x2 4800

[pancake]

well my 4800 arrived today rather quick thanks to the shigs for the quick delivery. whats the limit for vcore on watercooling on theese chips?

[pancake]

first quick test done upto 2700 300 htt x 9 multi same as my old winnie chips max on water. running on 1.325 vcore. ran 2 super pi 1meg together and they finnished within .0001 of a second of each other temps were around 34c under 2 core load. not bad for a first test. im aiming for 3gig lets see if it does it easy

[Cooper]

Strange voltages - 1.2 then 1.31. It should be 1.35 at least.

[pancake]

1.2 was what it set to default in bios and it seemed fine. using 1.4v now @ 2835 no improvement on super pi time as im using a divider now just to make sure its not my ram limiting me interesting thing is my pwm temps have rocketed to about 53c without load used to be around 40c . tried 10 x 300 for 3gig @ 1.45 vcore but it hangs during boot whats safe volts to go on water?

[Sucka]

I was running 1.55v through mine on air. I would think 1.65 should be plenty safe for that chip. You'll find that with voltage temps skyrocket. I found that there is a threshold for voltage on my chip, if it doesn't crash, or freeze it's been pretty solid for me. Best thing to do is test it yourself rather than ask. Unless you're over 1.75v i wouldn't have any worried about killing the CPU, of course that is just my take :)

[pancake]

yea was gonna test it but theres a thread here with a x2 4800 on vapo ls and hes stopped at 1.6v because of the temps

[Sucka]

yea was gonna test it but theres a thread here with a x2 4800 on vapo ls and hes stopped at 1.6v because of the temps

As always, you need to watch your temps. That said, there's no way to know a "safe voltage" for each chip. Each one if different.

[shigs]

first quick test done upto 2700 300 htt x 9 multi same as my old winnie chips max on water. running on 1.325 vcore. ran 2 super pi 1meg together and they finnished within .0001 of a second of each other temps were around 34c under 2 core load. not bad for a first test. im aiming for 3gig lets see if it does it easy

nice results there mate :toast: keep pushin that baby, this is tempting me 2 keep 1 for myself now :D

shigs

[pancake]

trying to strike a balance of power and good temps. im at 2880 1.48 vcore cpu is 47c under water running 2 instances sp2004... pwm is at 74c :eek: . this is the first time anything has made my tagan psu rails drop there modded to 12.48 on the +12v it hardly ever used to budge on my winnie , now its at 11.96 lol ... bugger 78c on the pwm... what are pwm temps good to on a ultra d?

edit: went and got a 120mm papst fan and got it jammed in between my water tubes and a ide cable blowing on the pwm... at 45c after 5 minutes of sp2004 , doing a better job then the desk fan was

[Vincentvega18]

Really tempted to pick one of these up from him shigs, its either this or an fx-57............any ideads anyone, and this is basically just for benching. I think ive reached a crossroads in my o/c "career", do i go for pcmark etc or 3dmark etc........help.

[TransNone13]

If its just for benching gofor the 57.

[NickK]

TransNone13 - why? Some of us like pushing new frontiers :D Besides getting a good clock on an X2 is twice as hard - you have two cores to contend with. :p

Nice going Pancake. :D

The high temps of the PWM seem to be a key part in running these fast. The additional current draw means the PWM needs special cooling attention.
One option is to run a waterblock on them - in the short term I'd ensure there's a good CFM fan over it (which you've done).

I may start winding my 4400 up further. I've got some free time at last... lol.

[xs64]

ARGGGGGHH !! I want one :slobber: :slobber:

pancake , i'm jealous with you :slapass: :D

Keep that baby going :banana:

[TransNone13]

Lol true. I personally think getting a PC just to bench is a waste. I'm grabbing an X2 when I feel it's right and there's no doubt in my mind it's a better choice than the 57.

[xgman]

well my 4800 arrived today rather quick thanks to the shigs for the quick delivery. whats the limit for vcore on watercooling on theese chips?


I burned mine in without a top at 1.7 for a few hours and then set it down to around 1.62v at 32deg idle temps on G5 water at 2900mhz.

[TransNone13]

Wow, does it need that much voltage?

[xgman]

no, just wanted it to burn in fast, but I think 1.6v is the sweet spot for water.

[sysfailur]

Been testing my 4400+ that I just got today. 2.7ghz right now watercooled. 1.525v set in the bios which comes up as 1.472 in cpu-z. I'm gonna run out of voltage before I find this chips max :( I am thinking around 2800 will be my max. But I still have work to do :)

[OPPAINTER]

I have a question for you guys that own these X2 chips.
How does it feel in windows? Does it seem like everything is faster then a 1X chip? Do apps run smoother and quicker, do installs take less time?
Basicly I want to know if I should stick with my 3.1 Gig FX-57 on my 24/7 watercooled system or should I go to a X2, will I feel any difference?
I do a lot of Word Processing and Web Browsing mainly.

Thanks.

OPP

[shadowing]

I think a X2 is a much better choice thata single core chip. I am only saying this because apps should be able to switch quicker and more smoothly. Plus the fact you can run games and do other tasks. :D

[xgman]

I have a question for you guys that own these X2 chips.
How does it feel in windows? Does it seem like everything is faster then a 1X chip? Do apps run smoother and quicker, do installs take less time?
Basicly I want to know if I should stick with my 3.1 Gig FX-57 on my 24/7 watercooled system or should I go to a X2, will I feel any difference?
I do a lot of Word Processing and Web Browsing mainly.

Thanks.

OPP

Eric, the best way I can describe it to you is that it takes some getting used to. At first you are looking for nothing but that good ole raw speed that we are used to and are put off a bit. Then when you settle in, you notice that things are not necessarily faster, but thing that used to lag seem to run smoothly. Running prime 95 and doing something elese at the same time and similar, then you start noticing that things are running quite nicely albeit not really any faster. The more you do, the more you notice it. Once you get past the fact that a good FX will give you a little bit more headroom, you realize that there is a far greater gain even though it is more subtle, to be had. I meant you could run a game or bench on one cpu and surf the other or whatever.

By the way, don't underestimate the amount of processing power that is needed for multitasking. People tend to think in terms of heavy bench programs, but try mutiple browsing, installing, file moving, deleting, copying, word processing, monitor programs, windows background tasks, etc. all at the same time and watch that FX57 slow down like any other cpu.

[zemzelett]

OPP,

Installing windows was about the same time imo, according to the task manager all applications are being split to each core, games, web browser etc, however, no app will ever go above 50% useage on each core, dunno if that really made sense or not. Fire up a game and most it will show is 50% on each core, and it never sits like that, it moves all the time, could be 80 /20 for 1 sec then 30/70 etc, its always moving, no single app has ever pushed each core to 100%, now if you fire up 2 instances of prime, then youll hit 100% on each, but again, thats 2 apps. But anytime you want to alt tab out of the game and load up say a web browser, theres no delay, it just happens, as if nothing was running.

Also i tested windows 64 on the 4800+ and its defently faster, quite a bit quicker, but drivers arnt mature yet for all my devices so i had to revert back to 32bit. Hopefully within a couple monthes things will have changed.

If you need more info or i didnt clarify enough, feel free to PM or post, im new to the forums but been reading for a while now, usually have nothing to input though :(

First Post!

[xgman]

OPP,

Installing windows was about the same time imo, according to the task manager all applications are being split to each core, games, web browser etc, however, no app will ever go above 50% useage on each core, dunno if that really made sense or not. Fire up a game and most it will show is 50% on each core, and it never sits like that, it moves all the time, could be 80 /20 for 1 sec then 30/70 etc, its always moving, no single app has ever pushed each core to 100%, now if you fire up 2 instances of prime, then youll hit 100% on each, but again, thats 2 apps. But anytime you want to alt tab out of the game and load up say a web browser, theres no delay, it just happens, as if nothing was running.

Also i tested windows 64 on the 4800+ and its defently faster, quite a bit quicker, but drivers arnt mature yet for all my devices so i had to revert back to 32bit. Hopefully within a couple monthes things will have changed.

If you need more info or i didnt clarify enough, feel free to PM or post, im new to the forums but been reading for a while now, usually have nothing to input though :(

First Post!


Also keep in mind that you can set any program or processes Affinity of either cpu core to 100% by using the task manager.

[zemzelett]

Yah as Xgman pointed out, you can do that as well, problem is though, lets assume you start up a game, say World of Warcraft, you choose to set it on CPU 1, all is fine at this point. You then restart the computer or close the game, the next time you start it up again, you need to choose the CPU again. I havnt found a way to make it stay on a certain CPU all the time, wish i could, id like to take all the background task like spyware and antivirus and put them on one core, and put a game on the other core, while it can be done, when you reboot, all is lost.

If you know of a way to make each app stay on a certain CPU all the time, id love to know, its annoying.

[xgman]

That would be great, and while you're at it, find a way to overclock each cpu separately. ;)

[NickK]

Ok, blatent C&P from a post I made elsewhere, it should make things clearer:


If you have a single non-multithreaded applications there will be (in the eyes of windows) a single thread. Windows will schedule (ie run when relevant) each thread on one of the cores of the X2 (as it does with single cores now).

My computer at power on has 330 threads in total (look at task manager -> performance and "threads"). These are all the threads for processes on the computer - such as OS disc threads etc. Not all the threads need to be run - if they have zero work to do then they'll be left "sleeping" and not be given time on the CPU core. Threads that aren't sleeping are "runnable", that is they want cpu time to execute.

Windows pools these threads according to priority (which is set at the application level). First windows looks to see if any runnable "runtime" priority threads that need to be run on the cpu, if there are threads available to run then windows gives the threads time on the CPU core to execute. Each thread gets a timeslice on the cpu before windows moves onto the next thread at the same priority.

Once all the high priority threads have run enough that they enter their sleeping state then windows moves onto the next lowest priority ("high") thread pool and starts the process of running threads. Once all the high priority threads are all "sleeping" it moves onto the next lowest priority pool ("Above normal").. repeat for "Normal", "Below Normal" and then it moves onto the "low" priority pool before finally running the lowest priority thread task (well pseudo task) in the whole machine "System Idle".

If a thread in a higher priority pool becomes runnable then windows will run that thread in preference to the threads in the current lower priority thread pool.
So if there are always higher priority threads in a runnable state then the lower priority threads will never get any cpu time to run.


This means that a single threaded application is always competing with 300 odd other threads in the system based on their priority - such as windows disc management threads, etc etc.

Now as all those threads in a single core have to be "scheduled" (ie given a timeslice when their priority dictates) on a single core then you can see there is alot going on.
With a dual core, the threads being scheduled can be scheduled on either core. So as windows processes each thread pool can use both cores.
Hence you halve the work and windows will run through the pools faster.
It still means that your application thread has to compete with the threads at it's priority and those with a higher priority but there is less contention.
Less contetion = more timeslices awarded to it = more cpu time and more work gets done per unit of time (ie per second).


Windows does this now. Once the X2 is installed (if your moving from intel and a new motherboard then a reinstall is recommended) then windows just uses the multi-cpu driver rather than the uni-cpu driver. This driver tells windows that it has more than once core to schedule threads on.
In short - windows xp can handle dual core (it looks identical to a PC running Hyper-Threading when using windows but better performance).

So - overall the cores will provide better performance (if the application uses threads to spread it's processing load equally).
Games that have a thread for the engine, a thread for network and a thread for sound aren't really well designed multithreaded applications as there is more work on the engine thread than the core can complete.
Due to this you'll not see a two times improvement unless the application is really written well (multithreaded applications such as raytracers usually show a very marked performance improvement with more than one core because they are written correctly).

To complicate this further the X2 runs both cores on the same memory bus. That is, if a core wants more code or needs data to process from memory it has to use the memory bus - when you have two cores then they can compete over the memory bus.
For this reason usually you won't see straight doubling of performance and chances are that the competition will impact if they both thrash the memory (I'm not sure if the X2 prioritises core memory access based on the current thread priority).

I believe that the "4400+" means it's equivilent in overal processing power as a 4400 single core "4400+". However each core will be the equiv of a 3700+ (as both the 4400 and 3700 run at 11x200) however the effect of competing for the memory bus will reduce that depending on task and core cache performance (which helps by reducing memory bus activity).


As an answer - yes whilst playing battlefield 2 (if this doesn't take both cores) then the X2 will get time on the other core to schedule the encoding (as most encoders run at a low priority level) - provided other higher priority threads aren't taking the cpu time on that core too.
However I wouldn't expect it to encode at 100% speed.



A mate has an vapo'd FX55 @ ~3gig, 2Gb running SLI 7800s.
In games, as you would expect - his rig puts a severe dent in any game that he plays.

However as soon as he runs a game like EQ2 in a window the rest of the machine is, in my view, barely usable.

This is the odd and hard thing to explain to people with X2s - it's more of a not slowing down rather than a maximum outright speed.
I could run EQ2 in a window (4400, 2Gb and an X800XL) while the rest of the machine is responsive.

However when it comes to multi-tasking and multithreaded apps, this is where the X2 leaves the FX55 ... I don't notice slowdowns when running something like single Prime95 or SuperPI.
X2 is far more powerful than a P5 HT - simply because of the full second core.

I use my machine for games but more often for non-gaming such as running a remote X-client onto my linux box, running web browsers and to other media activities.
Encoding media is one task that uses both cores and it shows it - very fast times.

I reality running word and running a webbrowser or three is pretty much childs play to an X2 - there's much more power in reserve..

[ZX7891]

Those are hitting higher than expected speeds. I can imagine the temps get really hot at around 1.55v

[NickK]

Yup also the PWM needs some attention as they get extremely hot compared to running single cores at higher overclocks.

[ffletchs]

If you know of a way to make each app stay on a certain CPU all the time, id love to know, its annoying.

you can

just use the start command

f.ex.
start c:\games\cs\hl.exe /AFFINITY 1

start /? for more info

don't have a dual core myself to test

[NickK]

I'm still trying to understand why you'd want to set affinity for a dual core - unlike opterons, there isn't a penalty for running an application over the HT link to another CPU's DDR bank.
Windows seems quite capable of scheduling the threads - all I expect is that by setting the affinity is that your application is denied core execution time if it could have had the opportunity to run on the other core (as affinity does not guarantee that it gets more core time unless you increase it's thread priority to displace all other threads that are higher priority that windows will attempt to run on that core).

[shigs]

man ive only got like 1 cpu left, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm should i keep it or stick with my air cooled dothan @ 2.85 :stick:

shigs

[s7e9h3n]

man ive only got like 1 cpu left, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm should i keep it or stick with my air cooled dothan @ 2.85 :stick:

shigs
keep it ;)

[sysfailur]

I have a question for you guys that own these X2 chips.
How does it feel in windows? Does it seem like everything is faster then a 1X chip? Do apps run smoother and quicker, do installs take less time?
Basicly I want to know if I should stick with my 3.1 Gig FX-57 on my 24/7 watercooled system or should I go to a X2, will I feel any difference?
I do a lot of Word Processing and Web Browsing mainly.

Thanks.

OPP

So far I would say that things seem to be running a little smoother such as when you use a Dual Proc system. As you know when you're running a single proc system it can only do so much. They just seem to handle more things at the same time better.

Plus, it's also WONDERFUL for running two instances of a game (like SWG) which I do often. Or, if I'm running one.. I'll have one at just about full load and the other going up and down depending on what other programs are up to.

If your SOLE purpose is gaming on a single game, like a FPS then hey FX-57 all the way. But if you're looking for smoother all-around computing I'd say go for the X2.

Btw I *KNOW* this is theoretical and not real world but just look!

http://www.maximumoc.com/img/hardware/4400+/2800sandra_cpumm_vs_fx57.jpg

[IvanAndreevich]

OPP, you would NOT notice any real difference in browsing the Internet and wordprocessing between a P3 1 GHz and a X2 4800+..

[[timko]]

you can

just use the start command

f.ex.
start c:\games\cs\hl.exe /AFFINITY 1

start /? for more info

don't have a dual core myself to test


I tried this on my WinXP SP2 setup and it didn't work :(



However, I found this...

http://shareware.pcmag.com/product.php%5Bid%5D61141%5BSiteID%5Dpcmag

...still a bit cumbersome in that you'd have to create batch files for each shortcut but it works.

What we really need is something that hooks directly into the shortcut properties so all we have to do is select an option from a drop down box :)

[halcyon]

OPP, you would NOT notice any real difference in browsing the Internet and wordprocessing between a P3 1 GHz and a X2 4800+..

Err... what? :)

Have you tried running OO 2.0beta or Office XP on a P3 1GHz?

Or how about Firefox with adblocking, big hosts file and tweaked?

The difference between 2.4GHZ A64 and P3 1GHz (which I use occasionally at work) is clearly noticeable.

Granted, bus speeds, disk speeds and other factors play into this.

But the CPU is still tasked too much on P3 1GHz.

Now, doing several things at the same time, the difference is even more noticeable.

However, whether the difference between X2 and single core A64 is that big in basic office/web/e-mail/excel/dvd-burning multitasking, well it depends...

[xgman]

Those are hitting higher than expected speeds. I can imagine the temps get really hot at around 1.55v

I am not really findy that to be the case though.

[xgman]

OPP, you would NOT notice any real difference in browsing the Internet and wordprocessing between a P3 1 GHz and a X2 4800+..

But when you do 6 things at once you will notice it.

[bigjohns97]

They need to allow us to run windows on one core and our game on another.

[Ugly n Grey]

I've playing with my 4200 and frankly I find no difference between the dual core CPU and a true dual CPU box and I have a lot of duallies and even a few quads. I discovered dual CPU computing a long time ago with a pair of pentium 133's and I will never go back to a single proc (cept on my laptop). Everything just works better, shrinking a DVD is a mindless backgound activity instead of something that makes your box unuseable, day to day computing is just a better experience. And because of these x2 procs that slap into into almost any old s939 mobo, well now it's CHEAP to do it.

I'm not a gamer, I need serious multi-tasking and I get sick of hitting the buttons on my KVM to do that. This thing is the answer, it doesn't even get all that warm. It favourably compares to a pair of opterons in real world use, not a lot of people need or want PCI-X or NUMA. And now that I have a PCI-E U320 array controller, this is the cats whiskers.

And all for a pittance compared to a workstation mobo and a pair of procs. Thank you AMD, these chips deliver.

[dmo580]

I dont notice a difference between alt tabbing between IE and Word on my Athlon 1400 compared to on my Dothan 1.8...

Other things I will.

[pcdoc1]

I dont notice a difference between alt tabbing between IE and Word on my Athlon 1400 compared to on my Dothan 1.8...

Other things I will.And what might that have to do with anything......
:cool:

[Zebo]

will I feel any difference?
I do a lot of Word Processing and Web Browsing mainly.

No.

Dual cores are for two things.
1. Multithreaded applications which neither of those two are.
2. Doing two intense single threaded apps at one time which neither of those two are. EX: Encode a video, fold or do some compiling while playing a game and the dual happly responds while a single core FX will look like a Pentium II 450.

[Disposibleteen]

No.

Dual cores are for two things.
1. Multithreaded applications which neither of those two are.
2. Doing two intense single threaded apps at one time which neither of those two are. EX: Encode a video, fold or do some compiling while playing a game and the dual happly responds while a single core FX will look like a Pentium II 450.
I wouldnt go so far as to say that but a single core FX will certainly stagger under the multithreaded load, it will certainly outperform a PII 450 though.

[Sucka]

I have a question for you guys that own these X2 chips.
How does it feel in windows? Does it seem like everything is faster then a 1X chip? Do apps run smoother and quicker, do installs take less time?
Basicly I want to know if I should stick with my 3.1 Gig FX-57 on my 24/7 watercooled system or should I go to a X2, will I feel any difference?
I do a lot of Word Processing and Web Browsing mainly.

Thanks.

OPP

For basic Windows tasks the difference is negligable, throw in some real multitasking and then you can really tell a difference. I'll probably end up keeping my X2 in favor of my FX-57. My chip is pretty good too. Took #2 in both PCMark04 and 05 overall, and it clocks quite well on air as well. Certainly worth your time to play with one.

[NickK]

Isn't a day in the office for OPP just breaking overclocking WRs anyway.. perhaps he'll get one for the office and then that itch will appear.. "I wonder...". It would be interesting to see how one of these things does strapped to a cascade. :D

Although that does go against AMD's marketing at the present time..

[Ugly n Grey]

I still say any task even light computer use is enhanced on a dual CPU system. Even firing up appliacations on a single core is slow compared to a dual CPU or dual core box. Like when you sit down at your computer and click the icons for browser, email and something else all at once, that experience is quick and responsive with multiple procs. It's not quick and responsive with a single because - well there's only one and windoze prioritizes what's happening and you wait and it's annoying. I spent most of my life waiting on computers to finish things, damned if I'm going to wait one extra second for my email to start loading while I try and open a few browser windows. Burning a DVD becomes a background task - I love it. Dual procs for all at these price points, great stuff.

[xgman]

You may be ugly, but you speak the truth. ;)

[s7e9h3n]

oops.... :p:

[s7e9h3n]

It would be interesting to see how one of these things does strapped to a cascade. :D

:stick: Check PCMark04's #1 score ;)

[NickK]

:stick: Check PCMark04's #1 score ;)

Must be getting old... :D

[timpanogos]

man, ugly is an understatement! I’ll refrain from saying what that thing looks like! (but we are talking scaring away the girls ugly)

wow, still having a hard time getting over that ….

Well one interesting thing that the future may bring … if/when applications start jumping on the bandwagon, there is a downside to multi-threaded applications.

I’ve written middle-tier multithreaded code for years, so I’m also used to having multiple procs to chunk the work out. You can get too “thread-happy” and start throwing threads at everything, and you soon end up with thread-thrashing.

It’s called the “Context switch”. The time/resources required for the cpu to cache all of the needed information about threadx and load up all the information needed to run thready (from a previous context switch). This amount of time can indeed add up very quickly if you have too many cpu intensive threads competing, even for 4 procs. (i.e. not sleeping, awaiting hardware, timers, etc.)

In the middle-tier world, you typically will have singular applications server-farmed for scalablity, and as the application programmer, you have control over the threading of the server because, you own/control the code of the application.

What will be interesting on the desktop, is how disciplined software apps might be. Just because they have a well designed multithreaded architecture for THEIR application, does not mean that it is going to play nice with other applications architectures

The thread scalability, even on a dual or quad proc is still very limited

Fun times ahead!!


Oh and yea, I WANT AN X2!!!

[Ugly n Grey]

I hear your pain, I typically work on multi CPU big systems 8 16 and 32 way. I think you're correct but what I'm finding is guys coding for PC's tend to be pretty conservative, but usually on the workstation side there's only two procs and they know it. Not like a 32 way Itanium box or something. There have been multi threaded apps in the workstation segment for a long time and they generally do well. I hope this stays the way it is.

And you shouldn't make fun of my pic :) , my mom took that shot when I was only 94 :toast:

[Zebo]

I've playing with my 4200 and frankly I find no difference between the dual core CPU and a true dual CPU box and I have a lot of duallies and even a few quads. I discovered dual CPU computing a long time ago with a pair of pentium 133's and I will never go back to a single proc (cept on my laptop). Everything just works better, shrinking a DVD is a mindless backgound activity instead of something that makes your box unuseable, day to day computing is just a better experience. And because of these x2 procs that slap into into almost any old s939 mobo, well now it's CHEAP to do it.

I'm not a gamer, I need serious multi-tasking and I get sick of hitting the buttons on my KVM to do that. This thing is the answer, it doesn't even get all that warm. It favourably compares to a pair of opterons in real world use, not a lot of people need or want PCI-X or NUMA. And now that I have a PCI-E U320 array controller, this is the cats whiskers.

And all for a pittance compared to a workstation mobo and a pair of procs. Thank you AMD, these chips deliver.


Werd on price. I'd like some of these X2 cry babies (like myself was) compare two opteron 2xx and an opteron mobo to an X2 setup. It will cost double. Not to mention opteron setup is a tad slower due to higher latency offered when using ECC/Reg ram due to extra wait state and crappy timings. Scott at techreport also mentions theres a slowdown due to higher latency between the cores due to geography on optys which slows stuff down dispite having twice the memory bandwidth to work with.

Bargian X2's are if you need it, but I disagree on need. I use an dual opteron 248 setup at work no difference what-so-ever from my home 2.6 A64 when doing basic word, excel, email stuff.. Any K8's incredibly LL, ~40ns, is what gives the snap or reponse you feel dual core or not.

[s7e9h3n]

Werd on price. I'd like some of these X2 cry babies (like myself was) compare two opteron 2xx and an opteron mobo to an X2 setup.

Well, this isn't exactly a perfect comparison, but at least it'll give you an idea:
http://img87.echo.cx/img87/1917/11x288sandracpu8gl.jpg

[Agent-JCDenton]

your PWM IC is at 111 C? Thats a bug right?

[s7e9h3n]

your PWM IC is at 111 C? Thats a bug right?
Maybe :p:

[s7e9h3n]

Maybe :p:
OF COURSE IT IS :slap: :toast: