Irgendeine leise 3870, die sehr stark übertakten kann?

Status
Für weitere Antworten geschlossen.
... und durch die Verbreiterung auf vier Spuren erreicht er quasi QX9770-Niveau.

Moechte jemand etwas ?

Danke, gern...

So langsam glaube ich auch, dass es nix bringt, jemanden davon zu überzeugen, dass er mit seiner Meinung nicht richtig liegt, wenn er so sehr daran festhält... Naja, 7 Seiten sind schon ne Leistung ;)

Greetz
MoD
SchePi
 
Wenn Du diese Anzeige nicht sehen willst, registriere Dich und/oder logge Dich ein.
Der Unterschied zwischen HTT 840 auf 1050 ist natürlich nicht so gravierent, man merkt es aber schon. Im Am2 thread haben dass auch ein paar User behauptet. Und ich muss nicht eure meinungen annehmen, HT bringt etwas Performance, nicht viel aber etwas performance bringt es schon, genau so wie CPU overclock.
 
könnt mir glatt vorstellen das er sich erst mal einen raucht bevor der an pc geht....da kommen die farben viel besser rüber und cs läuft doppelt so schnell xD
 
ein Englisher Freund meint dazu.

radish says:
in forum people are very dumb
radish says:
I tell them that Bus speed increase gives more performance
radish says:
they laug at me and say i don´t let me teach
radish says:
I tell them cpu increase gives more performance
radish says:
they say they don´t feel more performance, only more 3d mark points
radish says:
they are really dumb
Grammaton Feather says:
they are dumb
Grammaton Feather says:
is german forum?
Grammaton Feather says:
why u not post on english forum eh?
radish says:
I must find good english forum
 
Super der spricht english wie er aus der gosse kommen würde dump dump dump mehr lese ich nicht you english friend is an damn fool ;)
 
Ja, esläuft besser, 5 Prozent cpu overclock merkt man, wer was anderes sagt lügt. Dazu habe ich noch den htt von 840 auf 1050 gehoben, da gabs auch einen Unterschied, obwhol die meisten sagen es bringt nichts, jedes bischen OC hilft.

Jetzt habe ich sowieso genug antworten, ich werde mir jetzt überlegen, was ich mache.

Merken aber nur durch nen Bench, selber bekommst du keine 150Mhz mehr mit.

Ich werde jetzt nichts mehr shcreiben weil für euch jede CPU gleich viel Leistung hat und OC bei keinem Gerät, Grafikkarte, Arbeitsspeicher und CPU was bringt und HTT Erhöhung bringt laut euch auch nichts weil dann die Autobhan lerrer ist, dann staut es sich allerdings weninge.r In anderen Wroten mehr Daten können durch den channel fließen um von der CPU bearbeitet zu werden. Aber nach euren theorien bringt OC überhaupt nichts, egal was für eine Komponente und laut euch ist der AMd ein sehr schneller Prozessor obwohl er in Benchmarks beschiessen darsteht aber ihr würdet sagen, Benchmarks sind falsch und nur bei Intel werden hohe Ergebnisse gezeigt, ihr Noobs.

Wo steht den das OC nichts bringt?

Bei einer 500Mhz CPU wären 5% 25Mhz mehr.
Bei einer 4000MHz CPU sind 5% 200Mhz.

^^Unterschied nur in nem Bench.

Wenn du jetzt 2Ghz hast und durchs übertakten 500 oder 1000MHz mehr machst, dann kannste sagen es bringt was.

5% mehr Takt bedeutet ja nicht das man 5% mehr leistung hat.

Bei Grafikkarten bringt es was, wenn man wie z.B. im fall der 3850 und 3870 die gleiche GPU hat. Und diese nicht beschnitten ist. Dann wird aber langsamer Speicher verbaut, um nen unterschied zu erzielen.

Oder wie damals bei der 6800 die Pipes freischalten kann.

Wenn ich meine Karte übertakte, habe ich in nem Spiel vieleicht 1-3fps mehr, aber das bringt mir auch nichts. Da ich den unterschied nicht merke.

Bei spielen bringt der höhere HTT deutlich mehr leistung und dass ist Fakt, ende der diskussion.

Wo sind die Beweise?
 
2 fps im average mehr sind doch gut, 2 fps können viel ausmachen, wenn ein Spiel ruckelt, daher finde ich, dass 2 fps mehr was bringen. Wenn jemand sagt, der Unterschied lohnt sich nicht, stimmt dass nicht, 3 fps zum Beispiel können ein Spiel von fast flüssig auf flüssig machen was sich definitv lohnt.
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
"Wo steht den das OC nichts bringt?

Bei einer 500Mhz CPU wären 5% 25Mhz mehr.
Bei einer 4000MHz CPU sind 5% 200Mhz."

Strange facts you post. I overclocked my old E6300 core duo from 1.86ghz default speed to 3.64ghz. System bus was 2030mhz and this gave a very big increase in FPS in games.

For anyone here who thinks clock speed doesn't make much difference? I suggest you go back to school. CPU, system bus and ram overclock can make a big difference. A modern GPU needs is very demanding on the system. Typically what happens is that when you connect even a medium spec graphics card, you won't get the maximum performance from it unless your CPU is running fast enough. If you're not rich enough to own an extreme processor then you need to overclock to get full performance from your GPU.

This can easily be verified. If you run an FPS test with for example - an 8800gt on an AMD or core duo at less than 3ghz, you can get a significant increase in FPS by overclocking the CPU. When you overclock the cpu, you also overclock the system bus and optionally the ram as well. This all adds up to a lot of extra bandwidth. I can tell you that the increase in FPS is much bigger when you overclock your cpu/system bus than it is when you overclock a GPU.

Some time ago I observed an increase in FPS on counterstrike source as I overclocked. The FPS began at 180, and by the time I finished overclocking the CPU to 3.6ghz, the FPS in CSS had increased to 240. Actually the FPS stopped increasing once the cpu reached about 3.2ghz. The GPU I had at the time was the 7900gt. A more modern cpu demands even more from the system.

I am currently overclocking my Q6600 to 3.848ghz. FSB = 1924mhz.
 
Ofcourse feathers, but what they are telling is that an AMD cpu with only 2,8 GHz is enough for a graphics card like GTX 260 and ATI HD 4870, they tell me that on high settings always the gpu is the bottle neck, never the cpu. They recommend an 4850 or even GTX 260 which is way faster than the 8800 GT to users with an Athlon with 2,6 Ghz which is as fast as a core 2duo with 2,1 GHz. such graphics cards require way faster cpus and a slow cpu can´t delier smooth fps in games even with such graphics cards because the games are running slow when there are combats with lots of charcters and artificial intelligence. Than there will appear lags in the games no matter how fast the gpu is.
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
exactly, we will never tell another story again... :heuldoch:

Zwei mal drei macht vier,
widde widde witt und drei macht neune.
Ich mach' mir die Welt,
widde widde wie sie mir gefällt.


oh, P.S.:

don't forget to mention the 2D acceleration of your Desktop ;)

P.P.S.:
langsam wirds zu blöd... ich bitte um verbannung:shot:
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Ofcourse feathers, but what they are telling is that an AMD cpu with only 2,8 GHz is enough for a graphics card like GTX 260 and ATI HD 4870, they tell me that on high settings always the gpu is the bottle neck, never the cpu.

Haha!

That is seriously dumb!

It is easy to prove a 2,8ghz cpu is not enough to drive a GTX 260. Just overclock the cpu and watch the FPS increase for some distance. When the FPS no longer increases, that is the point at which the cpu/system can keep up with the demand from GPU.

:)
 
don't forget to mention the 2D acceleration of your Desktop

I allready told him that I think a faster gpu gives more performance in 3d, especially in Vista because Vista is using 3d acceleration of the gpu. I told him that I think there´s little increase in behaviour of the 2d performance in Vista, when the GPU gets overclocked.
 
grammaton,

even if i have a feeling that you and "Radi6404" are the same person:

No one told that overclocking parts of the system like CPU, bus or memory would not have an impact to the entire system performance.

The question is: what kind and amount of overclock can cause an acceleration that can be noticed?

"Radi6404" says that the power saving features of modern graphic cards as AMDs HD 4XX0 series would cause a drop in performance of the windows GUI. This is bullshit. Nothing else. VISTA needs a DX10 class GPU to bring AERO to life - but AERO is handled by the OS; a power saving feature of a GPU will never cause a performance drop to the GUI of VISTA.

"Radi6404" says that he would notice a difference in the scrolling of websites between stock and overclocked speeds. Do i really have to comment this?

He further claims that his CPU is at stock speed not capable of handling GOOGLE EARTH. This is bullshit. Nothing else. I could continue this list for a while.

Maybe you should ask first and use words like "dumb" then. At least this is how we handle things over here in Germany.
 
Bullshit, i don´t say the saving feature causes a performance dro, the performance in Vista aero is still fast with the power saving method, but without the power saving the performance of Vista aero would be faster, that´s what I was telling here, translate correctly you clown.

And most people here told that increasing the HT spped on AMD cpus dones´t give more performance at all, aktually the HT channel of AMD gives a performance gain, not big but you can feel it in some games.

And I do have problems in google earth, If I measure the frames in high textured areas in google earth I have a framerate of below 30 fps, without the cpu and systembus overclock the framerate drop at those places was even higher, and I don´t think fraps lies.

Why do you guys think that Vista has a rating that tells you how your system is, it has a rating that measures the speed of the gpu, it says, gpu power for Vista area or something like that, don´t know how it is because I only tried German versions of Vista so it might be a bit different in English.
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Radi6404,

it does not make a difference at all. Both is bullshit. The speed of AERO is handled by VISTA, regardingless of how fast your GPU operates. A MP3 file is also not played in half the time even if your CPU runs twice as fast as normal.

BTW: defamations were never a good substitute for arguments.
 
An mp3 and Vista aero have nothing to do with each other, if many applications are opened the overall system performance drops and if you would move a winodow it would move slower and lag sometimes if the load is high, with high overclock the lags are shorter or don´t appear at all anymore and the windows move smoother.
 
grammaton,

even if i have a feeling that you and "Radi6404" are the same person:

No one told that overclocking parts of the system like CPU, bus or memory would not have an impact to the entire system performance.

The question is: what kind and amount of overclock can cause an acceleration that can be noticed?

"Radi6404" says that the power saving features of modern graphic cards as AMDs HD 4XX0 series would cause a drop in performance of the windows GUI. This is bullshit. Nothing else. VISTA needs a DX10 class GPU to bring AERO to life - but AERO is handled by the OS; a power saving feature of a GPU will never cause a performance drop to the GUI of VISTA.

"Radi6404" says that he would notice a difference in the scrolling of websites between stock and overclocked speeds. Do i really have to comment this?

He further claims that his CPU is at stock speed not capable of handling GOOGLE EARTH. This is bullshit. Nothing else. I could continue this list for a while.

Maybe you should ask first and use words like "dumb" then. At least this is how we handle things over here in Germany.

You have a "feeling" radi and I are the same person? Is that based on scientific evidence or merely innate psychic ability? I would suggest that unless you have some kind of hard proof that radish and I are the same person, then your feeling is worthless. Of course such feelings can be used to sway the emotions of others and whip up a frenzy of wagging tongues. Ultimately a feeling may be nothing more than your delusional state of mind.

In the absence of proof for or against, there is a 50/50 chance either way. I wouldn't like to bet under those odds. :)

Now, I really can't comment on radish's claims that GPU power saving affects vista performance. I have explained however that overclocking a CPU/system bus allows a GPU to work at full potential. This is quite a well known fact actually. Why take my word for it? All you have to do is try it for yourself. Run an FPS test on counterstrike source for example, at default cpu speed and then overclocked. As I previously mentioned. An increase from 184 fps to 244 fps on my old pc with 7900gt is quite enormous. A high performance GPU is even more demanding of cpu and to get the most from such a graphics processor, you should have a very fast cpu. How much of a difference? That depends on the overclock. AMD aren't exactly great overclockers anyway but for core duo I'd be talking at least an increase from 2.4ghz to 3.2ghz in order to gain the full performance from a GPU.

And you seem to reject radish's claim that overclocking a CPU/system can make windows smoother? That's very amusing to me since I can see the performance gain going from 2.4 to 3ghz, then to 3.6ghz, and even the jump up to 3.848. What becomes apparent is that applications open much faster, everything feels faster and even dragging the scrollbar feels smoother on firefox 3. I am talking about vista 32 here since I no longer use XP.

So, if you still want to argue and say that my overclocking a q6600 g0 to 3.848 shows no noticeable increase in vista smoothness/performance, then I would be left with no choice but to call you a noob and recommend you try overclocking. And if you have already overclocked a q6600 to 3.8ghz+ and can't see any speed increase, then I recommend you see an eye specialist.

:)
 
Some time ago I observed an increase in FPS on counterstrike source as I overclocked. The FPS began at 180, and by the time I finished overclocking the CPU to 3.6ghz, the FPS in CSS had increased to 240. Actually the FPS stopped increasing once the cpu reached about 3.2ghz. The GPU I had at the time was the 7900gt. A more modern cpu demands even more from the system.

I am currently overclocking my Q6600 to 3.848ghz. FSB = 1924mhz.

CSS: An engine witch scales with the CPU-Frequency more than any other games/engines....
You don't get the point of the discussion here. No one denies here that a increase of CPU(BUS, RAM)/GPU clock won't increase the performance. It's just the question wether it increase the performance @ scrolling in Windows. And our friend radi here has the opinion that he can tell the difference between 50 and 60 fps with his bare eyes.

And you seem to reject radish's claim that overclocking a CPU/system can make windows smoother? That's very amusing to me since I can see the performance gain going from 2.4 to 3ghz, then to 3.6ghz, and even the jump up to 3.848. What becomes apparent is that applications open much faster, everything feels faster and even dragging the scrollbar feels smoother on firefox 3. I am talking about vista 32 here since I no longer use XP.

You talk about overclocking a CPU. Ofc at some points the system gets 'smoother' with a higher CPU-Clock. And no one is also denying that point. But Radi talks about using the 3D-Clock of a modern GPU even 2D-Mode would increase the Perfomance @ work in windows. Even the scrolling @ firefox get better and windows are popping up faster.

I recommend you see an eye specialist.
Learn German, read the topic and the thread. And now the most important point: UNDERSTAND what's going on here and STOP insulting people. I think that would make you a better user, maybe a better guy :)
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Now they all tell different stories but in German they insulted me when I told that cpu increase gives a performance boost.

they recommend very fast gpus to users with very slow cpus and say that in high resolutions the gpu will always be the bottleneck. They said that windows gui doesn´t have any advantage of overclock or no overclock since it is software controlled. They say that an AMD at 2,8 GHz is fast enough for Crysis with all effects at max if there is a good gpu. That´s hilarious enough.

Most people here say Crysis is very badly programmed and that´s what I told you Feathers, the people here say Crysis is very badly programmed.

And no, people here are telling that increasing the Systembus makes apsolutely no difference, they compared it to a motorway with 3 lanes vs 4 lanes if it is overclocked. They said that the cars are still driving the same speed, I told them with higher system bus more data can flow so the cpu can calculate faster after that I got insulted and laughed at here. Don´t lie you fool.

How funny is that to recommend an 4870 and claim that the a 3 GHz AMD cpu is fast enough for that card and that in high resolutions the gpu will always be the bottleneck, no matter how slow the cpu is if it is faster than an AMD speed of 2,8 GHz.

I can not tell the difference between 50 and 60 fps, I can feel the difference between 50 and 80 fps however, if the game is not set to a ingame speed where you can overclock as much as you want and the speed stays the same, there are still some games where you can tell the difference if they are not looked.

For windows popping up faster a fast cpu is most responsible, however I think that a gpu may help in Vista aera for smoothless and performance if it is overclocked, when it is a slow gpu ofcourse.
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Hey the AMD @ 2.8Ghz IS fast enough to play Crysis at with the highest level of detail. Why do you still think that the CPU is to slow.

And yes, in high resolutions the CPU is always the bottleneck. If you change the resolution the CPU wont have to do much more work!
 
CSS: An engine witch scales with the CPU-Frequency more than any other games/engines....
You don't get the point of the discussion here. No one denies here that a increase of CPU(BUS, RAM)/GPU clock won't increase the performance. It's just the question wether it increase the performance @ scrolling in Windows. And our friend radi here has the opinion that he can tell the difference between 50 and 60 fps with his bare eyes.



You talks about overclocking a CPU. Ofc at some points the system gets 'smoother' with a higher CPU-Clock. And no one is also denying that point. But Radi talks about using the 3D-Clock of a modern GPU even 2D-Mode would increase the Perfomance @ work in windows. Even the scrolling @ firefox get better and windows are popping up faster.


Learn German, read the topic and the thread. And now the most important point: UNDERSTAND what's going on here and STOP insulting people. I think that would make you a better user, maybe a better guy :)

You can teach me german. I will pay you a salary of 5 euros per hour. :)

I have just slowed the clock on my 8800gt in vista. I slowed the clock in 3d mode from 675, down to 340mhz. I also slowed the shader and mem clocks as well. I can't see any difference in windows when dragging or moving things around the screen or accessing the start menu. I also slowed it in 2d mode and I couldn't see any difference there either.

So I can say that for the graphics card clock speeds I can see no difference in vista performance. For my cpu/system, big difference in performance with big overclock.

:)
 
Now they all tell different stories but in German they insulted me when I told that cpu increase gives a performance boost.

they recommend very fast gpus to users with very slow cpus and say that in high resolutions the gpu will always be the bottleneck. They said that windows gui doesn´t have any advantage of overclock or no overclock since it is software controlled. They say that an AMD at 2,8 GHz is fast enough for Crysis with all effects at max if there is a good gpu.

We are all liers and bad guys. And you need an English speaking 'friend' to protect you from the evil German forum users. Benchmarks of serious magazines and homepages doensn't count as evidence for you. You only trust in a friend. But I thought you have inhuman POWERS. Because i can't tell the difference between 60 and 70 fps. I am just a weak human and stop @ 25-30fps. You reaktion just dissapointed me so much, that i lost my faith into the whole world.

And remember: DON'T HATE THE PLAYERS, HATE THE GAME!



EDIT:
@Grammaton:
RIGHT! CORRECT! GREAT!
I have just slowed the clock on my 8800gt in vista. I slowed the clock in 3d mode from 675, down to 340mhz. I also slowed the shader and mem clocks as well. I can't see any difference in windows when dragging or moving things around the screen or accessing the start menu. I also slowed it in 2d mode and I couldn't see any difference there either.

So I can say that for the graphics card clock speeds I can see no difference in vista performance. For my cpu/system, big difference in performance with big overclock.

Now please explain this to your friend. We will be eternal thankfull (no IRONIC!!!)
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Large post, small content.

I wouldn't like to bet under those odds. :)

Nevertheless you spent one-third to this topic.

And you seem to reject radish's claim that overclocking a CPU/system can make windows smoother? That's very amusing to me since I can see the performance gain going from 2.4 to 3ghz, then to 3.6ghz, and even the jump up to 3.848.

As mentioned one post before: this is not the point. He claims that the performance of AERO would increase when the GPU does not power down in 2D. Can you see this too?

I am a lil afraid of the answer.

Have you ever heard of "GDI+"? You wont like it. It´s a non-overclockable thing.

EDIT: Damn, too slow (me, not my GPU).

(...)I recommend you see an eye specialist.

Maybe you wanna visit a doctor? But it is not an eye doctor i have in mind (what a nice word play ...).
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Hey er ist gar nicht der böse! Lies mal :) Muss nur der Radi jetzt auch verstehen. Oder besser nicht, sonst gibs einen Close hier und das wollen wir alle nicht.
 
Now they all tell different stories but in German they insulted me when I told that cpu increase gives a performance boost.

they recommend very fast gpus to users with very slow cpus and say that in high resolutions the gpu will always be the bottleneck. They said that windows gui doesn´t have any advantage of overclock or no overclock since it is software controlled. They say that an AMD at 2,8 GHz is fast enough for Crysis with all effects at max if there is a good gpu. That´s hilarious enough.

Most people here say Crysis is very badly programmed and that´s what I told you Feathers, the people here say Crysis is very badly programmed.

And no, people here are telling that increasing the Systembus makes apsolutely no difference, they compared it to a motorway with 3 lanes vs 4 lanes if it is overclocked. They said that the cars are still driving the same speed, I told them with higher system bus more data can flow so the cpu can calculate faster after that I got insulted and laughed at here. Don´t lie you fool.

How would they know if crysis is badly programmed? Are they expert programmers who have disassembled crysis? If so then why haven't the optimised it? :)

Crysis has such an incredible level of scenery that it is no surprise it needs a powerful system. It was designed to be playable on future hardware. The intention was that people play the game now on whatever system they have at reduced detail, and when the hardware advances, then play it at higher detail. So to say that crysis is badly programmed is nonsense. There is no other game with such complex scenery and really no surprise that on high settings it requires a lot of power.

"they recommend very fast gpus to users with very slow cpus " - this will mean that the GPU isn't working at full performance. I would still prefer to have the very fast GPU, but I would overclock my cpu to make sure I got full performance from the GPU.

"They say that an AMD at 2,8 GHz is fast enough for Crysis with all effects at max if there is a good gpu. That´s hilarious enough." - If we're talking about an AMD dual core then it is very hilarious. 2.8ghz won't allow full potential of a high performance GPU and to make things worse, crysis would have to run with low to medium setting for physics since this requires a lot of cpu. For high/max physics you would need a quad core on crysis.
 
Ich hatte mir schon gedacht, dass es nix bringen wird.

spätestens da hat's mich zerrissen :d

grammatron:

it's different from game to game. GPU is the bottleneck in most of the latest games, especially when played in high quality and high resolution. on lowest settings and lowest resolution it is the other way round (CPU is the bottleneck). but this is for benchmarking purposes only, because no one plays at 800x600 on lowest settings and it does not matter whether you have 240 or 300 fps at low settings. on the other hand, it does matter whether you have 25 or 35 fps at high settings (and compared to low settings you won't reach 35 by overclocking the CPU)
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Ofcourse we are talking about AMD dualcore cpus, the quadcore cpus are Phenon and they have better performance, I´ve expalined them that I would have to reduce the physics detail and they said that I am talking bullshit, you said even your overclocked dualcore cpu lagged in Crysis sometimes and they say it would run prefectly smooth on a cpu that is 40 percent slower than your old cpu.
 
spätestens da hat's mich zerrissen :d

grammatron:

it's different from game to game. GPU is the bottleneck in most of the latest games, especially when played in high quality and high resolution. on lowest settings and lowest resolution it is the other way round (CPU is the bottleneck). but this is for benchmarking purposes only, because no one plays at 800x600 on lowest settings and it does not matter whether you have 240 or 300 fps at low settings. on the other hand, it does matter whether you have 25 or 35 fps at high settings (and compared to low settings you won't reach 35 by overclocking the CPU)

yes, but still if people here say that they want to play games like crysis with an AMd cpu people here would recommend them a very fast gpu and say that they can run all settings at max.

Hey the AMD @ 2.8Ghz IS fast enough to play Crysis at with the highest level of detail. Why do you still think that the CPU is to slow.

And yes, in high resolutions the CPU is always the bottleneck. If you change the resolution the CPU wont have to do much more work!

I think that´s enough of proof how most forumers behave, but now you can say that you didn´t say the AMD is fast enough in crysis at max seetings in physics and so on altough I quoted you here.

""they recommend very fast gpus to users with very slow cpus " - this will mean that the GPU isn't working at full performance. I would still prefer to have the very fast GPU, but I would overclock my cpu to make sure I got full performance from the GPU."

Yes, you said it overclock teh cpu, but some users here have overclocked a 2 GHz Athlon to 2,8 GHz so that´s their max overclock, and for that forumers recommend way too fast gpus which would not run with their full performance, and that not only in crysis, there are other cpu demanding games, too.
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Wenn du dich so super gut mit der Materie auskennst (so wie bei Boxen zb :)) WARUM machst du noch einen Thread auf und bittest um Rat anderer? Kauf das was du für das beste hällst und erfreue dich daran. Vor allem: behalte deine Entscheidung für dich!
 
Status
Für weitere Antworten geschlossen.

Ähnliche Themen

Hardwareluxx setzt keine externen Werbe- und Tracking-Cookies ein. Auf unserer Webseite finden Sie nur noch Cookies nach berechtigtem Interesse (Art. 6 Abs. 1 Satz 1 lit. f DSGVO) oder eigene funktionelle Cookies. Durch die Nutzung unserer Webseite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir diese Cookies setzen. Mehr Informationen und Möglichkeiten zur Einstellung unserer Cookies finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.


Zurück
Oben Unten refresh