Zedric
NTFS Guru
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2002
- Messages
- 4,006
He's been here since April by the looks of it. But never posted... :ermm:Aprox said:You registered to say that?........hehe... welcome to the forums.
He's been here since April by the looks of it. But never posted... :ermm:Aprox said:You registered to say that?........hehe... welcome to the forums.
Oh come on now. I know that clock speed doesn't mean everything, but that's just taking it too far. If you really had a 7.2GHz Intel (and it actually ran without shutting down), you can be sure it would steamroll the fastest AMD processor available today.ming said:Probably performs exactly the same as an AMD FX cpu.
NetRyder said:Oh come on now. I know that clock speed doesn't mean everything, but that's just taking it too far. If you really had a 7.2GHz Intel (and it actually ran without shutting down), you can be sure it would steamroll the fastest AMD processor available today.
NetRyder said:Oh come on now. I know that clock speed doesn't mean everything, but that's just taking it too far. If you really had a 7.2GHz Intel (and it actually ran without shutting down), you can be sure it would steamroll the fastest AMD processor available today.
LeeJend said:You know me, trouble maker.
What do you get when you multiply 388x19?
or even
What do you get when you multiply 386x19?
Neither matches the 7228 it shows on the screen.
On the other hand I could not find any evidence of pixel manipulation in Photoshop.
Is it real or is it memorex?
Treewolf said:they have multiplied 380 x 19 which is 7220