Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
spartaman64

Intel wants reviewers to benchmark using windows media player instead of cinebench for low end mobile

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP
Quote

Since at least Computex, Intel has been raising concerns with reviewers about the types of tests we run, which applications reviewers tend to use, and whether those tests are capturing ‘real-world’ performance. Specifically, Intel feels that far too much emphasis is put on tests like Cinebench, while the applications that people actually use are practically ignored.

Quote

Every company has benchmarks that it prefers and benchmarks that it dislikes. The fact that some tests run better on AMD versus Intel, or on Nvidia versus AMD, is not, in and of itself, evidence that the benchmark has been deliberately designed to favor one company or the other. Companies tend to raise concerns about which benchmarks reviewers are using when they are facing increased competitive pressure in the market. Those of you who think Intel is raising questions about the tests we reviewers collectively use partly because it’s losing in a lot of those tests are not wrong. But just because a company has self-interested reasons to be raising questions doesn’t automatically mean that the company is wrong, either. And since I don’t spend dozens of hours and occasional all-nighters testing hardware to give people a false idea of how it will perform, I’m always willing to revisit my own conclusions.

Quote

Intel Proposes an Alternate Approach
Up until now, we’ve talked strictly about whether a test is real-world in light of whether the results generalize to other applications. There is, however, another way to frame the topic. Intel surveyed users to see which applications they actually used, then presented us with that data. It looks like this:

https://imgur.com/a/fA17948

yra6isX.png

Quote

The implication here is that by testing the most common applications installed on people’s hardware, we can capture a better, more representative use-case. This feels intuitively true — but the reality is more complicated.

Just because an application is frequently used doesn’t make it an objectively good benchmark. Some applications are not particularly demanding. While there are absolutely scenarios in which measuring Chrome performance could be important, like the low-end notebook space, good reviews of these products already include these types of tests. In the high-end enthusiast context, Chrome is unlikely to be a taxing application. Are there test scenarios that can make it taxing? Yes. But those scenarios don’t reflect the way the application is most commonly used.

Quote

I do not pick review benchmarks solely because the application is popular, though popularity may figure into the final decision. The goal, in a general review, is to pick tests that will generalize well to other applications. The fact that a person has Steam or Battle.net installed tells me nothing. Is that person playing Overwatch or WoW Classic? Are they playing Minecraft or No Man’s Sky? Do they choose MMORPGs or FPS-type games, or are they just stalled out in Goat Simulator 2017? Are they actually playing any games at all? I can’t know without more data.

The applications on this list that show meaningful performance differences in common tasks are typically tested already. Publications like Puget Systems regularly publish performance comparisons in the Adobe suite. In some cases, the reason applications aren’t tested more often is that there have been longstanding concerns about the reliability and accuracy of the benchmark suite that most commonly includes them.

Quote

I’m always interested in better methods of measuring PC performance. Intel absolutely has a part to play in that process — the company has been helpful on many occasions when it comes to finding ways to highlight new features or troubleshoot issues. But the only way to find meaningful differences in hardware is to find meaningful differences in tests. Again, generally speaking, you’ll see reviewers check laptops for gaps in battery life and power consumption as well as performance. In GPUs, we look for differences in frame time and framerate. Because none of us can run every workload, we look for applications with generalizable results. At ET, I run multiple rendering applications specifically to ensure we aren’t favoring any single vendor or solution. That’s why I test Cinebench, Blender, Maxwell Render, and Corona Render. When it comes to media encoding, Handbrake is virtually everyone’s go-to solution — but we check in both H.264 and H.265 to ensure we capture multiple test scenarios. When tests prove to be inaccurate or insufficient to capture the data I need, I use different tests.

Quote

The much-argued difference between “synthetic” and “real-world” benchmarks is a poor framing of the issue. What matters, in the end, is whether the benchmark data presented by the reviewer collectively offers an accurate view of expected device performance. As Rob Williams details at Techgage, Intel has been only too happy to use Maxon’s Cinebench as a benchmark at times when its own CPU cores were dominating performance.

Quote

Update (9/5/2019): One thing I didn’t call out is the fact that Intel’s data set of most commonly used applications is drawn entirely from notebook and 2-in-1 devices. It discloses this in the slide above. We would not expect that content creators working in 3D applications like Blender, Cinebench, or similar workstation-class applications would be using 2-in-1’s. The implication that these applications are less important because of a low installation base is undercut by the fact that the hardware configurations Intel measured are not representative of the systems where we would expect these applications to be used.

source: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/297864-intel-is-suddenly-very-concerned-with-real-world-benchmarking

 

I think intel does have a point in that some synthetic tests are not all that useful other than giving a general idea. But i think its clear to pretty much everyone that intel only has a problem with it now that they are losing in them. Also of the applications that intel lists only 2 of them (csgo and LoL) would be useful at all to benchmark for modern desktop processors as I don't think whether or not being able to run chrome is much of a concern. And I'm not sure how you would even benchmark some of them like one drive or the steam/battlenet client. And of course listening to intel about what to benchmark and present to consumers seems like a big conflict of interest. Also I think the author of the article is trying to say that the line between synthetic and real world benchmark isn't that clear cut. For example some games have a built in benchmark tool would that be considered synthetic? 

 

intel responded

Quote

I have also seen some chatter about other data points and messages from our IFA event. Something that I simply didn’t think about before the slides for the event were posted publicly was how much of the discussion, context, and transitions between topics were handled through voice over. Press that weren’t in attendance (or the enthusiast community that looked at the slides separately) didn’t have that advantage, and as such, some of the ideas could be misconstrued or taken out of context.
For example, back to back slides go from our performance per dollar preview of the upcoming Cascade Lake-X processors immediately to a slide showing “82%” with an image of Cinebench. Without context, I can easily see how you assume we are talking about the same product families and topics, but in reality, this was when I moved from our short desktop introduction section to talk about mobile.

Quote

Finally, I wanted to apologize to Roman Hartung (Der8auer) as well as the authors quoted from Guru3D and PC Perspective for not personally giving them a heads up on our plan to use their data in our presentation.
I hope this helps to settle some of the questions and concerns floating around the hardware community about our presentation deck and the messaging supplied by them. It’s clear that the context of these presentations is critical to properly explaining our point of view, so I will definitely be paying attention to that going forward. I welcome any other questions or feedback and I’ll try to respond to as many as I can. Happy Friday!

https://medium.com/performance-at-intel/food-for-thought-on-our-ifa-event-395dc775de9

ok it seems like the presenter just didnt think about how the slides will be interpreted for people who arent at his presentation. i know ryan shrout from his pc per days and if he was the one who made the slides i trust him enough to give him the benefit of the doubt and say thats not his intention to mislead people. but i still dont think windows media player is a good benchmarker :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They should bench minesweeper instead of crysis.


Bloodshed and the Fenris-Wolf:

| CPU:  Ryzen 9 3900x | CPU Cooler:  EKWB EK-AIO 360 D-RGB | Paste:  Kryonaut | Motherboard:  ASUS ROG x570 Crosshair VIII Hero (Wi-Fi) | RAM:  G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 64 GB (4 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 | Boot Drive:  Samsung 970 Evo Plus 1 TB M.2-2280 NVME | Storage Drives:  Crucial MX500 500 GB M.2-2280+Western Digital WD Blue 2 TB 2.5"+Toshiba N300 8 TB 3.5" 7200RPM+Toshiba X300 4 TB 3.5" | GPU:  ZOTAC GAMING GeForce RTX 2080 Ti AMP Extreme Core | Case:  Lian Li O11 Dynamic XL ROG Certified (Black) with Corsair SP140 49.49 CFM 140 mm Fans 2-Pack+4x Cooler Master SickleFlow 120 V2 Reds added | PSU:  EVGA SuperNOVA G2 750 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply w/CableMod E-Series Cable Kit (Black/Red) | Case Fans:  2 Corsair SP140 49.49 CFM 140 mm Fans | Displays:  BenQ PD2700U 27.0" 3840x2160 60 Hz+Asus TUF Gaming VG27AQ 27.0" 2560x1440 165 Hz+MSI Optix MAG322CR 31.5" 1920x1080 180 Hz | Mouse:  Corsair M65 RGB ELITE | Keyboard:  Ducky Shine 7 Blackout - MK Exclusive First Release - RGB LED Double Shot PBT Mechanical Keyboard with Silent Red Switches | Mousepad:  Gaya Entertainment Oversized Gaming Mousepad Doom | Audio:  AKG K712 PRO Headphones+Audio-Technica ATR2500-USB Cardioid Condenser USB Microphone+Kingston HyperX Cloud II 7.1 Channel Headset+iBasso IT01 Dynamic Driver Audiophile In-Ear Monitors/Earbuds (Black)+Pair of Mackie MR624s(came with stands+isolation pads) | OS:  Windows 10 Pro |



Bifröst(ROG Zephyrus M GU502):

| CPU:  i7-9750h | RAM:  32GB Dual Channel 2666mhz CL 19(Stock+Samsung 16GB DDR4 PC4-21300, 2666MHZ, 260 PIN SODIMM, 1.2V, CL 19 ) | Storage:  1TB SSD with Optane | GPU:  Nvidia RTX 2060 | Display:  144hz 3ms | Mouse:  Corsair M65 Pro |

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure i understand the hate here,  If we look at the development difference between Intel and AMD over the last decade,  AMD have been very multi core and multi thread process heavy in their development aiming for the power user.  Intel have been directly improving single thread with more focus on HT than more cores.  It is obvious Intel have been aiming at providing for the majority of consumers and thus don't appreciate that those efforts are not reflected in most bench marking. 

 

I think had the CPU been on the other foot and benchmarks were ignoring the areas where AMD excels and they wanted a more broad review process it would be a very fair request.  

 

But lets be honest, this only applies to production workloads and general office work, there is no other way to accurately benchmark a CPU in gaming situations and Intel are already on top there.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

 

Intel-Real-World

source: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/297864-intel-is-suddenly-very-concerned-with-real-world-benchmarking

 

I think intel does have a point in that some synthetic tests are not all that useful other than giving a general idea. But i think its clear to pretty much everyone that intel only has a problem with it now that they are losing in them. Also of the applications that intel lists only 2 of them (csgo and LoL) would be useful at all to benchmark for modern desktop processors as I don't think whether or not being able to run chrome is much of a concern. And of course listening to intel about what to benchmark and present to consumers seems like a big conflict of interest. Also I think the author of the article is trying to say that the line between synthetic and real world benchmark isn't that clear cut. For example some games have a built in benchmark tool would that be considered synthetic? 

they are only losing in multithreading ones (according to tpu 3700x review performance summary  its losing alot to intels 6 cores for gaming except in cpu tests where it wins by 10ish percent) 

 

but a real world like benchmark would be nice

I remember back in sandy bridge/fx days there were a couple reviews on multitasking

was nice because many assumed fx multithreading score showed better then intels 2500k but lost in multi tasking in reviews both were different tests on their own which was even nicer

but almost everyone multitasks alot while gaming some dont really hurt at all but keep chipping small things away does affect things

browser with tabs open or video going

maybe chat program going

prolly steam/uplay/epic/etc going

maybe monitoring software

etc

etc

then actually gaming or doing some productive/work/hobby shit

 

itd be nice to see how these things match up then with closer look

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

but what about one drive or windows media player? 

Excel benchmarks when, that's what I work in most days ?


X58-X79-X99-X299 lads: Intel HEDT Xeon/i7 Megathread 

 

Current Main - i7 6950X (currently stock) - EVGA CLC 280 - EVGA X99 Micro 2 - 32 GB RAM [4x8GB HyperX Predator DDR4] @3200Mhz CL16-18-18-36 CR2 - Nvidia FE 2060 Super - 1TB 970 Evo - Corsair RM1000i - Fractal Design Meshify C Mini - 4x Noctua iPPC NF-A14 3000s + 1 Noctua iPPC NF-F12 2000
 

Bits - i7 5960X - undecided - EVGA X99 Classified - 16 GB RAM [4x4GB EVGA SSC DDR4] - undecided - 250GB 960 Evo - undecided - Corsair 750D

 

Mac Pro 1,1 - (EFI flashed to 2,1) - 2x 2.66Ghz Dual Core LGA771 Xeons (2x X5355s - just need the motivation/time to actually install them) - 32GB 667Mhz ECC DDR2 - ATI HD4870 512MB - 525GB MX300 + 3x 2TB Seagate Barracuda HDDs - 24" Apple Cinema Display (1920x1200 TFT panel)

 

2019 13" rMBP (i5/8GB/256GB) {work} - 2012 13" MBP (i5/16GB/1TB MX500 + 2TB Firecuda) {mine} - iPhone 11 Pro Max + Apple Watch S3 42mm - iPod Classic 6G 80GB running Rockbox + iPod Classic 5.5G Enhanced 30GB also on Rockbox 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zando Bob said:

Excel benchmarks when, that's what I work in most days ?

Since we still can't post images.... https://www.techspot.com/review/1678-amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx-2950x/page2.html

2nd chart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm not sure i understand the hate here,  If we look at the development difference between Intel and AMD over the last decade,  AMD have been very multi core and multi thread process heavy in their development aiming for the power user.  Intel have been directly improving single thread with more focus on HT than more cores.  It is obvious Intel have been aiming at providing for the majority of consumers and thus don't appreciate that those efforts are not reflected in most bench marking. 

 

I think had the CPU been on the other foot and benchmarks were ignoring the areas where AMD excels and they wanted a more broad review process it would be a very fair request.  

 

But lets be honest, this only applies to production workloads and general office work, there is no other way to accurately benchmark a CPU in gaming situations and Intel are already on top there.

yep i agree with the general idea but the applications intel is suggesting are ridiculous. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see that Intel has a point, but they also miss a huge point: The synthetic tests are there because they stress any CPU to the max and give some number to every. Do they reflect perfectly normal usecase? No. Are they biased? Maybe. But for real, what is the point to test something like how fast Chrome starts or loads a page? Like even with mid-range CPUs we start to have time differences in nanoseconds and at that point the difference is so small that even one bit in a different place in RAM starts to affect the results. Not to even talk about that those applications Intel wants people to benchmark might actually give even worse results with the top-of-the-line CPUs just because they are nowhere near optimized to take any kind of advantage from them (because there is no reason to use time to do something that stupid because no one in real use would notice any difference running them on i7-7700K or on i9-9980XE).

And about LoL and CSGO. Does Intel really have some kind of kink to be humiliated even more? Like those games are the point of the golden needle that's 100m tall standing in a square kilometer empty parking lot why you should never use most used applications as benchmarks. As vanilla neither one of those takes any toll on any CPU greater than a potato and if you remove every single limitation there is to get them stress CPUs as much as possible even the most recent mid-tier CPUs run the games "fast" enough to start breaking the game engine. Like one example test on CSGO I found (sorry, in Finnish, but you get the point, low-settings 1080p 2xMSAA, RTX 2080 Ti), like "great, would really pay the extra bucks for i9-9900K to play CSGO 11FPS slower than with i7-9700K".

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Den-Fi said:

? Time to tell the boss I need a custom PC with a 7980XE because I totally need one for 90% VLOOKUPs. 


X58-X79-X99-X299 lads: Intel HEDT Xeon/i7 Megathread 

 

Current Main - i7 6950X (currently stock) - EVGA CLC 280 - EVGA X99 Micro 2 - 32 GB RAM [4x8GB HyperX Predator DDR4] @3200Mhz CL16-18-18-36 CR2 - Nvidia FE 2060 Super - 1TB 970 Evo - Corsair RM1000i - Fractal Design Meshify C Mini - 4x Noctua iPPC NF-A14 3000s + 1 Noctua iPPC NF-F12 2000
 

Bits - i7 5960X - undecided - EVGA X99 Classified - 16 GB RAM [4x4GB EVGA SSC DDR4] - undecided - 250GB 960 Evo - undecided - Corsair 750D

 

Mac Pro 1,1 - (EFI flashed to 2,1) - 2x 2.66Ghz Dual Core LGA771 Xeons (2x X5355s - just need the motivation/time to actually install them) - 32GB 667Mhz ECC DDR2 - ATI HD4870 512MB - 525GB MX300 + 3x 2TB Seagate Barracuda HDDs - 24" Apple Cinema Display (1920x1200 TFT panel)

 

2019 13" rMBP (i5/8GB/256GB) {work} - 2012 13" MBP (i5/16GB/1TB MX500 + 2TB Firecuda) {mine} - iPhone 11 Pro Max + Apple Watch S3 42mm - iPod Classic 6G 80GB running Rockbox + iPod Classic 5.5G Enhanced 30GB also on Rockbox 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Den-Fi said:

That first graph is funny, it kinda raises more questions like: Why would you test TR or i7's for office applications?  who is going to spend that much on an office machine?  most people would be looking at the mid to bottom end.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm...you have to go back to the days of the Pentium III to be really able to do any benchmarking in WMP...are their new CPU going to be that shit compared to Ryzen 2?


"We also blind small animals with cosmetics.
We do not sell cosmetics. We just blind animals."

 

"Please don't mistake us for Equifax. Those fuckers are evil"

 

This PSA brought to you by Equifacks.
PMSL

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Intel have been directly improving single thread with more focus on HT than more cores.  It is obvious Intel have been aiming at providing for the majority of consumers and thus don't appreciate that those efforts are not reflected in most bench marking.

Problem is Intel have been removing HT from a lot of their products, and AMD SMT performance scales slightly better. Agree with everything and the main point, just annoying that Intel disabled HT so readily on so many of their products. Have to segment products somehow though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, leadeater said:

Have to segment products somehow though.

Easy

C/T

8/16

6/12

4/8

4/4


Come Bloody Angel

Break off your chains

And look what I've found in the dirt.

 

Pale battered body

Seems she was struggling

Something is wrong with this world.

 

Fierce Bloody Angel

The blood is on your hands

Why did you come to this world?

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

The blood is on your hands.

 

The blood is on your hands!

 

Pyo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Problem is Intel have been removing HT from a lot of their products, and AMD SMT performance scales slightly better. Agree with everything and the main point, just annoying that Intel disabled HT so readily on so many of their products. Have to segment products somehow though.

I think they do that so they can still shift product in a market that doesn't need HT (just like they still have dual core CPU's because the market still has a place for them with people who don't need or want to pay for anything bigger).  I think if they don't disable HT and charge a little less they would lose sales to either AMD or their lower tier products.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, let me just buy a 500$ cpu to run chrome


...is there a question here? 🤔

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

What is scaling and how does it work? Asus PB287Q unboxing! Console alternatives :D Watch Netflix with Kodi on Arch Linux Sharing folders over the internet using SSH Beginner's Guide To LTT (by iamdarkyoshi)

Sauron'stm Product Scores:

Spoiler

Just a list of my personal scores for some products, in no particular order, with brief comments. I just got the idea to do them so they aren't many for now :)

Don't take these as complete reviews or final truths - they are just my personal impressions on products I may or may not have used, summed up in a couple of sentences and a rough score. All scores take into account the unit's price and time of release, heavily so, therefore don't expect absolute performance to be reflected here.

 

-Lenovo Thinkpad X220 - [8/10]

Spoiler

A durable and reliable machine that is relatively lightweight, has all the hardware it needs to never feel sluggish and has a great IPS matte screen. Downsides are mostly due to its age, most notably the screen resolution of 1366x768 and usb 2.0 ports.

 

-Apple Macbook (2015) - [Garbage -/10]

Spoiler

From my perspective, this product has no redeeming factors given its price and the competition. It is underpowered, overpriced, impractical due to its single port and is made redundant even by Apple's own iPad pro line.

 

-OnePlus X - [7/10]

Spoiler

A good phone for the price. It does everything I (and most people) need without being sluggish and has no particularly bad flaws. The lack of recent software updates and relatively barebones feature kit (most notably the lack of 5GHz wifi, biometric sensors and backlight for the capacitive buttons) prevent it from being exceptional.

 

-Microsoft Surface Book 2 - [Garbage - -/10]

Spoiler

Overpriced and rushed, offers nothing notable compared to the competition, doesn't come with an adequate charger despite the premium price. Worse than the Macbook for not even offering the small plus sides of having macOS. Buy a Razer Blade if you want high performance in a (relatively) light package.

 

-Intel Core i7 2600/k - [9/10]

Spoiler

Quite possibly Intel's best product launch ever. It had all the bleeding edge features of the time, it came with a very significant performance improvement over its predecessor and it had a soldered heatspreader, allowing for efficient cooling and great overclocking. Even the "locked" version could be overclocked through the multiplier within (quite reasonable) limits.

 

-Apple iPad Pro - [5/10]

Spoiler

A pretty good product, sunk by its price (plus the extra cost of the physical keyboard and the pencil). Buy it if you don't mind the Apple tax and are looking for a very light office machine with an excellent digitizer. Particularly good for rich students. Bad for cheap tinkerers like myself.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Problem is Intel have been removing HT from a lot of their products, and AMD SMT performance scales slightly better. Agree with everything and the main point, just annoying that Intel disabled HT so readily on so many of their products. Have to segment products somehow though.

you have reliable article/link on them having to remove/disable ht on many products

havent seen anything regarding this recently was thinking about this awhile ago then thought every probably quietly swept it under a rug or wasnt a problem in their eyes

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry what?!!


I live in misery USA. my timezone is central daylight time which is either UTC -5 or -4 because the government hates everyone.

into trains? here's the model railroad thread!

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That first graph is funny, it kinda raises more questions like: Why would you test TR or i7's for office applications?  who is going to spend that much on an office machine?  most people would be looking at the mid to bottom end.

You'd be amazed how bad some IT departments are at identifying/getting the correct/reasonable hardware.

 

Whether it be the fault of the IT department being incompetent or whoever places the order not listening to the IT department's recommendation.


PSU Tier List | CoC

Gaming Build | FreeNAS Server

Spoiler

i5-4690k || Seidon 240m || GTX780 ACX || MSI Z97s SLI Plus || 8GB 2400mhz || 250GB 840 Evo || 1TB WD Blue || H440 (Black/Blue) || Windows 10 Pro || Dell P2414H & BenQ XL2411Z || Ducky Shine Mini || Logitech G502 Proteus Core

Spoiler

FreeNAS 9.3 - Stable || Xeon E3 1230v2 || Supermicro X9SCM-F || 32GB Crucial ECC DDR3 || 3x4TB WD Red (JBOD) || SYBA SI-PEX40064 sata controller || Corsair CX500m || NZXT Source 210.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yeah, let me just buy a 500$ cpu to run chrome

Maybe Chrome is the reason they're pushing hexa-channel and soon octa-channel RAM? Maybe we've looked at it all wrong for years, and Intel has only ever been trying to create the best CPU and platform for Chrome.... 


X58-X79-X99-X299 lads: Intel HEDT Xeon/i7 Megathread 

 

Current Main - i7 6950X (currently stock) - EVGA CLC 280 - EVGA X99 Micro 2 - 32 GB RAM [4x8GB HyperX Predator DDR4] @3200Mhz CL16-18-18-36 CR2 - Nvidia FE 2060 Super - 1TB 970 Evo - Corsair RM1000i - Fractal Design Meshify C Mini - 4x Noctua iPPC NF-A14 3000s + 1 Noctua iPPC NF-F12 2000
 

Bits - i7 5960X - undecided - EVGA X99 Classified - 16 GB RAM [4x4GB EVGA SSC DDR4] - undecided - 250GB 960 Evo - undecided - Corsair 750D

 

Mac Pro 1,1 - (EFI flashed to 2,1) - 2x 2.66Ghz Dual Core LGA771 Xeons (2x X5355s - just need the motivation/time to actually install them) - 32GB 667Mhz ECC DDR2 - ATI HD4870 512MB - 525GB MX300 + 3x 2TB Seagate Barracuda HDDs - 24" Apple Cinema Display (1920x1200 TFT panel)

 

2019 13" rMBP (i5/8GB/256GB) {work} - 2012 13" MBP (i5/16GB/1TB MX500 + 2TB Firecuda) {mine} - iPhone 11 Pro Max + Apple Watch S3 42mm - iPod Classic 6G 80GB running Rockbox + iPod Classic 5.5G Enhanced 30GB also on Rockbox 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Newegg

×