CPU-Z thread

File: 6400.png (45KB, 937x434px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 937x434px

>>57410983
i5-6400 @ 4.3Ghz

File: CPU-Z_VALIDATOR_-_Google_Chrome_2016-11-06_05-12-43.png (45KB, 1011x624px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1011x624px

>>57410983

File: cpuz.png (78KB, 814x403px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 814x403px

t. doesn't game master race

File: cpu-z.png (15KB, 403x402px)

15KB, 403x402px

>>57410983
Well, why not

File: Untitled.png (38KB, 415x410px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 415x410px

>>57410983
i7-3630qm in ThinkPad T430

File: 161106-13.27.26.png (183KB, 814x715px)

183KB, 814x715px

A bit long in tooth, but still pretty up there.

>>57411268
>>57411392
wait how did my 2600K bench higher than yours, even though you've got an extra 240MHz on me

>>57411421
The MHz isn't everything, kiddo. Hence why a 1.5GHz PentiumM will outperform a 2.4GHz Pentium 4.

>>57411437
when it's the same fucking CPU it does.

>>57411421
background processes.

Unless you've booted into safemode without networking, you're likely running more than you strictly have to be running in order to complete the benchmark as it is.

>>57411421
>>57411475
yeah i had a bunch of other shit open

File: ddddddd.png (13KB, 399x394px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 399x394px

>>57410983
In the grand scheme of things my laptop is midrange

File: 6700hqbench.jpg (137KB, 806x402px)

137KB, 806x402px

Pretty decent for a laptop

File: 2016-10-02 08_58_01-CPU-Z.png (12KB, 402x398px)

12KB, 402x398px

>>57411223
I'm sure someone will come in and dethrone me later, but feels good up here.

>>57411223
whats your ram? I have this issue every time I benchmark it, other people have high scores at a lower clock speed (I have good cooling so its not throttling)

did you overclock cache?

(I'm at 4.5hz btw)

>>57411803
3200MHz DDR4 16-18-18-38

Cache isn't OC'd.

I have most all background processes disabled because otherwise I'd have ~10-15% CPU usage from my constant continuous backup I have running that encrypts and uploads my files offsite as I work.

File: Screenshot_2016-04-28-13-15-54.png (499KB, 1600x2560px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 1600x2560px

Fight me

>>57410983
>AMD

JUST

File: cpuz.png (27KB, 402x403px)

27KB, 402x403px

I'll overclock it eventually

>>57411827
hmm I guess the main difference is I didn't bother turning off programs and have shitting 2400mhz ram that usually runs at 2133mhz because its xmp profile is fucked.

>>57411927
XMP profile is fucked on mine unless I manually adjust the CPU S/A voltage.

>>57411926
And the benchmark score?

File: CPU-Z.png (40KB, 836x414px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 836x414px

>>57410983

File: bench.png (36KB, 783x406px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 783x406px

>>57411942

>>57412051
>doesn't beat a 5820k with half as many cores.
>>57411728

wow that's actually a bit disappointing.

File: relative.png (16KB, 401x402px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 401x402px

>>57412051
And relative to a 5960X. It's the same architecture just with a 50% lower clockspeed and 50% more cores. I don't know why my score changes every time

File: CinebenchR15.png (14KB, 497x231px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 497x231px

>>57412051
Here is my cinebench
>>57411728

File: I8QlqUVh.jpg (114KB, 1252x1252px)

114KB, 1252x1252px

>>57411077
>tfw can't bclk haswell

File: 1423061685858.jpg (37KB, 400x396px)

37KB, 400x396px

>>57412111
>kirin

File: cpuz.png (27KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 400x400px

>>57412116
BROTHER

Sadly mine wont go past 400BLCK because there are no PCI locks on this thing.

File: 1445747202294.jpg (33KB, 310x310px)

33KB, 310x310px

>>57412051

File: 4790k.png (38KB, 805x402px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 805x402px

Hi

>>57412365
If I understand the meaning of that face, it's an engineering sample E5-2658v3, and ES CPUs don't say their model numbers

File: cpuz.png (44KB, 818x412px)

44KB, 818x412px

Top of the line.

>>57412100
40% weaker single thread

10% stronger multi thread

>>57412604
I'm amused by the piss poor performance. It's supposed to be 12 core 24 thread monster, but it's beaten in single core AND multicore by a 5820k which cost ~$350 new in box with a warranty.
No ES needed.

About the only advantage it has is ECC.

>>57412691
Same as >>57412030
Core2Duo performance. LEL the "i7" part sure fooled people.

>>57412675
What mobo?

>>57412705
amazing, desktop processor beats an mobile cpu

you really think i bought my thinkpad because "i7 so it must be super powerful and best"?

>>57412708

M5A99X evo r2.0.

Hint: i'm running it waaaaay out of spec. I've actually strapped the fan from the stock cooler to the back of the motherboard to provide additional cooling to the vrms/socket.

>>57412705
Well considering it's a 35w laptop CPU vs an originally 65w desktop CPU which has been overclocked so it's likely using ~90-120w.

looks pretty shit for the C2D considering it's only ~3 years older.

>>57412721
First of all, there's a 4 year difference between those two CPU.

Second of all, you'd be lying to yourself and to /g/ if you didn't glance at the i7 and had some higher preconceived notion about performance than i5 or i3 or generic pentium.

>>57412747
Man I am worried if I ever should OC my CPU, I am using a simple msi 970 gaming mobo.
Same CPU as you btw.

>>57412750
Q3 '07 to Q1 '11 isn't 4 years. It's 3 and a half.

You really seem to be missing DESKTOP vs LAPTOP.

They are totally different classes of products.

You can do the same comparison today with a desktop i5 and a laptop i7 if you want.

>>57412702
This was $180. It was beaten by less than 3% in multi core for roughly half the price, stay mad

>>57412750
nigger, if this thinkpad would be a i5 model i wouldnt care, i would have bought it anyway. this was simply the best deal of the thinkpads there were on sale at the moment when i got it few years ago, cpu wasnt really a deciding factor since an i5 model would do everything i do on this just as fine. why do you seem to think that the reason i got this is the "i7" label on the processor?

File: anti-housefire fan resized.jpg (485KB, 997x748px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 997x748px

>>57412770

That board is good for 4.5ghzish with an E processor. Its when you start going above that do you really need to start slamming the voltage up. I guesstimate - assuming you can cool the chip and have decent airflow in your case - you might be able to do 4.5ghz on 1.3v or so.

As long as you keep testing and increase the multiplier and voltage slowly you won't damage anything. Its idiots that decide 5ghz or bust and slam 1.5v through their chip from the get-go that nuke everything. I know i'm running my motherboard out of spec and as such am prepared to see it all explode.

>>57412788
Kek, without a warranty and used, and inconsistent pricing based on availability from chinkland. They currently go for ~$200.

Not to mention, you never actually own an ES, since you never bought it legally and never can.


Where I got my 5820k for $310 including a $20 overclocking warranty which lets me OC as much as I want and get a FREE replacement if I break it from OCing.

>>57412788
>less than 3% in multi core
Yeah but double the single core.

Which as you probably know, for 98% of all users is going to be their primary concern.

Most people don't use anything that will actively use 12 cores, however everyone does things that will use single core performance, so having 2x the single core performance would make it pretty obvious just from using the CPUs side by side which felt quickest, it would be the 5820k by a mile.

>>57411911
>Ver 1.74.0.x64
>fight me

Update first, your version is months old and benchmarks have changed.

>>57412825
>as such am prepared to see it all explode.
Well I respect you for your bravery I suppose.

Hopefully zen will save us

>>57414835

If what bits and chips claim is true zen is going to be very interesting indeed. Having a superior SMT implementation than what Intel has would be a massive, massive win (though I doubt it will come anywhere close to IBM's version though).

https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/768039156580769792

File: AMDZEN_SAVEME.png (38KB, 814x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 814x400px

ZEN WHEN? WILL AMD SAVE MY COMPUTER?

>>57411911
EVEN THIS PIECE OF SHIT, IT'S BETTER THAN MY CPU

>tfw laptops are faster than my shit now

>>57412702
5820k supports ECC if your board does.

>>57412788
180 for a potentially broken processor that you don't own lmaooo

File: sheeeeit.png (67KB, 834x413px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 834x413px

>>57415094
I want to get off the wait train. Zen is the last stop.

>>57411322
>Doesn't game
>Still uses Windows
What's your excuse?

>>57415354
I don't know Jack Shit about programming, grubs, init-dev-root, or whatever shit is needed for linux. Plus I use several Windows-only softwares, and I don't want to use an emulator.

File: 5.png (39KB, 417x413px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 417x413px

6700k.

Protip: graphics cards are overrated

>>57415164

>4ghz
>1.464v

Christ almighty up the clocks or lower the voltage man.

>>57415164
>>57415676
Just noticed that. 1.46v @ 4Ghz is really high. If you mess around you could probably push that down close to 1.4v or maybe even lower. Lower voltage = lower heat.

>>57415662
I think this is the highest single core in the thread.

>>57416261
Seems like it. It's overclocked to 4.6Ghz btw.

>>57416261
I'm gonna do a quick test to see if my 6400 can reach close to that number.

>>57415662
My 5820k can reach ~2200 @ 4.7GHz but that's basically it's limit.

But at the time I bought the 5820k was $30 cheaper than the 6700K for me so meh.

File: cpubench.png (46KB, 806x402px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 806x402px

>>57411223
Contributing to the sample.

Only reasons for the lower score I can think of are slower RAM and cheaper mobo.

>>57416467
>1.35v
>4.3GHz

1.35v can get me 4.5Gzhz+ with 4.3GHz I don't even need 1.3v

Also I assume you're doing other things because that single core score should be at least ~1800+ the score your showing would be if it were clocked around 3GHz.

File: 46.png (47KB, 940x434px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 940x434px

>>57415662
>>57416261
>>57416365
Check 'em

Haven't tested the stability yet, just upped my voltage little by little till I was able to boot/do this test.

I'll revert back to 4.4 for my comfort zone, soon after.

>>57416540
Think I just didn't get the best chip or the mobo can't hack it. Oh well, got it on sale.

File: Clipboard01.jpg (166KB, 814x376px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 814x376px

Good old C2D.

8 year old Thinkpad W500, still good for everything I need from a computer.

File: CPU.png (63KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 800x400px

>>57410983
OK

>>57415094
I'm in the same boat. Just waiting for ZEN.

File: nice improvement intel.png (159KB, 1013x513px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1013x513px

>>57411628
Nice CPU improvements, goy

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

57KB, 799x400px

>>57411077
get on my level bitch niga

File: re.png (75KB, 816x406px)

75KB, 816x406px

>>57410983
Cheapest quad core mobile ivy bridge CPU shits all over the most recognizable desktop SB CPU.
That's some top quality kek right here.

>>57411628
get rekt. Even IB CPU with lower TDP is better. Kek. >>57417965

File: Untitled.png (40KB, 814x377px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 814x377px

It iz what it iz mane.

File: Captur.png (57KB, 809x406px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 809x406px

how did she do?

File: cpuz.png (165KB, 1006x507px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1006x507px

6700k @1.3v have pushed it to 4.8ghz @1.38v and its stable just higher temps.

>>57418125
Pretty dank.

File: ed589f0e535ea878dc49e4714be54550.png (57KB, 809x402px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 809x402px

>>57410983
i7 3770k still hanging with the best of them

File: skylaketemps.png (15KB, 332x375px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 332x375px

>>57418140
Dem temps.

File: Untitled.jpg (47KB, 407x400px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 407x400px

>>57410983
3770k

File: cpu.png (55KB, 834x417px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 834x417px

still going strong

>>57412750
>an i7 performs better than an i5
Are you saying this is false?
That he would have been better off with an i5 2420m instead?

>>57418212
Wow 4.5GHz at 1.16V. My 3570k needs 1.3V for that.

>>57418623
DAT voltage.

>>57418212
Dem voltage. What's your cooling system?

>>57418623
I don't feel bad about my 3570k anymore.

>>57419602
you think thats a bad voltage?
running this since release

>>57419792
It's horrible, dude. Intel says never exceed 1.4V.

File: 2016-11-07 01.20.25.jpg (241KB, 1090x1080px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1090x1080px

>>57413564
Big difference there senpai.

FYI they changed the benchmark in 1.74, the version I had in the previous screenshot but I'm sure you knew that.

File: x5650.png (376KB, 1354x619px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1354x619px

Xeon X5650. I am comfortable.

>>57415756
I don't go above 40c on load. And that's generous. NH-D15 is a monster, and that's even with the silent adapters. I fiddled around with voltages and clock speed and these values are the most stable, so I'm not gonna touch anything.

File: Screenshot (321).png (232KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1280x800px

sheeeet

File: seepeeyouzee.jpg (90KB, 815x402px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 815x402px

Not bad.

File: Screenshot_20161107-000506.png (289KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1440x2560px

>>57410983

>>57421962
Let me guess, some dual socket Opteron monstrosity you're using for a desktop.

File: Cinebench5058.png (88KB, 1231x752px)

88KB, 1231x752px

>>57422014
>the current year
>opteron
nope

>>57422029
Which Xeon is it? What do you use it for?

>>57422037
looks like dual socket E5-2699 v4 ES's

>>57422029
Wow I didn't expect a 2699v4 to have such garbage single thread performance.

Lol @ your ES though.

File: Magnum Build 06.jpg (104KB, 967x563px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 967x563px

>>57422037
>Which Xeon is it?
pic attached
>What do you use it for?
shitposting

>looks like dual socket E5-2699 v4 ES's
winrar

>>57422057
It's likely not turboing for whatever reason, it should be getting ~1500-1700 single core from it's max single core turbo frequency.

>>57422059
What'd you drop on those turds?
>>57422071
>It's likely not turboing for whatever reason
I'll give you one guess as to why.

File: Up 18 Days.png (53KB, 1005x679px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1005x679px

>>57422057
>Lol @ your ES though.
lol don't care

>>57422071
>It's likely not turboing for whatever reason, it should be getting ~1500-1700 single core from it's max single core turbo frequency.
its only 2.6GHz turbo

>>57422084
>What'd you drop on those turds?
$1600ish

>>57422084
>>It's likely not turboing for whatever reason
>I'll give you one guess as to why.
They turbo.

kek all you want. they are perfectly stable.

File: cpuz.jpg (145KB, 825x414px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 825x414px

Works fine for what I need.

>>57422112
>its only 2.6GHz turbo
wow that kinda blows considering non-ES's turbo up to 3.6GHz

>>57422112
>$1600ish
LOL.

This fucking retard dropped 1600 dollars on shit he doesn't own.
>They turbo.
You say that like it would be surprising if they didn't.

File: 1465131323154.jpg (50KB, 403x402px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 403x402px

>tfw bloomfield

File: AIDA Stability 35hr.png (430KB, 1920x1160px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1920x1160px

>>57422129
>wow that kinda blows considering non-ES's turbo up to 3.6GHz
1/6 the price of a non-ES. 95% the performance I'm OK with that.

>>57422130
>This fucking retard dropped 1600 dollars on shit he doesn't own.
Oh I own them.

The great part is that I didn't give $1700 to Intel for a 6950x, as I originally planned. Now some chink has that money. Eat shit Intel.

>>57422170
>The great part is that I didn't give $1700 to Intel for a 6950x, as I originally planned.
at least then you'd have had single core performance that is at least somewhat respectable (and usable).

Do you even use those cores?

>>57422170
>Oh I own them.
Ask your lawyer if you own them.

File: Passmark Complete Rating.png (29KB, 349x322px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 349x322px

>>57422179
>at least then you'd have had single core performance that is at least somewhat respectable (and usable).
dude what? System is totally usable. And respectable as fuck. What are you a fucking snob?

>Do you even use those cores?
I have 4000+ threads running. Yep.

>>57422183
>Ask your lawyer if you own them.
Why? Is Intel going to kick down my door and confiscate my computer? You watch too much TV. Isn't it past your bedtime?

File: laptop_a10_cpu_benchmark.png (129KB, 813x401px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 813x401px

A10-4600M laptop APU locked to 2GHz, no turbo enabled.

>>57422216
>dude what? System is totally usable. And respectable as fuck. What are you a fucking snob?
It's either not a daily use computer for general use, or you just don't ever do anything that needs single core performance.

It has worse single core performance than laptops.

>>57422216
>Why? Is Intel going to kick down my door and confiscate my computer? You watch too much TV. Isn't it past your bedtime?
Does it matter? They could if they wanted to. You paid 1600 dollars to allow Intel to confiscate what you bought. Calling me a kid doesn't change that fact.

>>57422216
>>57422231
Not to mention if your house is ever robbed, flood damage, fire, etc. You'll never be able to claim that without proof of purchase which for such high value CPUs would be required. Even just trying to claim it was some other combination of CPUs that cost ~$1500+ would require some level of proof.

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

41KB, 804x402px

Thinking about getting an EK Predator 360 to keep it cool.

File: shrug.png (20KB, 560x407px)

20KB, 560x407px

>>57422216
I'd sell them for a nice profit

>>57422249
There's also receiving stolen goods.

>>57422170
2.6GHz vs 3.6GHz is nowhere near 95%

>>57422228
>It's either not a daily use computer for general use, or you just don't ever do anything that needs single core performance.
I don't need single threaded performance. And It is a daily use computer. It's on 24/7.

>It has worse single core performance than laptops.
laptops have 2, maybe 4 cores. who cares.

>>57422231
>Does it matter? They could if they wanted to.
No. They couldn't. I have no licensing agreement with Intel. They can piss up a rope.
Kid.

>>57422249
>Not to mention if your house is ever robbed, flood damage, fire, etc. You'll never be able to claim that without proof of purchase which for such high value CPUs would be required. Even just trying to claim it was some other combination of CPUs that cost ~$1500+ would require some level of proof.
The depreciation of a CPU is so fast that it's a waste of money to insure it.

>>57422268
>I'd sell them for a nice profit
I really should have. I would have been just as happy with a couple low voltage 12cores.

>>57422269
Not stolen.

>>57422280
>2.6GHz vs 3.6GHz is nowhere near 95%
Turbo doesn't do shit when all 22 cores are running.
These run at 2.1GHz, where as a non-ES runs at 2.2. That's 95+ percent the speed.

>>57422331
>when all 22 cores are running
how often is that?

For most people that would be basically never.

>>57422345
Open task manager > performance > cpu, look at thread count.

>>57422371
...if 21 cores are idle or just doing background processes and the program you're using is only using 1 core, a non-ES would turbo that single core up to 3.6GHz.

File: cpuz.png (45KB, 805x405px)

45KB, 805x405px

I had it at 4.6 but it was way too hot and needed too much voltage to be stable.

At 4.5 1.35 i could pass x264 v2 stress no problem and cpu didn't go above 64c (and lower ingames).

At 4.6 i needed 1.395v to be stable in x264 v2 and in games temps would often hit 70 or more.

>>57422345
>For most people that would be basically never.
rendering

>>57422371
>Open task manager > performance > cpu, look at thread count.
running 4147 threads and 156 processes.

>>57422379
>..if 21 cores are idle or just doing background processes and the program you're using is only using 1 core, a non-ES would turbo that single core up to 3.6GHz.
I routinely run 400+ tabs of chrome.
Nobody is talking shit on my 128GB RAM either

Everyone here is talking shit on the ES boogyman, but it's a Broadwell-E which means that they had 2 years to look at regular Broadwell and work out the bugs. Even the TSX instructions are corrected on this CPU. This is just a minor improvement over Haswell-E so basically Intel had tons of time to get everything ironed out on this CPU. Is it a lot of money to spend on an ES? Yes. But since Intel went full Kike and wanted to Jew everyone out of so many shekels for the 6950X, I said fuck them and I'll use the ES CPUs instead. Plus. that 55MB of cache.

>>57422371
>>57422379
Also, the non-es 2699 v4's have an all-core turbo up to 2.8GHz if you have the cooling and power available.

meaning all 22 cores can be clocked up to 2.8GHz.

>>57422417
OK. So I have 75% the performance for 18% the price.

>>57422415
>TSX
wew lad, something you'l never use.

>>57422434
>wew lad, something you'l never use.
wew lad misconstruing my point
the point is that the bugs have been ironed out of this CPU because it's a minor revision.

>>57422425
Just pointing it out, you'd have probably been just as happy with dual e5 2667 v4 (8 core 16 thread)

for ~$600 and saved yourself $1000 for other things.

>>57422481
>Just pointing it out, you'd have probably been just as happy with dual e5 2667 v4 (8 core 16 thread)

I would have been just as happy with a 12core low voltage CPU for $135 each.
But I said fuck it.

>>57422331
>Not stolen.
They're Intel's property.

>>57422331
>No. They couldn't. I have no licensing agreement with Intel. They can piss up a rope.
>Kid.
HAHAHAHA. Oh man. Get a lawyer, you'll need one in life.

>>57422557
>They're Intel's property.
Intel doesn't care or they wouldn't be hundreds of ES CPUs for sale on eBay.

>>57422569
>HAHAHAHA. Oh man. Get a lawyer, you'll need one in life.
I have one.

>>57422587
>Intel doesn't care or they wouldn't be hundreds of ES CPUs for sale on eBay.
Tell that to the people who got arrested for selling them. Whether or not Intel cares is irrelevant. You purchased stolen goods which can be taken from you at any time with no compensation and committed a crime over state borders (maybe internationally?). You paid 1600 for the privilege of being open to litigation and jail time.

>>57422618
>ell that to the people who got arrested for selling them. Whether or not Intel cares is irrelevant. You purchased stolen goods which can be taken from you at any time with no compensation and committed a crime over state borders (maybe internationally?). You paid 1600 for the privilege of being open to litigation and jail time.
LOL this shit every time. Fuck I'm a victim of an unscrupulous eBay seller. I've heard that Intel will replace my unlicensed CPUs with licensed CPUs in the even that they find out.

>>57422636
You're delusional.

>>57422646
My CPUs have neither a Q code nor "Intel Confidential" on them.

If they aren't legal, I have no way of knowing that.

>>57422618

>committed a crime

lolno.

The bar for it being a crime is set a bit higher than buying sample chips on fleabay.

You think the police arrest people who operate pawn shops if someone brings them something stolen? No. You think the police arrest people who buy something from a pawn shop that was stolen originally? No.

Get your head out of your ass. You are just grasping at straws to make it seem worse.

>>57422666
>i swear I didn't know the $4100 MSRP CPU being sold on ebay and shipped from china for $800 was stolen... y-you can trust me!

>>57422679
>>57422679
>>i swear I didn't know the $4100 MSRP CPU being sold on ebay and shipped from china for $800 was stolen
LOL. Look at my CPUs. How can I tell if they are 'stolen'
>>57422059

>>57422696
How about the fact it's recognized as
>Genuine Intel CPU 0000

>>57422679

Your argument would make more sense if it wasn't that kind of stuff that made eBay so popular. Getting expensive stuff for cheap through bidding or buying used.

>>57422719

>implying that's something everyone would understand

Also that's a stretch at best. Sometimes tools have problems identifying hardware.

But boy you sure are trying.

>>57422740
open up hwinfo64 it probably would tell you explicitly that it's an ES.

>>57422719
>How about the fact it's recognized as
>Genuine Intel CPU 0000
So it's genuine? OK sounds legit to me. CPUs work just fine. Why should I worry about some glitch that could be there for any number of reasons, such as BIOS, CPU-Z not supporting my hardware, etc.

>>57422746
>open up hwinfo64 it probably would tell you explicitly that it's an ES.
So no way to tell until after I've already received the CPUs? How could I have prevented this?

>>57422776
Well considering literally every legit CPU costs around retail price, and all of the ES's are thousands of dollars less and the vast majority of them are marked as ES's.... i'd say you knew full well and playing dumb on a Mongolian basket weaving forum isn't fooling anyone.

>>57422779
>Well considering literally every legit CPU costs around retail price,
These were used

and all of the ES's are thousands of dollars less and the vast majority of them are marked as ES's....
mine isn't marked as ES

i'd say you knew full well and playing dumb on a Mongolian basket weaving forum isn't fooling anyone.
you can't prove shit

>>57422798
>mine isn't marked as ES
Yet it doesn't clock to the right clocks, can't turbo properly, and cost you a fraction of a real one... hmmmmmmm

File: moarcores!.png (15KB, 407x414px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 407x414px

just add MOAR CORES

>>57422808
>Yet it doesn't clock to the right clocks, can't turbo properly, and cost you a fraction of a real one... hmmmmmmm
Maybe my BIOS has a problem, or there is a compatibility issue, or my settings are wrong, or maybe the CPUs are defective, or mislabeled. Who can tell why?

Further, my CPUs don't look anything like the one shown on Intel's site:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005719.html

>>57422852
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/processor-utilities-and-programs/intel-processor-identification-utility.html

Run the utility and see what it says

>>57422863
>Run the utility and see what it says
Problem downloading from Intel's site.
I guess we'll have to just assume everything is OK.

>>57422874
Nigga you're a liar.

File: 1443940322974.gif (74KB, 278x340px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 278x340px

>>57422874
awww, he's embarrassed it'll prove for a fact he bought a CPU he will never own by simple fact you can never own an ES as they are the property of Intel and are never meant for sale.

>>57422884
lol nope

>>57422886
i have 44 cores. I have nothing to be embarrassed about.

ok children, im going to bed. it's been fun.

>>57422892
Bye biggest retard on this board.

>>57411926
No you won't.

>>57422892
>i have 44 cores
Technically intel does, they're simply letting you use two ES's.

>>57422926
They aren't letting him do shit.

>>57422948
If they wanted to they have the legal ability to take them back. They own the, if they can prove they were never meant for sale they have every right to demand the return of the CPU. Now we both know this is highly unlikely to ever happen, but the fact remains he does not technically own the CPUs and never can because intel reserves ownership of all ES's forever.

Install gentoo

>>57422216
Don't listen to these jelaous faggots. You got a very nice machine right there.

>>57423059
jealous of what? I'd never be able to use 44 shitty slow cores.

Most people dont even fully use a quad core, let alone 22+

>>57422231
>They could if they wanted to.
God damnit, this is some autistic edgy shit.
Quit reading stallman's diaries, you stupid idiot.

File: onlycosted20dollamuthafucka.png (39KB, 805x402px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 805x402px

>>57420439
mah cheap xeon niggah

>>57423069
>shitty
>slow cores
Actually you have ZERO idea of how mutli-threading works. You'd be able to use all of them in rendering, but well, I guess you browse /g/ 24/7, so you don't do any productive work.
Plus multiple virtual machines... Such desktop can have reserved resources for server functionality and not affect normal desktop work that way.

>>57421962
Good setup senpai

File: explorer_2016-11-07_12-05-45.png (194KB, 1010x504px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1010x504px

>>57421532

Now my CPU desktop

>>57423059
No one is jealous of spending money to buy shit you don't own.

>>57423303
You're actually retarded. Unless you have absolutely enormous workloads, 88 threads will probably reduce performance.

I'm starting to hear lately that Prime95 isn't that great to test my OCs with since it's TOO stressful.

How's the stress test in CPUZ?

>>57428728
Whoever told you that is stupid. In fact, I use Linpack since that's what they use to test at the factory.

File: Screen Shot 2016-11-07 at 17.54.06.png (71KB, 586x333px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 586x333px

It's aiht. Would be nice if I could find a replacement battery for it that lasts longer than an hour.

File: Untitleds.png (148KB, 1486x550px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1486x550px

I could never get this cpu stable at 4.4 it was really upsetting. I hope kabbylake/bristle ridge are enjoyable over clockers.

>>57428773
In a way it makes sense. If the test is too unrealistic then what does it matter if your CPU fails during the test. Nothing will push it that hard

>>57428728
Can't stand those people.

>buy new cpu
>haha I'm gonna overclock it to 9ghz like everyone on the forums
>surprise, it can't reach 9ghz
>I-It doesn't c-count!!!

Would you buy a cpu that crashes out of the box if you run prime95?

>>57428728
>>57429389
Prime95 isn't even that intensive as far as heat output goes. LinX is far more thermally demanding.

Even PrimeGrid on BOINC is more demanding than Prime95 from my experience

>>57429428
>how to tell everyone you have old shit

New p95 uses instructions that heats up the cpu

File: cpu-z.png (37KB, 799x402px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 799x402px

>>57410983

>tfw i5-7200U xps 13 gets delivered tomorrow.