, 806x402px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 806x402px

have this since begging of 2013, don't think i'll need to upgrade for years to come

>>55952109
You know you can go way above it, doesnt?

File: x5470_.png (42KB, 834x414px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 834x414px

CPU from 2008

File: it.jpg (143KB, 844x415px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 844x415px

>>55952133
mah niggah

>>55952168
>buying engineering samples
haha, retard.

>>55952304
>implying you know what an engineering sample is

File: cpu-z bench.png (46KB, 807x403px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 807x403px

Toot toot, chernobyl ain't got shit on me.

File: Capture.png (48KB, 807x401px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 807x401px

still running stock clocks.

>>55952304
Why not make an argument as to why it's retarded?

File: 6600K.jpg (264KB, 804x401px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 804x401px

>>55952304
>>55952323
>>55952381
What's (supposedly) wrong with an ES?

>>55952323
>implying you don't
>>55952381
Intel still owns them
They can be damaged
They can have broken feature implementations
Among other things.

File: cpuz.png (41KB, 804x402px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 804x402px

I can bench at 4.8GHz but that's at a voltage I'm not comfortable with.

File: 14401140755.png (40KB, 813x403px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 813x403px

>>55952168
Hi

File: 2.png (57KB, 844x421px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 844x421px

Do you think I need to upgrade?

>>55952369
>>55952394
Why is there such difference? Is it because the second one is an Engineering Sample?

>>55952466
Could be but probably not.

>>55952404
1 = and I use them.
2-3 = who cares? I know for a fact that Haslel has broken TSX, and so what? What do you expect from trash picked up from a bin? I didn't even know if it would work at all before I installed it on a board, but work it did.
4 = what other things?

File: shit cpu.png (42KB, 812x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 812x400px

My shitty cpu ;-;

>>55952505
>1 = and I use them.
Yep, but you technically don't own it and Intel can recover it if they decided to.
>who cares?
People who aren't idiots?
>4 = what other things?
Well there's the outright blocking of ES units by the BIOS of some boards and the risk of getting a completely counterfeit good.

File: cpu.png (77KB, 811x408px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 811x408px

>>55952460
no you're good for at least a couple decades

File: file.png (117KB, 814x417px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 814x417px

Sandy Bridge masterrace

File: newone.png (55KB, 816x414px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 816x414px

>>55952533
New one, closed photoshop

File: ..png (36KB, 824x404px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 824x404px

Laptop peasant coming through.

>>55952460
>that fucking voltage
How's it even working, my fucking phone needs more.

>>55952535
Intel's not going to spend the money to take back their crappy ES from some guy who has it in his server board, it doesn't make practical sense.

>>55952649

>celery

>>55952650
Maybe, maybe not. The point is you paid for something you don't actually own.

>>55952535
I know I don't own it, now how does that prevent me from using it? Intel could ask it back, but they have better things to do.
This processor served a purpose before the Xeon E5 V3 lineup was introduced on the market, it no longer does. Now it's trash.

Also, how does not caring about this shit make me an idiot? I'm not using this in a mission critical system. If it doesn't work, oh well tough shit, I guess I have to replace it with something that does.
As for those other things, I clearly don't have a problem with any of that given that my motherboard supports ES processors and this isn't a counterfeit good. It's just an obsolete pre-production processor which was probably used for microcode testing.

>>55952756
Like all proprietary software?

File: atom baytrail.png (118KB, 876x505px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 876x505px

>>55952649

>>55952425
>using percentage measurements

File: 3567300.png (18KB, 407x403px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 407x403px

>>55952977
Better?

>>55952770
Ok nigga, you being okay with it being a bad idea doesn't make it not a bad idea.

File: cpuzbench34704g.jpg (99KB, 887x439px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 887x439px

It works better as a 2 core. 4 core is limited to x38.

>>55953040
What's your point, though? I picked up a shitty pre-production ES processor from the bin and I use it. It works as I need it to. It has no defects that I've found other than the TSX bug that all other early Haswells have.
Am I telling you that you should go to that.. what's that ebay-like site where they scam people. I can't remember the name, but they sold/sell ES processors with a fake sSpec marking and also fake plastic processors. Am I telling you that you should go there and buy some? I'm not.
If you think using ES processors is a bad idea, don't use them. If you don't have anywhere to get them from without getting scammed, don't get them. I'm not an advocate of being an idiot and getting scammed. I've never gotten scammed in my life and I intend to keep it that way.

Now, if your point is that I shouldn't use an ES processor despite having it you're out of your mind bonkers. If anything, the fact that it's an ES makes it 10 times cooler for me because of how rare they are.

>>55951546
Totally agree.. but again as >>55951612 said.. STFU.

>>55953225
>What's your point, though
That it's a bad idea and shouldn't be done, for all the reasons I stated. You being ok with the bad idea's flaws does not make it a good idea.

>>55953275
Where have I claimed that this is a good idea? In fact, I don't even care if it's a good or a bad idea. You chose to attack me personally over my choices. I just collect and use hardware that is interesting to me.

I care about the technology not whether Joe the consumer can make use of it in his facebook gaming machine.

File: meine.jpg (85KB, 809x399px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 809x399px

Should I consider upgrading?

>>55953659
Why?

>>55952233
>>55953207

These are the only two decent ones posted so far

Good single core performance and very good multicore performance.

>>55953673
Dwarf Fortress runs kinda slow at 70 dorfs.

Also need new graphics card because only 1GB GDDR5.

I think I'm due for an upgrade if I want to play any games that come out later this year.

>>55953721
I think most modern games utilize more than 1 core and the more graphically intensive ones will use DX12 and Vulkan API which means processor is not likely to bottleneck.

I dunno about dwarf fortress tho.

File: lel as.jpg (145KB, 834x413px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 834x413px

It's starting to become pretty old

File: cpuz.png (57KB, 799x400px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 799x400px

lmao almost as good as a 6700K

>>55953770
Guess I should at least switch to nvidia.
Currently have Radeon 6800.
I'm running every game on low and can't even run GTAV in full HD.

I'm still contemplating whether I should replace both CPU and GPU or just GPU.

>>55953770

Toady can't code for shit so dorf fortress will kill any pc if the game goes on long enough.

>>55953853
That would probably help you a lot. GTAV is really intensive when it comes to processor usage.
Start by replacing GPU first. Not only is that the easiest thing to do, but you'll need a new one no matter what.

That's what I did. I first replaced my GPU when my CPU was an i5 750 and figured that my CPU performance single threaded was mostly adequate but I needed moar cores and RAM.
Then I got myself a new processor, new RAM, new HDDs and new board and everything was perfect.

Still can't do The Witcher 3 maxed out because my card is only a GTX 980, but oh well.

>>55953876
"long enough" meaning 2 in-game years.

>>55951540
I see you have one of the medium range zbook 15's. The high end ones are pure beasts. Expensive tho.

>>55953933
Yeah I should probably add some more RAM as well. On 4GB right now.

>>55954063
I was on 8GB and it wasn't enough for me. My computer is pretty multi purpose. GTAV in particular runs really badly if you don't have a lot of RAM.

>>55953808
overclock it for immediate gains. something weird going on why is single core and multicore scores the same...

>>55954138
Also I care about FPS a lot more than how game looks.

I have no problem running everything on minimum if I can, in exchange run it in full HD on 60 FPS.
I just don't want to upgrade half-assedly.

>I was on 8GB and it wasn't enough for me.
This worries me a bit.

>>55954161
>why is single core and multicore scores the same...
I have no idea

>>55954190
Why? RAM is cheap. I got 32gigs for like 100 dollars basically.

File: cpuz.png (240KB, 1206x602px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1206x602px

>>55951750
Heres mine at stock I should overclock some time

>>55954257
Damn, I've been out of the hardware loop since 2010.

>>55954281
Granted that's a discounted price, but RAM is really cheap. 32GB is affordable and 16GB is pretty much what you'd get for the price of 4GB in 2009.

File: 1468707792151.png (51KB, 1066x718px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1066x718px

Best gaymen CPU. Broken one motherboard with my OC endeavors to 5.2GHz.

File: cpuz.jpg (132KB, 828x419px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 828x419px

>Not using black and orange-z

File: BILD.png (54KB, 805x402px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 805x402px

>>55954517
The window borders are pretty ugly tho.

File: Untitled.png (204KB, 1029x1080px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1029x1080px

>>55954517
Not using freetard OS incapable of running GPUZ.
Not using hardinfo which doesn't even have dedicated GPU card.
Not starting it with with optirun to even recognize OPTIMUS NVIDIA shill card.

>>55954222
your cpu evolved into a pentium 4 LMAO

>>55954583

>Nvidia optimus

Linus is going to kill you in your sleep.

File: Cappu-z.jpg (90KB, 832x416px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 832x416px

intel btfo

File: Capture.png (40KB, 840x408px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 840x408px

This is from my laptop.

File: 8320.png (56KB, 806x402px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 806x402px

>AMD
It works fine.

>>55954984

5ghz or bust fool.

>>55955024
I'm on air. If I was going liquid, I would have got an 8350/70.

File: silver arrow.jpg (19KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x300px

>>55955036

Air cooling 5ghz is doable.

>>55955072
I like wearing open back headphones.

File: [email protected] I think.png (70KB, 603x602px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 603x602px

Hyper Evo 212 with single fan

>>55951546
Okay then. What do you use? Linux? I can't do shit on that. OS X? Apple sucks.

>>55955084

Thats why sound dampened cases exist. My 8320e won't go beyond 4.7ghz no matter what sort of voltage I put through it, but equally i'm running the motherboard waaaaaaaaay out of spec.

>>55955101
The 8320e was specifically binned for low power consumption, so low leakage, and thus bad OC potential.

>>55955126

While somewhat true the fx line process is so mature at this point any chip from sometime 2014 (not sure on the exact date) is good for 4.7ghz+. Hell the 8370e is technically the pinnacle of the fx line for ability to overclock without incinerating a motherboard.

The 9590 scares me though.

>>55955093
yours is good too
>>55953707

File: specky.png (54KB, 802x399px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 802x399px

This motherboard is old and on it's last legs, gets hot and is under performing these days.

>>55954244
Bus speed: 220mhz
ayy lmao
but seriously how is that even stable

>>55955372
>Bus speed: 220mhz
>but seriously how is that even stable
i'm not him, but why wouldn't it be? i ran like that a system with a core2 for more than a year, always rock solid.

File: 2600k.jpg (316KB, 966x507px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 966x507px

Thinking of upgrading to 6850k

>>55955649
any reason you think you need the 6850k over the 6800k or 5820k?

>>55955831
higher stock clocks, but I'll be OCing so I could probably go 6800k anyway

>>55955372
I lucked out with the MBO.
I can push it to 227 for 24/7 but the DPC latency gets even more fucky resulting in audio crackles and pops

>>55955552
Most X58 MBOs have a hard time getting over 190-200. Very few can hit 210 stable 24/7.

>>55955860
If you aren't running several GPUs there is no reason to get the 6850k, it's literally just wasted money, the 6800k and 6850k overclock to identical levels. The only difference is the 6800k has 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes and the 6850k has 40. But unless you're running 3+ GPUs it wont matter. Save the money and buy a better GPU or monitor or whatever.

File: 2.png (37KB, 821x410px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 821x410px

>>55951540

>>55954964
laptop processors went straight to shit, ivy bridge were last good one's for people that don't care about battery life

>>55955906
It does make a difference if you're running multiple devices in the PCIe lanes, such as an NVMe drive, 10gb NIC, etc.
It's not just for GPU's

>>55956054
Yes but GPU's are basically the only things that will take up more than a few lanes. PCIe SSDs use 4 lanes, 10GBe Dual NICs only use x8 PCIe 2.0 (x4 PCIe 3.0).

So NVMe SSD and a 10gb NIC is 8 PCIe 3.0 lanes, that still leaves 20 PCIe lanes for GPUs, which is a single GPU at x16 or dual GPUs at x8/x8. and you'd still have another 4 lanes left for another NVMe SSD or a RAID card or whatever else.

Not to mention the X99 Chipset itself supplies another 8 PCIe 2.0 lanes.

Unless you're running a crazy multi-GPU or have a HUGE number of disks, you simply shouldnt get the 6850k. An argument can be made for the 6900k and 6950x if you need more cores, but the 6850k is just a bad buy.

>>55956113
Nah there are already nvme drives that uses x16, which with a 28 lane gpu you'll be forced to step the gpu down to x8.

It's all about future proofing, the same reason why people pick x99 over z170.

>>55956044
Can confirm, have an 8470p, and the standard battery amazingly lasts up to 6 hours on low load

File: Screenshot (3).png (78KB, 939x421px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 939x421px

Just got this bitch, use to run an FX-6300. Nothing really changed, but this WD Velociraptor is the shit. Makes me wanna buy a SSD. I boot in less than 10 seconds with this 10,000 rpm piece of shit, so I can't imagine the improvement an SSD would make beings it's faster.
Wish I had the i5 4670k instead of the non K variant though.

>>55956044
What? It's a 15W TDP processor, that's great performance.

>>55956248
>there are already nvme drives that uses x16
The only ones currently out that use more than x4 are the Intel drives that have x8, the x16 drives seagate talked about a few months ago aren't on the market.


And the 3 drives intel have out right now that use x8 start at $3,500 up to $9000

At that point you aren't concerned about 6800k vs 6850k because you're probably going to be running a Xeon with 40 PCIe lanes anyway.

File: desktop and facebook machine speccys.png (58KB, 1319x525px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1319x525px

>>55956893
my y580 that my retarded cousin snapped in half last week has a 3840qm

>>55956935
Ok, so?

>>55956831
preach brother, just upgrade to a RAID array of 15k sas disks, it's all you need if you're not worried about power consumption

>>55956954
meant for>>55956044
move along shitbird

File: cpu-z.jpg (131KB, 808x403px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 808x403px

This is enough power for now, but I would like to update so I can get an m.2 drive

File: cpuid.png (55KB, 790x367px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 790x367px

idk

>>55957471

Clock that shit higher - 4.5ghz is the minimum if you are on a 990fx board.

File: 6600k.png (128KB, 971x516px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 971x516px

Pic is a bit old, I think muh voltage is 1.34 now at the same clocks

File: CPU-Z 8-7-2016.png (150KB, 1010x502px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1010x502px

My laptop

>>55955097
Why do you think Apple sucks? I use a Hackintosh btw

File: cpuzspecs.png (54KB, 821x402px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 821x402px

she still does alright

hope DX12/vulkan can squeeze a few more years

>>55953969
Yeah I love it but it's a bit bulky, it has the Quadro dedicated graphics chip too. It was required for my program in college so I was able to include it in the tuition price, and that definitely helped because I definitely wouldn't have bought something in that price range if I had any say haha

File: wasda.png (71KB, 856x432px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 856x432px

hmm

File: Untitled.png (29KB, 413x409px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 413x409px

two year old desktop

File: cpuzbench2500.png (151KB, 588x741px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 588x741px

4.4ghz OC on my 2500k for 24/7. Can do 4.6 still too.

File: Untitled.png (92KB, 827x408px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 827x408px

>>55952109
>Upgrade goy, it's totally worth it!
How does intel get away with this?

File: 1428340143068.jpg (10KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 184x184px

>>55958323
>>55958691

>tfw 3570k master race

>>55958447
That has almost the same single core performance as my Haswell Xeon. I was targeting precisely the single core performance of that processor when I chose it, so it looks like I nailed it.

>>55951540
>dam brits have 3 dollar zbooks

File: Capture.png (50KB, 808x403px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 808x403px

>>55958546

File: 123.png (2MB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x900px

>>55958814
>tfw even my 4 years old mobile i7 is faster than your shitty AMD desktop CPU
kys

File: 123.png (125KB, 839x419px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 839x419px

>>55958868
also fixed

File: 1462024785644.jpg (154KB, 1040x970px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1040x970px

>>55958691
>>55958890
>mobile CPU still faster

>>55953707
>5820k
>decent

it gets embarrassed by the 4790k in single and quad; 99% of normal to even heavy rendering loads (especially gpu loaded ones).

also
>120tdp
x99 is shit.

>>55958932
28 lanes vs 16 lanes
no gpu vs iGPU

I would expect the 5820K to perform better at the same frequency because of the larger cache.

>>55958971
What do you even do with those PCI-E lanes? I have 40 but I'm only using 16 of them.

>>55959014
Multi GPU or just more PCIe devices, such as NVMe SSD's, networking, and RAID cards.

File: i7-4790K.png (54KB, 810x406px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 810x406px

My 4790K holds up well against the 6700K.

>>55959032
Yeah, the 6700K is more about getting DDR4 and more expandability than speed.
Also, the smart turbo boost is pretty cool, but that's more of a power saving thing.

>>55959029
Doesn't seem that appealing to me. I like the X99 platform because of the CPUs that are available myself. With 1150 or 1151 you only get meh 4 core processors no matter how much money you pay.

http://valid.x86.fr/a/kbf0be

Look, an LG G5.

File: cpuz.jpg (3MB, 10000x10000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 10000x10000px

ITT: people making themselves feel good by comparing their old overclocked processors to new efficient stock clocked processors

File: cpu.png (61KB, 821x413px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 821x413px

hmmmm...

File: CPU-Z.png (92KB, 835x414px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 835x414px

Recently upgraded from an Intel Core 2 Duo E7600

>>55959284
My processor isn't overclocked. It is old and I do feel good though.

>>55959307
>second core doesn't help at all
I'd kill myself if I were you

>>55955900
I don't know if mine is truly stable 24/7 but it can handle 220 during multiple hour runs of IBT and Prime, tops out at 232 but the QPI can't handle running at 4.2Ghz under load

>>55959467
I know right, should I be worried?

>>55959695
I think it's time to install Linux on that thing.

File: Capture.png (59KB, 803x402px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 803x402px

6600K. Temps are ok so I could probably push it a little higher than 4.4 Mhz but I'm too scurred to bump the vcore past 1.3 :(

File: killme.png (239KB, 1237x812px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1237x812px

have been using the same shit for years.

File: cpuzdesktop.jpg (136KB, 807x403px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 807x403px

>>55960219
I mostly game on this desktop. Games that only utilize one core.

If it blows up, I don't really care. Was going to get an i7 6600 but I didn't really see the need.

>>55960283
You're probably fine, I'm just paranoid

>>55960223
kys yourself desu

>>55960558
>kill yourself yourself desu
You're a fucktard, you know hat?

File: Cpu-Z.png (223KB, 1153x740px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1153x740px

running a very modest 4ghz overclock on this. using a Arctic Freezer 120mm AIO cooler, worth it to go custom cooling even though i wont see any real world difference in performance?. Funny thing is Microsoft Edge still manages to lag this computer when nothing else can.

File: bench.png (85KB, 809x406px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 809x406px

a weapon to surpass skymeme

>>55960927
Xeon 1231v3 btw.

>>55960223
>65nm
>gt 230
>ddr2 ram
>dual core xeon
J U S T
U
S
T

File: bench.png (34KB, 802x375px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 802x375px

>>55960908
>higher clock
>lower multithread result
why?

>>55960908
>>55960981
nevermind, I looked at reference value.

File: Untitled.png (24KB, 403x402px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 403x402px

>>55960927

File: cpuz.png (54KB, 840x391px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 840x391px

>>55951540
so many toasters in this thread

>>55961023
>that clock speed with that vcore
why

>>55961042
4,6 Ghz OC

>>55961049
4.6GHz, but turned out to be not stable and then I couldn't be arsed to adjust the vcore properly.

>>55953768
Ebin

>>55951546
>being mad because you can't post in this thread
kys

File: 2016-06-27 06_32_59-CPU-Z.png (13KB, 402x397px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 402x397px

>>55958932
>embarrassed by the 4790k in single and quad
Uhh proof?

My 5820k is at 4.4GHz and basically matches the 6700k in single core performance, if I wanted to I could run it at 4.7GHz at beat the 6700k single core performance and destroy it in multicore.

Sure you will get close with a 4790k, but you have half the cache, and TIM between the IHS instead of a soldered IHS on the 5820k not to mention being a quad core vs a hex core. It takes a lot more cooling power and quality VRMs to OC a 5820k compared to the 4790k.

Just stay mad you're poor I guess.

>>55960908
keep telling yourself that

>>55960223
you can snag a few e5450s for less than $30, and some new FB-DIMMS for less

>>55961019
Excellent choice

>>55963488
I dont feel too bad about my 5820k now, you could probably push that 6800k a bit higher, but it's not a huge upgrade at all. >>55961895