Intel 730 Or Samsung 850 Pro?

[hojnikb]

Yes it is. Launched 2003 with 3 revisions.

The version you're using cant be more than 7 year old. So this disapproved you're original statement ^^

We're into H2 2014 last I checked and it launched in February.

Possibly 2007 (but even that is not possible, since nvidia 7xx wasn't out before december 2007). So thats not 11.5 years old buddy

[patrickjp93]

The version you're using cant be more than 7 year old. So this disapproved you're original statement ^^

It can be, it is, and you've been checkmated. Now go read on why Nvidia got scared of intel.

February 2007. Thats not 11.5 years old buddy

2003

Possibly 2007 (but even that is not possible, since nvidia 7xx wasn't out before december 2007). So thats not 11.5 years old buddy

He's still on DDR2 and uses gpus older than the gtx 220.

[hojnikb]

He's still on DDR2 and uses gpus older than the gtx 220.

Than he's not using the specific mobo you're mentioning. That stuff is ddr3 only.

2003

There was no motherboard back in 2003 or chipsets or VRM specifications to support any of the core2 based processors. So basicly you're trolling or just don't know better

So we can come to a conclusion, that motherboard was indeed replaced after 2003.

Thats a clear checkmate for you buddy. Now go cry in a corner, because you're trolling skills are really not that good.

[Najuno]

I will go for a 2x 250 GB Raid0 Samsung 850 pro when I built the X99 built. I do have the Evo 840 in Raid 0 right now and it´s just amazing. Can´t wait to get an even more powerful Raid0 .

[patrickjp93]

Than he's not using the specific mobo you're mentioning. That stuff is ddr3 only.

wrong and wrong. So old it still has micron-branded RAM and he's using it, and the model number points to a motherboard launched in 2003 and you've lost. ASUS back then built ahead of its time.

 

Let me guess, you followed this link, which launched 4 years later.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131321

[Wiff]

I will go for a 2x 250 GB Raid0 Samsung 850 pro when I built the X99 built. I do have the Evo 840 in Raid 0 right now and it´s just amazing. Can´t wait to get an even more powerful Raid0 .

what size do your evos have, can you tell me your 4k random benchmarks with crystaldiskmark please

[hojnikb]

wrong and wrong. So old it still has micron-branded RAM and he's using it, and the model number points to a motherboard launched in 2003 and you've lost. ASUS back then built ahead of its time.

Than you have your model numbers mixed up. The mobo he's using quite literaly can't be more than 7 years old.

 

And while agree, that asus was built very well, they did not build anything ahead of its time. Atleast not in a manner you're describing. Because 775 was not even available back in 2003.

 

So check the model numbers agan and you'll see i'm right. Or just keep on living in a skewed version of reality. Just try not to waste precious database space and cpu time of LTT forums with your meaningless posts.

[patrickjp93]

Than you have your model numbers mixed up. The mobo he's using quite literaly can't be more than 7 years old.

 

And while agree, that asus was build very well, they did not build anything ahead of its time. Atleast not in a manner you're describing. Because 775 was not even available back in 2003.

 

So check the model numbers agan and you'll see i'm right. Or just keep on living in a skewed version of reality. Just try not to waste precious database space and cpu time of LTT forums with your meaningless posts.

Every time I kick your ass you just run away and deny everything. Fine. Now, about that "Larrabe was a failure" idea? It didn't launch because it couldn't because it kicked ass and Nvidia is anti-competition the same way Intel is.

[Najuno]

what size do your evos have, can you tell me your 4k random benchmarks with crystaldiskmark please

 

I´ve got 2x 120 GB Evos atm. Yeah I know... wasn´t exactly the best choice in performance. But not a bad either .

 

I don´t have crystaldiskmark installed atm but I see what I can do for you .

[hojnikb]

Every time I kick your ass you just run away and deny everything. Fine. Now, about that "Larrabe was a failure" idea? It didn't launch because it couldn't because it kicked ass and Nvidia is anti-competition the same way Intel is.

 

No i'm not running away. I'm just presenting you with reality. Because franky, you kinda lack in that department.

 

So unless i see a proof, that that mobo was indeed made and bought in 2003 and actually runs a quadcore processor, im standing firmly on my "you mixed your model numbers" theory. Because you have not presented any proofs of this magical motherboard, while there are numersous proofs, that 775 didn't exist in 2003 and can backup my statements.

 

If intel did kick ass, then they would simply bough off nvidia

[patrickjp93]

No i'm not running away. I'm just presenting you with reality. Because franky, you kinda lack in that department.

 

So unless i see a proof, that that mobo was indeed made and bought in 2003 and actually runs a quadcore processor, im standing firmly on my "you mixed your model numbers" theory. Because you have not presented any proofs of this magical motherboard, while there are numersous proofs, that 775 didn't exist in 2003 and can backup my statements.

 

If intel did kick ass, then they would simply bough off nvidia

Even Intel back then didn't have that money and no way would the U.S. government have allowed it given Intel's and Nvidia's market assets on U.S. soil at the time. Plus I doubt the shareholders of either company would have allowed it.

 

Also, like a troll you didn't bother to read the sources on it (Larrabe), did you?

 

And exactly what proof do you want beyond the accurate model I gave you? You're the one who jumped to the 3rd revision super SLI version launched 4 years later, which of course phases out the originals from every major vendor. You can look on ASUS' website and find it just as well I'd imagine.

[TheProfosist]

@hojnikb and @patrickjp93 just stop it or create you own thread to go on about that stuff. This is not the place.

[patrickjp93]

@hojnikb and @patrickjp93 just stop it or create you own thread to go on about that stuff. This is not the place.

Not exactly my fault he's a stalker and a troll. I have the moral obligation to not let him misinform others.

[hojnikb]

Even Intel back then didn't have that money and no way would the U.S. government have allowed it given Intel's and Nvidia's market assets on U.S. soil at the time. Plus I doubt the shareholders of either company would have allowed it.

Also, like a troll you didn't bother to read the sources on it (Larrabe), did you?

And exactly what proof do you want beyond the accurate model I gave you? You're the one who jumped to the 3rd revision super SLI version launched 4 years later, which of course phases out the originals from every major vendor. You can look on ASUS' website and find it just as well I'd imagine.

Please give me a link to the exact revision you're using then.

If it actually pans out to be a 775 quad ready board released in 2003, then i personally deliver you case of your finest beer

Not exactly my fault he's a stalker and a troll. I have the moral obligation to not let him misinform others.

How exactly am i stalker ?

[Najuno]

what size do your evos have, can you tell me your 4k random benchmarks with crystaldiskmark please

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 © 2007-2013 hiyohiyo

                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [sATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

 

Sequential Read :   932.344 MB/s

Sequential Write :   833.791 MB/s

Random Read 512KB :   782.415 MB/s

Random Write 512KB :    93.471 MB/s

Random Read 4KB (QD=1) :    42.190 MB/s [ 10300.2 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=1) :   128.966 MB/s [ 31485.8 IOPS]

Random Read 4KB (QD=32) :   350.327 MB/s [ 85529.1 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=32) :   119.492 MB/s [ 29173.0 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: 69.4% (155.1/223.5 GB)] (x5)

Date : 2014/07/25 17:18:36

OS : Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

 

So these are my results with the benchmark and a Raid 0 @ [user=Wiff]. I can provide you shortly more info, because I will install maybe tonight or tomorrow Windows 8.1 64 bit on my computer and then I´ll have a pretty fresh setup.

 

[TheProfosist]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 © 2007-2013 hiyohiyo

                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [sATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

 

Sequential Read :   932.344 MB/s

Sequential Write :   833.791 MB/s

Random Read 512KB :   782.415 MB/s

Random Write 512KB :    93.471 MB/s

Random Read 4KB (QD=1) :    42.190 MB/s [ 10300.2 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=1) :   128.966 MB/s [ 31485.8 IOPS]

Random Read 4KB (QD=32) :   350.327 MB/s [ 85529.1 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=32) :   119.492 MB/s [ 29173.0 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: 69.4% (155.1/223.5 GB)] (x5)

Date : 2014/07/25 17:18:36

OS : Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

 

So these are my results with the benchmark and a Raid 0 @ [user=Wiff]. I can provide you shortly more info, because I will install maybe tonight or tomorrow Windows 8.1 64 bit on my computer and then I´ll have a pretty fresh setup.

those random write speeds = ouch

[patrickjp93]

Please give me a link to the exact revision you're using then.

1st release.

How exactly am i stalker ?

This is the 8th thread you've barged onto and tried to start a pissing match on. I've already flagged you twice to moderators today.

[hojnikb]

1st release.

A link. A google search does not find anything else but a 790 ultra version.

[patrickjp93]

A link. A google search does not find anything else but a 790 ultra version.

Liar, it comes right up to the ASUS website after all the vendor links. Look, as a courtesy, walk away because that's what I'm doing. Leave these people's threads alone.

Not really. I'm really just here to cut your bullshit. Because frankly, this is getting beyond ridiculous.

Giving some heavy accustations agains mayor firms, stating stuff that simply isn't true, not providing any sources to back you up... Should i say more ?

I did provide sources to larrabe which you clearly didn't read, but as I said, I'm leaving and so are you if you know what's good for you, because the mods will be reviewing this thread shortly.

[hojnikb]

Liar, it comes right up to the ASUS website after all the vendor links. Look, as a courtesy, walk away because that's what I'm doing. Leave these people's threads alone.

Then give me links already. Because frankly. your exact model numer you provided only gives me the 790i version.

 

Unless the motherboard you're possesing doesn't have the same model number you provided.

[Najuno]

those random write speeds = ouch

Mhm I am not so super familiar with these SSD benchmarks but I changed from 5 to 3 test runs and the results got a lot better in random write speeds.

Random Read 512KB :   787.655 MB/s

Random Write 512KB :   166.630 MB/s

Random Read 4KB (QD=1) :    43.996 MB/s [ 10741.3 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=1) :   131.836 MB/s [ 32186.5 IOPS]

Random Read 4KB (QD=32) :   466.632 MB/s [113923.8 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=32) :   180.453 MB/s [ 44055.9 IOPS]

 

[Wiff]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 © 2007-2013 hiyohiyo

                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [sATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

 

Sequential Read :   932.344 MB/s

Sequential Write :   833.791 MB/s

Random Read 512KB :   782.415 MB/s

Random Write 512KB :    93.471 MB/s

Random Read 4KB (QD=1) :    42.190 MB/s [ 10300.2 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=1) :   128.966 MB/s [ 31485.8 IOPS]

Random Read 4KB (QD=32) :   350.327 MB/s [ 85529.1 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=32) :   119.492 MB/s [ 29173.0 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: 69.4% (155.1/223.5 GB)] (x5)

Date : 2014/07/25 17:18:36

OS : Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

 

So these are my results with the benchmark and a Raid 0 @ [user=Wiff]. I can provide you shortly more info, because I will install maybe tonight or tomorrow Windows 8.1 64 bit on my computer and then I´ll have a pretty fresh setup.

  

those random write speeds = ouch

the scaling of the random transfers are so bad, thats not worth at all, my evo alone gets 36MB/s read in 4k I think, still a great feeling having 2ssds (1st for OS and some games, 2nd for all origin games and some others) and no one else in my class has one.....most of them dont even know what that is doe

[Najuno]

  the scaling of the random transfers are so bad, thats not worth at all, my evo alone gets 36MB/s read in 4k I think, still a great feeling having 2ssds (1st for OS and some games, 2nd for all origin games and some others) and no one else in my class has one.....most of them dont even know what that is doe

 

Hope I could help you out a bit anyways .

[TheProfosist]

the scaling of the random transfers are so bad, thats not worth at all, my evo alone gets 36MB/s read in 4k I think, still a great feeling having 2ssds (1st for OS and some games, 2nd for all origin games and some others) and no one else in my class has one.....most of them dont even know what that is doe

Ill post some 2x 850 Pro 256GB RAID 0 benches hopefully soon. So you can see some real random performance.

[hojnikb]

I did provide sources to larrabe which you clearly didn't read, but as I said, I'm leaving and so are you if you know what's good for you, because the mods will be reviewing this thread shortly.

 

Which were total speculation and nothing more. While its possible that Nvidia blocked them (intel did mess with nvidia so i see good reason for them to do the same) larrabe simply wasn't a good graphics card. If it was, intel would have redesigned it in a way, that it wouldn't violate nvidia patents. But since they realized, this approach was not a good idea for a highperformance dGPU, they scrapped the whole idea and used the things they developed in other areas (some in their iGPU line, some in their dedicated compute cards).