Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > Hardware > Processors and motherboards AMD
Processors and motherboards AMD Got a Phenom based system or the means to buy one? You can discuss it in here!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old
  (#351)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 04-14-2012, 21:16 | posts: 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by ---TK--- View Post
Pretty pathetic performance vs a 2500k at 4ghz. is not the 3960 only at 3.9ghz and 4ghz?
It is comparably low vs a sandy bridge @ 4.0 Ghz, even at 4.8 ghz, in this specific benchmark only ~10% lower, but the scaling is significantly higher than a 2500k or 2600k, so its made up for somewhat.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#352)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SLI/Qnix 2710 100Hz
Processor: 2600k 4.5Ghz HT On
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 04-14-2012, 21:28 | posts: 18,276 | Location: New Jersey, USA

Your putting make up on a pig and expecting it to be queen of the prom. Problem with that is when you look carefully enough, you just got a pig. I admire you with your tenacity though.

Last edited by ---TK---; 04-14-2012 at 21:41.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#353)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 04-14-2012, 21:52 | posts: 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by ---TK--- View Post
Your putting make up on a pig and expecting it to be queen of the prom. Problem with that is when you look carefully enough, you just got a pig. I admire you with your tenacity though.
Some people actually appreciate multithreading performance more than single threaded performance, so you could argue that the i5 2500k is the "pig" at a "multithreaded prom". Each chip has strengths and weaknesses, neither is definitely better in every single test, so classifying a chip as a "pig" its relative and not definite.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#354)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SLI/Qnix 2710 100Hz
Processor: 2600k 4.5Ghz HT On
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 04-14-2012, 21:55 | posts: 18,276 | Location: New Jersey, USA

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=360303
You sure your not affiliated with amd. At least the nvidia focus group members have to divulge themselves in their sig
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#355)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 04-14-2012, 22:33 | posts: 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by ---TK--- View Post
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=360303
You sure your not affiliated with amd. At least the nvidia focus group members have to divulge themselves in their sig
Stop continuously attempting to veer the thread off topic with your nonsensical accusations which I have already refuted. Stay on topic or don't bother posting here at all.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#356)
Psychlone
Ancient Guru
 
Psychlone's Avatar
 
Videocard: Radeon HD5970 Engineering
Processor: i7 3820
Mainboard: ASRock x79 Extreme6/GB
Memory: F3-17000CL9Q-16GBZH
Soundcard: Gigaworks S750 7.1ch 700W
PSU: SPH1200
Default 04-18-2012, 06:39 | posts: 3,719 | Location: Searching for more light...

Why is everyone bickering over benchmarks that can't even be compared? 4.8GHz here, 2.93GHz there, 4.4 elsewhere... this isn't how we're supposed to compare...unless we're not trying to do a faithful, unbiased comparison.


For one, I haven't seen screenshots of ANY bench on 2 separate systems... heresay is heresay until pix prove otherwise. And for the record, I'm NOT on a side, I'd just like to see REAL PEOPLE benchmark and compare their systems using a standardized set of values.

So, here's MY input:

In order to have a NON-BIASED benchmark comparison here, ALL systems that participate will need to have the same exact clock speed, and ALL benchmarks will need to be run using the same exact settings -- OR -- all processors could also be run at their stock speeds, with the benchmarks being the same settings.
Without a standardized set of numbers and a baseline to compare anything to, all this is -is a bunch of flamebait and plenty of people just flaming and nothing else is getting accomplished.
In fact, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't been closed down yet because of some of the reactions in here.


Any of you that have ANY processor that are willing to join, here's what we do:
1) Decide on 5 benchmarks and the settings for each and POST THE SETTINGS
2) Run the tests, post screenshots of your scores.

It really shouldn't be harder than this.
We ALL know that some processors are going to be better at some things than other things, while other processors will fill those positions and fail at others.
We ALL also know that ANY processor at a higher clockspeed than stock will deliver higher performance numbers than the same processor at stock clocks. IMO, this is where this entire thread is failing and perhaps why so many people have so much angst against what's being done here.


So far, we've seen FX running at 4.8 compared to everything else running at every speed BUT 4.8. This is clearly not a decent comparison... So, if a certain processor isn't capable of running at 4.8, then the FX needs to be downclocked. I personally would just like to see a STOCK CLOCK comparison between all of the Intel guys and the new FX... stock clocks vs. stock clocks, regardless of what those clocks are. And I'd also like to see some of the last generation AMD (PhenomII/AthlonII) do the same since there is plenty of doubt that the new FX is even close to the performance of the older generation - let's just see REAL PEOPLE doing REAL BENCHMARKS with a standardized set of instructions, ok?

Any of you that have an Intel or AMD processor that would like to see how they stack up against the new FX, PLEASE chime in with benchmarks at stock speed, and polyzp, PLEASE match their benchmarks at stock speed... this is a really simple task guys, but it seems that everything is getting lost in semantics. I personally don't have an agenda other than to help everyone (including myself) understand any differences in the real world rather than the media benchmarks that we're all used to (I don't trust them anymore anyway - too many people in too many manufacturer's pockets to give *truly* unbiased benchmarks).


Good luck guys, and don't let this thread get closed - it does have so much potential to teach us quite alot.



Psychlone
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#357)
GhostXL
Ancient Guru
 
GhostXL's Avatar
 
Videocard: ASUS GTX 780 SLI @ 1150
Processor: i7 4790K @ 4.8ghz on H90
Mainboard: ASUS Maximus VII HERO Z97
Memory: G.Skill Trident DDR3 2667
Soundcard: Sound Blaster Z
PSU: CORSAIR AX1200 watt
Default 04-20-2012, 02:24 | posts: 5,632 | Location: PA, USA

I agree, we need actual users of the FX chips to chime in and show some benches. I mean people like TK will non-sensibly bash them all but that can be ignored.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#358)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SLI/Qnix 2710 100Hz
Processor: 2600k 4.5Ghz HT On
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 04-20-2012, 02:37 | posts: 18,276 | Location: New Jersey, USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostXL View Post
I agree, we need actual users of the FX chips to chime in and show some benches. I mean people like TK will non-sensibly bash them all but that can be ignored.
I call em like I see em. and Psych is right this non sense benching at different clocks has to stop, which has always been my argument. clock for clock comparisons from now on. any real amd BD owners out there? come on in
edit real as in no hidden agenda

Last edited by ---TK---; 04-20-2012 at 02:40.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#359)
IcE
Ancient Guru
 
IcE's Avatar
 
Videocard: Zotac GTX 780
Processor: i5 3570K @4.0
Mainboard: ASRock Z77 Extreme6
Memory: 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1866
Soundcard: SBZ + Aune T1 + CAL
PSU: Enermax NAXN 82+ 750W
Default 04-20-2012, 08:00 | posts: 9,095 | Location: Toledo

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostXL View Post
I agree, we need actual users of the FX chips to chime in and show some benches. I mean people like TK will non-sensibly bash them all but that can be ignored.
Tommy was never nonsensically bashing BD, he was just bashing the poor comparisons the OP has made throughout his testing. You simply cannot clock an FX at 4.8Ghz and then reasonably compare to lightly overclocked or stock Intel chips.

The whole thread has been a "look what I can do at maximum clocks" thread and it really hasn't been very impressive considering the power being drawn.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#360)
Redawgc187
Master Guru
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 470 X3
Processor: I-7 960 @ 4.2 CorsairH100
Mainboard: GIGABYTE G1. Assassin
Memory: 12GB 2000 Corsair Venganc
Soundcard: Creative XiFi 7.1
PSU: EMRVO 1350W + FSP 450W PB
Default 04-20-2012, 08:01 | posts: 662 | Location: United States

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthElvis View Post
I agree with your findings, for what it's worth. I don't question your data, just your conclusions. You need at least 4.5Ghz to match my Thuban @ 4.0Ghz, plus use more power and generate more heat to get there. I see that as a failure, for some odd reason you see that as a positive. Bench your FX @ 4.0 and lets see how it does, I'm kind of curious about that.

The only people that would try to spin that into a positive would either have to be delusional or be employed by the company. I can see why people are suspicious of you.
Out of everything you posted here Polyzp. I think your reply to his comment would in fact either vindicate you or show you are if in fact who many think you are because it would show AMD's new flagship in a bad light and a AMD rep would be unable to do this. So I really think you cannot or should not ignore this. And post this benchmark it really needs to be your benchmark and not one found on the internet.

Last edited by Redawgc187; 04-20-2012 at 08:07.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#361)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 04-20-2012, 11:19 | posts: 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redawgc187 View Post
Out of everything you posted here Polyzp. I think your reply to his comment would in fact either vindicate you or show you are if in fact who many think you are because it would show AMD's new flagship in a bad light and a AMD rep would be unable to do this. So I really think you cannot or should not ignore this. And post this benchmark it really needs to be your benchmark and not one found on the internet.
I said it before and ill say it again, Im willing to benchmark my rig at any clock people request me to. 4.8 Ghz is the highest i can get stable, so what I was originally trying to do was only compare my findings to what is found online, which is generally not 2600ks @ 4.8 Ghz, but this would be ideal, and I am very intrested in finding someone with a 2600k/6990 to do some real comparisons with.

Clocks should always be kept in mind when looking at any set of benchmark comparisons, nothing to hide. The majority of my benchmarks have "fair" comparisons, the rest I could simply not find high clocked intels to compare with. Comparing to a lower clocked CPU can still give you at least some idea of how each chip performs. If you look through my review I have a lot of data points, not just comparisons with low clocked intel chips like some people make out to be.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#362)
Redawgc187
Master Guru
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 470 X3
Processor: I-7 960 @ 4.2 CorsairH100
Mainboard: GIGABYTE G1. Assassin
Memory: 12GB 2000 Corsair Venganc
Soundcard: Creative XiFi 7.1
PSU: EMRVO 1350W + FSP 450W PB
Default 04-20-2012, 14:10 | posts: 662 | Location: United States

So in your honest opinion which performs better per core an AMD FX 8150 at 4.0 GHZ @ $249.99 or an AMD Thuban @ 4.0Ghz @ $149.99. To me the problem seems to be AMD bet on more applications taking advantage of multicore support which that is where FX is better than Thuban. But currently multicore support is still a rarity which has made thuban still a better choice and for less money I might add. I think FX 8150 was a step backwards if they want to compete with Intel and the their prior flagship they should drop the price to at or below the price of thuban.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#363)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SLI/Qnix 2710 100Hz
Processor: 2600k 4.5Ghz HT On
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 04-21-2012, 01:24 | posts: 18,276 | Location: New Jersey, USA

dunno 4.8ghz on SB is not exactly an extreme overclock, I have been running well over a year at 4.7-4.8 and I have an average chip. I would of looked harder for exact clock comparisons between BD and SB if I wanted a more legitimate comparisons
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#364)
GhostXL
Ancient Guru
 
GhostXL's Avatar
 
Videocard: ASUS GTX 780 SLI @ 1150
Processor: i7 4790K @ 4.8ghz on H90
Mainboard: ASUS Maximus VII HERO Z97
Memory: G.Skill Trident DDR3 2667
Soundcard: Sound Blaster Z
PSU: CORSAIR AX1200 watt
Default 04-21-2012, 01:37 | posts: 5,632 | Location: PA, USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ---TK--- View Post
dunno 4.8ghz on SB is not exactly an extreme overclock, I have been running well over a year at 4.7-4.8 and I have an average chip. I would of looked harder for exact clock comparisons between BD and SB if I wanted a more legitimate comparisons
Ugh dude...really? 4.8ghz is high even for SB. You shouldn't even go past 5ghz unless you are on water.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#365)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SLI/Qnix 2710 100Hz
Processor: 2600k 4.5Ghz HT On
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 04-21-2012, 01:50 | posts: 18,276 | Location: New Jersey, USA

yes really, your 4.4 is pretty much a baby overclock. 4.8 your in the moderate range, very doable on air even with a volt hungry chip like mine. 5.0 is doable on air if you have a low voltage chip. point is the OP should of looked harder for clock for clock comparisons.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#366)
Agent-A01
Ancient Guru
 
Agent-A01's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX Titan H20 1472/7600
Processor: i7 3770K@5Ghz HT H20
Mainboard: Asus P8Z77-WS
Memory: G.Skill 8GBx2 2400
Soundcard: Xonar Phoebus-PC360/HD598
PSU: SeaSonic Platinum-1000
Default 04-21-2012, 01:57 | posts: 6,549 | Location: USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostXL View Post
Ugh dude...really? 4.8ghz is high even for SB. You shouldn't even go past 5ghz unless you are on water.
Uhm 4.8 isnt that high. I can run 5.0ghz with respectable temps, but i dont like that much voltage going through it.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#367)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SLI/Qnix 2710 100Hz
Processor: 2600k 4.5Ghz HT On
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 04-21-2012, 02:02 | posts: 18,276 | Location: New Jersey, USA

yeah 4.8 is much more common than you think dude
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#368)
IcE
Ancient Guru
 
IcE's Avatar
 
Videocard: Zotac GTX 780
Processor: i5 3570K @4.0
Mainboard: ASRock Z77 Extreme6
Memory: 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1866
Soundcard: SBZ + Aune T1 + CAL
PSU: Enermax NAXN 82+ 750W
Default 04-21-2012, 02:31 | posts: 9,095 | Location: Toledo

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostXL View Post
Ugh dude...really? 4.8ghz is high even for SB. You shouldn't even go past 5ghz unless you are on water.
I hit 4.8 pretty easily for the lawls back when I had one. As these guys are saying it's not hard. Past 4.4 is the realm of actual overclocking on these chips, aka when you actually have to start increasing voltage.

Can't wait to see what Ivy is capable of when I get my hands on it
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#369)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 04-24-2012, 20:40 | posts: 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redawgc187 View Post
So in your honest opinion which performs better per core an AMD FX 8150 at 4.0 GHZ @ $249.99 or an AMD Thuban @ 4.0Ghz @ $149.99. To me the problem seems to be AMD bet on more applications taking advantage of multicore support which that is where FX is better than Thuban. But currently multicore support is still a rarity which has made thuban still a better choice and for less money I might add. I think FX 8150 was a step backwards if they want to compete with Intel and the their prior flagship they should drop the price to at or below the price of thuban.
In my opinion the following are equivalent (averaged performance - not in every test)

4.8 ghz FX 8150 +Patches = 4.5 Ghz Phenom II X6
4.5 ghz FX 8150 +Patches = 4.3 Ghz Phenom II X6
4.1 Ghz FX 8150 + Patches = 4 Ghz Phenom II X6

Clock per clock a Phenom II X6 will out perform an FX 8150.

Ivy bridge isnt looking pretty either, looks like (From OCC):








4.9 Ghz 2600k = 4.7 Ghz 3770k

where:



4.9 ghz 3770k = 103 C
4.9 Ghz 2600k = 65 C
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#370)
GhostXL
Ancient Guru
 
GhostXL's Avatar
 
Videocard: ASUS GTX 780 SLI @ 1150
Processor: i7 4790K @ 4.8ghz on H90
Mainboard: ASUS Maximus VII HERO Z97
Memory: G.Skill Trident DDR3 2667
Soundcard: Sound Blaster Z
PSU: CORSAIR AX1200 watt
Default 04-24-2012, 21:03 | posts: 5,632 | Location: PA, USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent-A01 View Post
Uhm 4.8 isnt that high. I can run 5.0ghz with respectable temps, but i dont like that much voltage going through it.
It is when we are talking about air. Think about most users out there. Not just a small percentage.

It really helps to see the bigger picture.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#371)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SLI/Qnix 2710 100Hz
Processor: 2600k 4.5Ghz HT On
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 04-24-2012, 21:33 | posts: 18,276 | Location: New Jersey, USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostXL View Post
It is when we are talking about air. Think about most users out there. Not just a small percentage.

It really helps to see the bigger picture.
agents on the same cooler as me megahalems rev b AIR cooler. only difference is his cpu and cooler are lapped for lower temps and he has a lower voltage chip. apples to apples 4.8ghz 2600k and 8150 should be easy as pie if you look around for benches. apples to oranges just clouds the picture in favor of the 8150.
@OP IB is looking a bit toasty but the architecture is sound. It is actually a bit faster clock for clock than SB. a new revision may iron out the temps. so it is actual faster than previous generation unlike other chips lol

Last edited by ---TK---; 04-24-2012 at 22:17.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#372)
GhostXL
Ancient Guru
 
GhostXL's Avatar
 
Videocard: ASUS GTX 780 SLI @ 1150
Processor: i7 4790K @ 4.8ghz on H90
Mainboard: ASUS Maximus VII HERO Z97
Memory: G.Skill Trident DDR3 2667
Soundcard: Sound Blaster Z
PSU: CORSAIR AX1200 watt
Default 04-24-2012, 23:48 | posts: 5,632 | Location: PA, USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ---TK--- View Post
agents on the same cooler as me megahalems rev b AIR cooler. only difference is his cpu and cooler are lapped for lower temps and he has a lower voltage chip. apples to apples 4.8ghz 2600k and 8150 should be easy as pie if you look around for benches. apples to oranges just clouds the picture in favor of the 8150.
@OP IB is looking a bit toasty but the architecture is sound. It is actually a bit faster clock for clock than SB. a new revision may iron out the temps. so it is actual faster than previous generation unlike other chips lol
Nobody said it was hard to overclock a chip. Point is that it's a high end OC when it comes to temps before aircooling isn't enough. It's around that no passing zone.

So to say it's not a high end OC isn't very accurate imo.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#373)
polyzp
Member Guru
 
Videocard: XFX 6990
Processor: AMD FX 8150
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: OCZ ZX Gold 1000w
Default 04-25-2012, 00:32 | posts: 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostXL View Post
Nobody said it was hard to overclock a chip. Point is that it's a high end OC when it comes to temps before aircooling isn't enough. It's around that no passing zone.

So to say it's not a high end OC isn't very accurate imo.

a 4.6 Ghz oc on air for a 2600k is a standard oc
a 4.6 Ghz oc on air for a FX 8150 is a standard oc

a 4.8 Ghz oc on air for a 2600k is a high oc
a 4.8 Ghz oc on air for a FX 8150 is a high oc

in best case scenarios, the 2600k generally overclocks higher than the FX 8150, but the delta is around the same.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#374)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SLI/Qnix 2710 100Hz
Processor: 2600k 4.5Ghz HT On
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 04-25-2012, 00:45 | posts: 18,276 | Location: New Jersey, USA

I disagree. 4.4 I consider minor, 4.6 average, 4.8 moderate anything higher than 4.9 you are in the high range. 4.8 for BD is very high due to the heat produced so you cant really do an apple to apple comparison 2600k vs 8150 (oc range) as the SB will run much cooler. you cant go 4.6 avg to 4.8 high as you do not list a moderate oc

Last edited by ---TK---; 04-25-2012 at 00:57.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#375)
killer_939
Maha Guru
 
killer_939's Avatar
 
Videocard: Radeon 7950 @ 1100/1500
Processor: i5 2500k @ 4.6GHz 1.36v
Mainboard: ASRock P67 Extreme6
Memory: 8gb DDR3 1600MHz
Soundcard: Xonar Essence STX + AD700
PSU: 720w
Default 04-25-2012, 01:38 | posts: 2,598 | Location: Australia

Best way imo to compare is to match their power consumption (example 2600k at x.xGhz with 1.xv overclock consuming 120w load vs AMD FX 8150 at x.xGHz with 1.xv consuming 120w load). That would give you the most accurate results of what is better. Another way could be to use the same mid air range cooler on both and push both to max thermal safe under load then see what one is better. I highly doubt the AMD FX chip could touch any modern Intel in PPW overclocked or not.

I think doing it clock for clock is pointless because we all obviously know Intel will win in most things unless they are very multithreading intensive and AMD FX will always consume more power and run hotter (if cooling is the same on both platforms).

My two cents.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.