Don_Dan 15 Feb 2011, 14:23 UTC Nice score, very well done! Less efficient due to the smaller Cache I guess?!
SteveRo 15 Feb 2011, 14:24 UTC Woah! How did I miss this! Much congrats - looks like you got a good one!
Comments
Nice score, very well done! Less efficient due to the smaller Cache I guess?!
Woah! How did I miss this! Much congrats - looks like you got a good one!
yes it seems 2mb less cache = 20 mhz lost effeciency give or take.
Great run man.
I'd say it's much more than 20 MHz, you're just so damn fast
Log in or register to comment.