motherboards
Arctic
Arctic Feezer 7x
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

  1. #1
    Regular Member

    Status
    HyperactiveSloth is offline

    Last Online
    09-05-2020 @ 18:54
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Bowling Green, MO, USA
    Posts
    269
    CPU: Core i5 2320 3.0GHz 6M LGA1155
    M/B: MSI P67A-C43 (B3) LGA1155 ATX
    RAM: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2X4GB) 1600MHz Dual-Channel DDR3
    GPU: MSI Armor 4G RX 470
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 20 Times in 19 Posts
    Points: 12,195, Level: 33
    Points: 12,195, Level: 33
    Level completed: 35%,
    Points required for next Level: 455
    Level completed: 35%, Points required for next Level: 455
    Overall activity: 0%
    Overall activity: 0%

    Default Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

    Iv'e been running a few benchmarks with PassMark since I built my "portable" rigs. Here's the results from the one I just ran.


    The first thing that caught my eye is the RAM. How the heck does DDR3-1866 RAM outperform the DDR4 baseline shown just above it on the graphs? On a side note; I was wondering what speed the HyperX Fury 1866 would run when installed on a MoBo that only states it supports 1333/1600 and apparently the answer is that it is running at 1777.8MHz. Go figure.

    Anyway, back to the overall... The BX100 is benchmarking considerably better than it's supposed big brother the MX100. Out of curiosity I compared my benchmarks to the averages for each specific component on the PassMark website and they are all higher than listed.
    Mine / Listed
    CPU: 7561/7239
    G2D: 930/668
    G3D: 4495/4186
    SSD: 3772/3382

    Now, I understand the law of averages and that factors involved in every other system benchmarked to get these listed scores all have an effect on the numbers. I know there's variance from each specific unit to others and such, but this seems better than just "a good run." This (pictured above) is just one bench score but it's actually about average for this specific computer. The other "identical" rig I built actually averages slightly better than this one but still well within the standard variance. All that said, the differences above are quite a bit outside what I'd expect as variations between examples.

    Basically, I'm just curious why these PCs I built ended up being noticeably above what I'd expected before I built them. I'm probably just missing something or failing to understand something in the numbers that is inherent to benchmarks. I'd like to think I'm just that awesome and pat myself on the back and say, "Hey man I built me some awesome rigs, dude!" Realistically, I know there's just some element here I'm failing to consider. Either way, the only thing that matters is that my kids love their "'puters" and I'm very happy with how they turned out. I just can't help being curious and wanting to know "Why?" about absolutely everything. lol

  2. #2
    Regular Member

    Status
    calemus is offline

    Last Online
    22-08-2017 @ 22:03
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,230
    Thanks
    291
    Thanked 82 Times in 79 Posts
    Points: 11,185, Level: 31
    Points: 11,185, Level: 31
    Level completed: 91%,
    Points required for next Level: 65
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 65
    Overall activity: 99.2%
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Default Re: Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

    as the bench'z are great, and demonstrate considerable comprehension and skill of the technition

    far beyond that , in importance, and being impressive

    you said your children are lovin the products!
    dude, coperations spend millions to get that result, and it's not common for parents to pull off something of that bracket


    gratz dude. your officialy an awsem dad.
    learning is good .....understanding is better .....pleas teach with wisdom............................................ ..............calemus

  3. #3
    Moderator

    Status
    Solara2xb is offline

    Last Online
    30-08-2017 @ 03:07
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Alta Loma, CA
    Posts
    5,172
    CPU: Intel i7 5930K / Intel i7 4820K / Intel i7 4790K
    M/B: ASUS X99 R5E / ASUS X79 Sabertooth / ASUS Z97 MVIIF
    RAM: 32GB Kingston DDR4 3000MHz / 32GB Corsair 1866MHz / 16GB HyperX Savage 2400MHz
    GPU: EVGA GTX780 TRI SLI Classy / EVGA GTX 780 SLI / XFX R9 290 (xfire) w XSPC WB
    • Solara2xb's Full Spec's
      • Case:
      • Corsair 750D / Corsair A540 / NZXT P630
      • PSU:
      • EVGA 1000G2 / Corsair AX1200 / Corsair AX1200
      • Cooling:
      • ALL Systems running Custom Water Cooling
      • Monitor:
      • 3x Dell 24" IPS on XFX Triple Stand 5760x1200
      • OS:
      • Windows 7 Ultimate
    Thanks
    1,225
    Thanked 558 Times in 491 Posts
    Points: 221,036, Level: 100
    Points: 221,036, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%,
    Points required for next Level: 0
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%
    Overall activity: 0%

    Default Re: Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

    Great write up, I am trying to see the scores on your sheet however its too small of an image and i can't make them out.
    Do you have a larger version of the file so I can see what you are looking at?

  4. #4
    Moderator

    Status
    Cyberburnout is offline

    Last Online
    20-10-2017 @ 11:01
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    GROVE CITY OHIO
    Posts
    5,362
    CPU: Intel i7-5820k
    M/B: ASRock X99 WS
    RAM: 32GB Crucial DDR4 2133
    GPU: 2 R9-290s Xfire
    • Cyberburnout's Full Spec's
      • Case:
      • Urban T81
      • PSU:
      • CM Silent 350w
      • Cooling:
      • Custom H20, Ek blocks for CPU and GPUs
      • Sound:
      • ONBOARD
      • Monitor:
      • Dual 24"
      • OS:
      • WINDOWS 7 ULTIMATE X64
      • Misc:
      • White LED lighting
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked 1,166 Times in 663 Posts
    Points: 26,323, Level: 49
    Points: 26,323, Level: 49
    Level completed: 78%,
    Points required for next Level: 227
    Level completed: 78%, Points required for next Level: 227
    Overall activity: 0%
    Overall activity: 0%

    Default Re: Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

    Quote Originally Posted by Solara2xb View Post
    Great write up, I am trying to see the scores on your sheet however its too small of an image and i can't make them out.
    Do you have a larger version of the file so I can see what you are looking at?
    same problem I'm having and it will not let me click it for a larger image.


    Cant remember if you were running Windows 8, 8.1 or Windows 7. There is often a noticeable difference in benchmarks in 7 vs 8 and even 8 vs 8.1 All in the newer OS's favor.

    I look forward to the larger picture so we can really get into what you are seeing. You have gone above and beyond for your brats man. I hope they know how awesome of a Dad they have. You could have bought a cheap prebuilt box and slapped a crappy GPU in it. Instead you Imagined something different and set out to create it. Now you are testing it to make sure it performs as expected. hurray!

    Impressed by the extras you are doing here,.
    "If you got it, Build it"

    A+ Certified. Dell, Lenovo, HP, Lexmarks, Xerox, Panasonic and NEC Certified ASP.

  5. #5
    Regular Member

    Status
    HyperactiveSloth is offline

    Last Online
    09-05-2020 @ 18:54
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Bowling Green, MO, USA
    Posts
    269
    CPU: Core i5 2320 3.0GHz 6M LGA1155
    M/B: MSI P67A-C43 (B3) LGA1155 ATX
    RAM: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2X4GB) 1600MHz Dual-Channel DDR3
    GPU: MSI Armor 4G RX 470
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 20 Times in 19 Posts
    Points: 12,195, Level: 33
    Points: 12,195, Level: 33
    Level completed: 35%,
    Points required for next Level: 455
    Level completed: 35%, Points required for next Level: 455
    Overall activity: 0%
    Overall activity: 0%

    Default Re: Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

    http://forums.pureoverclock.com/members/24488-albums161-picture7397.html

    That should let you see the full version... I think. The full size of all my pics are in my album. I made sure it is set to public.

  6. #6
    Gu3
    Regular Member

    Status
    Gu3 is offline

    Last Online
    18-04-2019 @ 12:45
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Haymarket VA, USA
    Posts
    987
    CPU: i7-4770K @ 4GHZ
    M/B: MSI Z87 MPOWER ATX LGA1150
    RAM: 32GB (2 X Crucial 16GB Ballistix Elite (2 x 8GB) CAS 9, DDR3 1866 )
    GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 760 4GB Dual FTW ACX
    • Gu3's Full Spec's
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R4 Blackout
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic XPS2 / 660W / 660 Platinum
      • Cooling:
      • Swiftech ApogeeXL Water Block Alphacool NexXxos ST30 Full Copper Slim Profile Dual 120mm Radiator EK DDC X-RES Top 140 with 3.2 Pump (PWM) Pump/Res Primochill LST 3/8x5/8" Tubing BitsPower Premium Black Matt Compression Fittings Cougar CF-V12HPB Fans Monsoon Silver Bullet
      • Monitor:
      • 3 x Asus VS247H-P 23.6"
      • OS:
      • Linux Mint 18.1
      • Misc:
      • System Name: Dark Matter Build: http://pcpartpicker.com/b/rrccCJ BIOS Overclock to 4GHZ. Memory @ Stock Speed. Purely an amateur, built for HandBrake.
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 112 Times in 103 Posts
    Points: 8,632, Level: 27
    Points: 8,632, Level: 27
    Level completed: 81%,
    Points required for next Level: 118
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 118
    Overall activity: 0%
    Overall activity: 0%

    Default Re: Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

    Hey Sloth!

    I think the thing to remember here is that the DDR-3 you are using is the result of an optimized DDR3 process, and that the benchmarked DDR-4 is basically new tech. You might try some Benchmarks to look at Memory Bandwidth as opposed to out and out speed. DDR-4 has much greater bandwidth than DDR-3, but this early in the technology cycle, the timings are probably not as tight, and the manufacturers may be operating loose timings to achieve higher clock speeds. Conversely, your DDR-3 is probably running tighter timings.

    Try a few different benchmarks and see what they say... AIDA64 perhaps, my internet connection is a bit slow right now, or I'd do some more research to see what's likely happening here. Perhaps when I get back to the hotel!

    Scott

  7. #7
    Moderator

    Status
    Smiki007 is offline

    Last Online
    12-07-2020 @ 12:29
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lima, Peru
    Posts
    2,442
    CPU: ThreadRipper 2950X @4.1Ghz
    M/B: MSI Meg X399 Creation
    RAM: 64GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB 3000
    GPU: 2x Aorus GTX 1080Ti Waterforce WB Xtreme
    • Smiki007's Full Spec's
      • Case:
      • Thermaltake Core X9
      • PSU:
      • EVGA Supernova 1600W 80+ G2
      • Cooling:
      • 2x Enermax NEOChanger Res/Pump Combo + 2x Swiftech Xtreme FLow 360mm Rads + ACool Nexxos XT45 240mm Rad + EKWB Pom / Nickel Full Cover TR4 Water Block)
      • Monitor:
      • ASUS VG278H 3D
      • OS:
      • W10 Pro v.1809
    Thanks
    247
    Thanked 299 Times in 267 Posts
    Points: 108,027, Level: 100
    Points: 108,027, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%,
    Points required for next Level: 0
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 76.0%
    Overall activity: 76.0%

    Default Re: Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gu3 View Post
    Hey Sloth!

    I think the thing to remember here is that the DDR-3 you are using is the result of an optimized DDR3 process, and that the benchmarked DDR-4 is basically new tech. You might try some Benchmarks to look at Memory Bandwidth as opposed to out and out speed. DDR-4 has much greater bandwidth than DDR-3, but this early in the technology cycle, the timings are probably not as tight, and the manufacturers may be operating loose timings to achieve higher clock speeds. Conversely, your DDR-3 is probably running tighter timings.

    Try a few different benchmarks and see what they say... AIDA64 perhaps, my internet connection is a bit slow right now, or I'd do some more research to see what's likely happening here. Perhaps when I get back to the hotel!

    Scott
    I'm agreed with Scott explanarion, and also great effect in all this is a choice of parts for your build, where it is very possible that you have achieved the ideal combination (reason for your great benchmark scores), but, in all that is most important that your kids love the PC you built for them and that just proves you're really an exceptional father. Congrats mate.

    Always look beyond the limits...

  8. #8
    Moderator

    Status
    Cyberburnout is offline

    Last Online
    20-10-2017 @ 11:01
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    GROVE CITY OHIO
    Posts
    5,362
    CPU: Intel i7-5820k
    M/B: ASRock X99 WS
    RAM: 32GB Crucial DDR4 2133
    GPU: 2 R9-290s Xfire
    • Cyberburnout's Full Spec's
      • Case:
      • Urban T81
      • PSU:
      • CM Silent 350w
      • Cooling:
      • Custom H20, Ek blocks for CPU and GPUs
      • Sound:
      • ONBOARD
      • Monitor:
      • Dual 24"
      • OS:
      • WINDOWS 7 ULTIMATE X64
      • Misc:
      • White LED lighting
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked 1,166 Times in 663 Posts
    Points: 26,323, Level: 49
    Points: 26,323, Level: 49
    Level completed: 78%,
    Points required for next Level: 227
    Level completed: 78%, Points required for next Level: 227
    Overall activity: 0%
    Overall activity: 0%

    Default Re: Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gu3 View Post
    . DDR-4 has much greater bandwidth than DDR-3, but this early in the technology cycle, the timings are probably not as tight, and the manufacturers may be operating loose timings to achieve higher clock speeds. Conversely, your DDR-3 is probably running tighter timings.

    No might about it. Every set of DDR4 we have reviewed has super loose timings, high clocks and crap results when you try to OC higher. It also matters what memory config it was set in, Dual, Triple or Quad channel.

    CPu marks look about right. Memory is about expected, 2D performance doesn't matter much. We have reached about as much 2D performance as we will ever need. 3D performance within an expected range. Drive performance has a ton of variables.

    Overall you put togther a great rig for the kiddies!
    "If you got it, Build it"

    A+ Certified. Dell, Lenovo, HP, Lexmarks, Xerox, Panasonic and NEC Certified ASP.

  9. #9
    Regular Member

    Status
    joshjaks is offline

    Last Online
    02-07-2020 @ 09:42
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Rangely, CO
    Posts
    1,126
    CPU: AMD / Ryzen / 1700X / 3850 MHz
    M/B: Asrock X370 Taichi
    RAM: 16gb / Geil / EvoX / 16-16-16-36 / 3200 MHz
    GPU: Sapphire / R9 290 Vapor-X / 4gb / x 2 Crossfire
    • joshjaks's Full Spec's
      • Case:
      • Thermaltake Core V71
      • PSU:
      • Rosewill / Lightning / 1000w
      • Cooling:
      • Proc / Swiftech Apogee II Block, Enermax NEOllusion Res Fans / 4x NZXT 200mm Front and Top / 2 x Corsair AF140mm Purple LED Bottom and Back GPU / Stock (Vapor-X)
      • Monitor:
      • Viewsonic 27" LED FreeSync
      • OS:
      • Windows 10
      • Misc:
      • NZXT Grid+ Fan Controller
    Thanks
    248
    Thanked 132 Times in 101 Posts
    Points: 24,551, Level: 48
    Points: 24,551, Level: 48
    Level completed: 1%,
    Points required for next Level: 999
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 999
    Overall activity: 0%
    Overall activity: 0%

    Default Re: Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberburnout View Post
    No might about it. Every set of DDR4 we have reviewed has super loose timings, high clocks and crap results when you try to OC higher. It also matters what memory config it was set in, Dual, Triple or Quad channel.
    Confirms what I suspected. DDR4 seemed like somewhat of a let down once I saw what it was delivering. I'll be excited when AMD's HBM starts making it into RAM and L3 caches! =D

  10. #10
    Core Member

    Status
    Ciarlatano is offline

    Last Online
    08-09-2017 @ 13:12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    NYC Metro Area
    Posts
    816
    CPU: Intel 4790K @ 4.6GHz
    M/B: ASUS Z97 Sabertooth
    RAM: 16GB Patriot Viper Xtreme D4 2133
    GPU: nVidia GTX 780 Reference
    • Ciarlatano's Full Spec's
      • Case:
      • Phanteks Evolv ATX
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! DPP 10 1000W
      • Cooling:
      • EKWB Supremacy EVO, Swiftech Komodo NV-LE, D5 PWM Monsoon MMRS HWL Nemesis 360GTS 3 Phanteks F120MP, 3 Phanteks F140SP
      • Sound:
      • ASUS Essence STX
      • Monitor:
      • ASUS 24"
      • OS:
      • Windows 7 64
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 122 Times in 105 Posts
    Points: 20,344, Level: 43
    Points: 20,344, Level: 43
    Level completed: 55%,
    Points required for next Level: 406
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 406
    Overall activity: 0%
    Overall activity: 0%

    Default Re: Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberburnout View Post
    No might about it. Every set of DDR4 we have reviewed has super loose timings, high clocks and crap results when you try to OC higher. It also matters what memory config it was set in, Dual, Triple or Quad channel.

    CPu marks look about right. Memory is about expected, 2D performance doesn't matter much. We have reached about as much 2D performance as we will ever need. 3D performance within an expected range. Drive performance has a ton of variables.

    Overall you put togther a great rig for the kiddies!
    DDR4 has been underwhelming thus far. It likely won't stay that way, but so far that is the case. While the potential is there, it hasn't been realized.

    And, Sandy, timings don't matter. Only clocks matter. Just ask 99.9% of the users who are (completely needlessly) overclocking their RAM.

  11. #11
    Gu3
    Regular Member

    Status
    Gu3 is offline

    Last Online
    18-04-2019 @ 12:45
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Haymarket VA, USA
    Posts
    987
    CPU: i7-4770K @ 4GHZ
    M/B: MSI Z87 MPOWER ATX LGA1150
    RAM: 32GB (2 X Crucial 16GB Ballistix Elite (2 x 8GB) CAS 9, DDR3 1866 )
    GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 760 4GB Dual FTW ACX
    • Gu3's Full Spec's
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R4 Blackout
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic XPS2 / 660W / 660 Platinum
      • Cooling:
      • Swiftech ApogeeXL Water Block Alphacool NexXxos ST30 Full Copper Slim Profile Dual 120mm Radiator EK DDC X-RES Top 140 with 3.2 Pump (PWM) Pump/Res Primochill LST 3/8x5/8" Tubing BitsPower Premium Black Matt Compression Fittings Cougar CF-V12HPB Fans Monsoon Silver Bullet
      • Monitor:
      • 3 x Asus VS247H-P 23.6"
      • OS:
      • Linux Mint 18.1
      • Misc:
      • System Name: Dark Matter Build: http://pcpartpicker.com/b/rrccCJ BIOS Overclock to 4GHZ. Memory @ Stock Speed. Purely an amateur, built for HandBrake.
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 112 Times in 103 Posts
    Points: 8,632, Level: 27
    Points: 8,632, Level: 27
    Level completed: 81%,
    Points required for next Level: 118
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 118
    Overall activity: 0%
    Overall activity: 0%

    Default Re: Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ciarlatano View Post
    DDR4 has been underwhelming thus far. It likely won't stay that way, but so far that is the case. While the potential is there, it hasn't been realized.

    And, Sandy, timings don't matter. Only clocks matter. Just ask 99.9% of the users who are (completely needlessly) overclocking their RAM.
    What!? Say it isn't so! CAS 15 must be better than CAS 9!!! 15 is bigger than 9! So there! My 3200 MHz is faster than your 1600 Mhz...so there...nyah nyah nyah!!!!

  12. #12
    Core Member

    Status
    realneil is offline

    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 20:58
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,433
    CPU: i7-2600K and FX-8350
    M/B: Gigabyte on both
    RAM: 32GB DDR4-3200 and 64GB DDR4-3000
    GPU: 980Ti SLI and RX480 Crossfire
    • realneil's Full Spec's
      • Case:
      • Rosewill Blackhawk Ultra & Rosewill Blackhawk
      • PSU:
      • SeaSonic & Rosewill
      • Cooling:
      • Corsair H80 and Corsair H60, Both with dual high flow, low noise fans added.
      • Sound:
      • both onboard
      • Monitor:
      • ASUS 27" & Acer 28" 4K screen
      • OS:
      • Win-7 64Bit on both
      • Misc:
      • Klipsch Speakers, Plextor DVD Burners on all systems. Third System: Z170 Stinger W/i5-6600K, 16GB DDR4-3000, GTX-980 ViewSonic 27" Screen
    Thanks
    1,451
    Thanked 888 Times in 779 Posts
    Points: 102,711, Level: 99
    Points: 102,711, Level: 99
    Level completed: 84%,
    Points required for next Level: 339
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 339
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Overall activity: 85.0%

    Default Re: Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

    DDR3 Timings are tighter than DDR4 timings, and it ~does~ matter. DDR4 RAM has a lot of tweaking to be done, but it will happen.

  13. #13
    Core Member

    Status
    Ciarlatano is offline

    Last Online
    08-09-2017 @ 13:12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    NYC Metro Area
    Posts
    816
    CPU: Intel 4790K @ 4.6GHz
    M/B: ASUS Z97 Sabertooth
    RAM: 16GB Patriot Viper Xtreme D4 2133
    GPU: nVidia GTX 780 Reference
    • Ciarlatano's Full Spec's
      • Case:
      • Phanteks Evolv ATX
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! DPP 10 1000W
      • Cooling:
      • EKWB Supremacy EVO, Swiftech Komodo NV-LE, D5 PWM Monsoon MMRS HWL Nemesis 360GTS 3 Phanteks F120MP, 3 Phanteks F140SP
      • Sound:
      • ASUS Essence STX
      • Monitor:
      • ASUS 24"
      • OS:
      • Windows 7 64
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 122 Times in 105 Posts
    Points: 20,344, Level: 43
    Points: 20,344, Level: 43
    Level completed: 55%,
    Points required for next Level: 406
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 406
    Overall activity: 0%
    Overall activity: 0%

    Default Re: Why are these benchmarks better than expected?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gu3 View Post
    What!? Say it isn't so! CAS 15 must be better than CAS 9!!! 15 is bigger than 9! So there! My 3200 MHz is faster than your 1600 Mhz...so there...nyah nyah nyah!!!!
    Good to see you getting into internet forum mode!

Remove Ads

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Nvidia: We Expected More...
    By Lil' Dead in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 25-01-2012, 13:56
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 21-09-2011, 11:22
  3. Battlefield 3 Expected Second Half of 2011
    By Lil' Dead in forum General Gaming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 24-12-2010, 09:08
  4. Nvidia's next-gen Fermi now expected in January
    By News Team in forum Hardware News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28-11-2009, 08:31
  5. AMD 65 nm announcement expected next week
    By Jameson in forum Hardware News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30-03-2006, 05:17

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search tags.
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread