Is this real?
- Thread starter vnf4ultra
- Start date
- Status
LinkedKube
Posts: 3,385 +55
its about that time, so yeah i think its real.
T
tifc8lraz
I read an article about the new line of Dual/Quad Core CPU's that Intel is coming out with 
. Now in labs, they have them clocked past 3.00GHz ! It's code-named the "Intel Penryn" and is expected to be released Q1, 2008 !
. Now in labs, they have them clocked past 3.00GHz ! It's code-named the "Intel Penryn" and is expected to be released Q1, 2008 !kitty500cat
Posts: 1,391 +6
Maybe the Super PI thing was taking from a Blue Gene/P
I voted unsure.
I voted unsure.
LinkedKube
Posts: 3,385 +55
peryn is due in july people, end of july.
LinkedKube
Posts: 3,385 +55
I havnt been able to crash my system purposely through stressing. I agree with you, the c2d+ line is strong and even ahead of its time. I'm going to get a p35 board for the insane 1900fsb they get, WOW.
vnf4ultra
Posts: 1,360 +2
Ok, the poll is closed. Both pictures are total fakes. Thanks to all who (unknowingly) participated in my experiment. After seeing a lot of people in some other forums post pics to "prove" unbelieveable overclocks, I wanted to determine if a person could easily modify a picture using free tools with no training in photo manipulation and have a result that's believable. Apparently the answer is yes, and it's not as hard as I thought.
To modify both pictures I used paint.net, which is free. I had never used the program prior to doing this and have very little photoshop(or other photo editing software) experience. To modify the super pi, I ran a 256K super pi on my rig, then ran a 1m run. I then saved screenshots of both, pasted the 1M header into the 256K picture. Then, I added 2 more lines(to get the standard 19 iterations of a 1M run) of times from some other super pi runs I had pictures of into the 256K picture. I just had so make sure the time values I added fit ok between times in the 256K run. I also had to make sure the last time remained the same and that the 256K checksum was still listed. I think the fact that the super pi checksum checker doesn't check the amount of digits on the run is a flaw. The checksum matches in my pic, but it's a 256k run labeled as a 1m, and it passes a check.
[CENTER]Original:
[/CENTER]
To modify the cpuz, I just used the clone tool and cloned numbers from other parts of the picture into the places I wanted. I just had to make sure my fsb, multi, and cpu speed all added up. I made up in my mind a fictional cpu, the core 2 duo e9600. I made up specs on this cpu of 3.00ghz, 1333FSB (9x333), and 8MB cache. I then used this cpu as the basis of my "screenshot."
[CENTER]
Original:
[/CENTER]
So I guess what I want people to see is that just because a picture shows something, it doesn't mean it's real. Congrats to MetalX for noticing the different color schemes in the pics. The one pic is in xp silver, the other is in vista aero(with the program edges cut off). It's small things like that that give it away as a fake. Also, the super pi and the cpuz should really be on the same screenshot(that could be faked too, but having them separate doesn't make sense). In the cpuz, the 8192 KBytes number the "1" is just slightly off where it should be, but it's pretty hard to tell.
I was somewhat surprised at how many people thought it was real, especially since I cast an air of doubt in my first post by asking if it was fake. A person who is a real screenshot faker would have made up a story like "Hey guys I got to see the most amazing chip last week. I have a friend from college who got a job at intel in R&D a few years back and I was able to visit him while on vacation this year. He let me play with a new chip he was testing, the core 2 duo e9600. It was blazing fast, I took a few pics to show you guys. He says intel is releasing this new e9x00 series of core 2 duo with an 8MB cache and a 1333fsb in the next few months. Here're some pics." By stating as fact, a person is more likely to fool others than with the "is this fake" method I used.
So, in conclusion, don't believe everything you see, especially if it's "unbelievable."
P.S. Just in case anyone was wondering, no, I don't doctor the numbers in any screenshots I post as being my own overclock.
To modify both pictures I used paint.net, which is free. I had never used the program prior to doing this and have very little photoshop(or other photo editing software) experience. To modify the super pi, I ran a 256K super pi on my rig, then ran a 1m run. I then saved screenshots of both, pasted the 1M header into the 256K picture. Then, I added 2 more lines(to get the standard 19 iterations of a 1M run) of times from some other super pi runs I had pictures of into the 256K picture. I just had so make sure the time values I added fit ok between times in the 256K run. I also had to make sure the last time remained the same and that the 256K checksum was still listed. I think the fact that the super pi checksum checker doesn't check the amount of digits on the run is a flaw. The checksum matches in my pic, but it's a 256k run labeled as a 1m, and it passes a check.
[CENTER]Original:
[/CENTER]To modify the cpuz, I just used the clone tool and cloned numbers from other parts of the picture into the places I wanted. I just had to make sure my fsb, multi, and cpu speed all added up. I made up in my mind a fictional cpu, the core 2 duo e9600. I made up specs on this cpu of 3.00ghz, 1333FSB (9x333), and 8MB cache. I then used this cpu as the basis of my "screenshot."
[CENTER]
Original:
[/CENTER]So I guess what I want people to see is that just because a picture shows something, it doesn't mean it's real. Congrats to MetalX for noticing the different color schemes in the pics. The one pic is in xp silver, the other is in vista aero(with the program edges cut off). It's small things like that that give it away as a fake. Also, the super pi and the cpuz should really be on the same screenshot(that could be faked too, but having them separate doesn't make sense). In the cpuz, the 8192 KBytes number the "1" is just slightly off where it should be, but it's pretty hard to tell.
I was somewhat surprised at how many people thought it was real, especially since I cast an air of doubt in my first post by asking if it was fake. A person who is a real screenshot faker would have made up a story like "Hey guys I got to see the most amazing chip last week. I have a friend from college who got a job at intel in R&D a few years back and I was able to visit him while on vacation this year. He let me play with a new chip he was testing, the core 2 duo e9600. It was blazing fast, I took a few pics to show you guys. He says intel is releasing this new e9x00 series of core 2 duo with an 8MB cache and a 1333fsb in the next few months. Here're some pics." By stating as fact, a person is more likely to fool others than with the "is this fake" method I used.
So, in conclusion, don't believe everything you see, especially if it's "unbelievable."
P.S. Just in case anyone was wondering, no, I don't doctor the numbers in any screenshots I post as being my own overclock.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
SuperAntiSpyware problem- Julio Franco replied
-
Apple Vision Pro is facing declining interest and sales among consumers- midian182 replied
