Post: >Speccy stats >Geekbench CPU and GPU test >price

>>57215714
>geekbench
>geekbench gpu test
Why not pick a more worthless benchmark while you're at it?

File: hacker-stock-9.jpg (85KB, 638x752px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 638x752px

>>57215714
Oh and I'm using an external USB sound card that I got for $15

That's about $10 too much for chinkshit but I had to get something on the same day

File: 12421521521.jpg (387KB, 1920x1150px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1920x1150px

>beta bitches scared of getting btfo by my superior price/performance
Understandable for low-test, betas

>>57215714
Nice find for the $, but if you aren't on an anemic budget, these scores are a lot more attractive.
>>57216710

File: 1476284386652.jpg (21KB, 360x240px)

21KB, 360x240px

>>57215714
>2x4 core @ 3.16 GHz
>240w TDP
>6818

>>57216710
>1x6 core/12 thread @ 4.4GHz
>160w TDP
>23796

Almost 4x the score and ~100w less power draw.


I know which i'd prefer.

>>57215714
OH SHIT IT'S THIS RETARD AGAIN LMAO

>>57217294
That version of geekbench isn't the same and so shouldn't really be used as a comparison to
>>57216710
and
>>57215714

>>57217161
>1x6 core/12 thread @ 4.4GHz
>160w TDP
>23,796

>>57217161
>Intel Pentium II/III @ 3.50 GHz
>2 processors, 44 cores, 88 threads
>120,000

5x the score

I know which I'd prefer

>>57217407
>no TDP listed

Also naming processors that don't even exist shouldnt count.

>>57217407
>>Intel Pentium II/III @ 3.50 GHz
>>2 processors, 44 cores, 88 threads
>>120,000
Things that don''t exist vs things that do... hmmmm tough one.

>>57217294
Can you still get E5-2670/2680's for $30 on ebay?

>>57217751
No, they go for like triple that these days, $90-120.

>>57216581
Damn, clock kid invented CoD?
When will his brilliance end?

>>57215714

14 gig of Ram of DDR2 Ram and you paid $135.......you got conned.....

>>57215714

If you had 32 or 64 gig of Ram........Then that server would be usable.......

Not maxed out for storage either.....

Windows 7.........PMSL

Wasting your time man.........seriously.

>>57217312
Yea, sure, but I don't care. Geekbench is worthless anyway.
>>57217751
You could never get 2680s for 30 dollars. Not 2670s, either. I also didn't buy them when they were cheap.

>>57218374
>but I don't care
Not really the point.

>>57218457
What is the point?

>>57218504
To let anyone else who comes in the thread and sees the geekbench scores probably wont bother looking at the version number and would easily assume it was a direct comparison.

I dont think you care, nor do I care if you do. I'm simply pointing out the fact it can't be used for a proper comparison so others aren't mislead.

File: isgoo.png (89KB, 829x629px)

89KB, 829x629px

im using very modest OC (4,0Ghz) just because i dont need any more heat or power and prefer longer life span

i dont give a fuck

also i have spent a lot of money on this