Come on you guys.....Noone with C2D to test at 3600MHz?....Were have you gone?... :( :D
Printable View
Come on you guys.....Noone with C2D to test at 3600MHz?....Were have you gone?... :( :D
no available hardware atm :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
see above.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
As for testing it, im too busy atm trying to catch your Ultra 3D'06 score to worry about Pi George :P
Yep. These are the standard registry settings I use on that OS (pagefile has been changed back again though).
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/125/registryvv6.th.png
I'm in redundant mode for at least a week now. Will see what I can do after that.
What's a very good (full tweaked/copywaza) 32M time for C2D 3600MHz? (specify FSB/board/RAM timings/divider/speed as well please)
Which one?.....the LOW 214xx one or my "other one"...... ?...... :D :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
You can look in the Superpi low clock challenge thread, but this thread @ OCX imho is much better structured and contains the Holy Grail - teh uber OPB 3.6Ghz CDT run (12m39s) as well :)Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
I had suspected you have an "other one", but for the time being your 21.4 will do me.
At least if i do catch it let me have a WR for 24hrs please ;)
OK.....NO worries......I'm bluffing.....I got no "other" one.... ;) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by T_M
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlobber
That's more of a $$$ hardware competition than Super Pi tweak contest. Different clocks, different latencies, different straps, different boards, different CPUs, different RAM, different volts even different DDR - everythings just different apart from CPU clock speed. I'm not going to waste cash on buying hardware like that now with Phenom around the corner, having sold my old, that's for sure. But no promises, I may have a C2D build by sometime next week at the earliest.
Guys will need to run their C2D at 3600, ≤500 RAM speed, Y latencies, normal 24/7 usable volts, which you can reproduce at least 3 times, the best time you get and others can then have a crack at that as well to compare with different tweaks what times they are capable of. Then we can test the tweak and not just another number competition because I won't be doing that, simply put, no matter what the outcome. Otherwise I find nothing to compare to yet but the absolute fastest numbers which I won't be doing.
A tweak can get gains at ANY speed and latency over a no-tweak. Once you can find you get gains at low GHz you can increase it for your comps and get more .. later.
Having a C2D running 32M with the memory running <500Mhz will give dull results, system will be bottlenecked and tweaks might not take full effect as the system is starved for bandwidth imho.
I think 9x514 at 1:1 with 4-4-4 timings on a P35 platform won't be that hard, bare quadcores perhaps.
Even better result will show with 5:6 or 4:5 divider but that's something not everybody can do at 4-4-4 timings but at 5-5-5 again it will not be xtremely hard if you have some half decent memory.
You can look at the middle of the pack - 514x7 with 1:1 ratio on ram is easily done on air and just about on any E6600 and non-value DDR2 configuration - that's what I'm also using on my so far unsuccessful CDT C2D testing.
400x9 1:1 would be an even better choice, of course (for "everyones availability").
I understand where you're coming from, but if C2D gives a "dull result" at 3600/1000, then you can say the same thing about the Celeron bro. Its more than crap at 3360/400. Do you think I would get more CDT gains if I went higher up in clock speeds? My honest opinion is no, the extra would be clock speed gains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
Let me re-iterate what I'm saying: I didn't say "I'm going to get the best time" with that Celeron because I was not going to run the volts/latencies/speeds others who chose to compete in a competition will - others at higher clocks, lower latencies, better chipset, higher volts, same hardware will beat those times.
However, I did say "with that setup and those timings/clocks/volts, you won't even come close to the best time on that hardware until you do CDT".
Testing a tweak has absolutely nothing to do with the maximum best time with your maximum best clocks, thats for you guys like before, Onepagebook (etc) in their competing. Testing a tweak is about how much the tweak makes a difference in SPi. I 'aint running a horse race here but only trying to replicate "what effect CDT has on SPI". Only testing I need to do is:
At the same clocks, same everything, no CDT vs CDT > what is the time difference?
At the same clocks, same everything, no CW vs CW > what is the time difference?
I ran an old Celeron, it made gains unforeseen previously. I also have a P4 that I can run later. But now even I'm curious to see if C2D gains anything. But please try to understand, spending $800 "at impulse" as a uni student on a scholarship in a different country is not something we do, especially when we can't make our money back. :)
And BTW. Maybe someone didn't understand what I hinted to before.
Yesterday evening around 6pm I found out that the lady I loved for 7 years, who was everything to me my friends and family will tell you, fiancee for 9 months, marriage was set to be in December.. was killed in a car crash on the 29th in the US. So I'm not in the best of moods, honestly. Its a bit hard to put a smiley up. I just don't want you to think I'm ignoring your responses.
Keep in mind that different tweaks that used with old hardware and they WORKED GREAT, now with the C2D CPUs, ain't THAT good anymore or they do nothing.....Keep this in your mind for start...... ;)
EDIT: No shi(f)t..!......I JUST read the last sentences KTE...... :(
BAD....BAD things happening..... :(
KTE, sorry for you man :(
First of all, my condelances, that's more than just sad.
Without trying to be rude, wheter you're out on getting the best time or not is not the issue here, we're still talking the effect of this tweak. ;)
I'm pointing out that if a system is starved for bandwidth, a tweak that gives a boost in data throughput for example will be executed with the handbrake on if you know what i mean.
Running 32M at 3.6GHz with 400FSB does well on a 965 chipset board (dividers are a must of course) but try this on a P35 based board and you'll be limited due to the "low" FSB speed.
Once limited on FSB, tightening the memory timings and subtimings does nothing untill one starts raising the FSB, gains wil reappear, from my own experience at least.
This is just an example and i don't know if this is relevant for the CDT tweak but i'd be rather safe than sorry.
That's why i suggested 514x7 1:1 which should be doable with 4-4-4 timings for 90% of the C2D owners around here.
Like Hipro said, some tweaks yield better results on older or other hardware, this C2D stuff might have a different way to handle system memory, sytem cache and pagefile than older stuff, hence different result outputs.
Not saying this is a fact but it's a possibilty one have to take into consideration.
True. Its always a likely possibility. We'll have to see.
Already got three parts (2xsame drives/2x1GB RAM/PSU). Probably get the next two as soon as I get a phone call from the main man himself. Been told its an E6850 and P5K-E WiFi but I don't know yet for sure.
It's OK. But I tell ya what... love hurts -> deeper than deeep itself. Man I would've sold myself for her ah! :(
Presscot and Core Technology is totally different. thus, the same tweak will have diffrent result....
Perfect.
Two boards I'm offered; P5K-E WiFi and P5K Premium Black Pearl.
Just checked and both boards don't have the VGA port I need for the work CRT I'll be using neither the PS/2 keyboard/mouse there. Doesn't look like I can get another board. Only other option is GA-965P-DS3.
We know they're both totally different but it didn't make a difference when using CopyWaza, did it? Inconclusive is the more accurate term here. Maybe a few seconds drop is still possible even though it is not as good but I expect a 4-15 second drop even still. That's for you C2D owners to test.Quote:
Originally Posted by andre X_X
Well, that's the obvious thing we all know so let's keep focusing on the discussion of results (if we have them) :)Quote:
Originally Posted by andre X_X
First of all my condelances KTE, there are moments in a man's life when you are really hurt and stripped of all you thought you will never loose. Keep your head up man, even if that is one of the worst things that can happen to a man :(
Second, congratulations for your test, they are really inspiring and when I get the free time I will try your tests on a C2D and see if it works for me. If it does, that that's a great deal my friend. The only thing is that I cannot get hipro's words out of my mind, regardind tweaks on Yorkfield :(
The last thing.... I saw that you guys are talking about the HDD's used and I see that you are not using the best HDD possible to maximize and level your results. I did a test about the impact the HDD has in SuperPi here and it was confirmed to my what everybody knows allready, that the HDD's speed and cache really matters. It also revealed something weird for me, the fact that RamDisk doesn't work better than a Raptor and that RamDisk works different depending on what HDD you are using (and I find this discovery to be very weird).
Dfi Infinity P965-S
E6600 400x8
2x1gb Mushkin XP6400 4-4-3-10 @ 800 4-4-4-10 2T
WinXP SP2 with unnecessary services, let's say basic tweaked. No CW, no CDT, no "special" tweak at all.
Seagate Barracuda 80Gb | 7200.7 ST380011A ATA133 2Mb Buffer
Seagate Barracuda 250Gb | 7200.10 ST3250410AS Sata II 16Mb Buffer
Western Digital Raptor 74Gb | WD740ADFD-00NLR1 Sata 16Mb Buffer 10000rpm
I ran Spi 1M and Spi 4M 5 times on each HDD and RamDisk to get an ideea about how a medium result looks. I only posted the best 3 times.
Seagate ATA133:
Spi1M : 14.203, 14.187, 14.188
Spi1M : 14.187, 14.172, 14.188 - RamDisk
Spi4M : 1.20.125, 1.20.125, 1.20.125
Spi4M : 1.20.047, 1.20.078, 1.20.078 - RamDisk
Seagate Sata II
Spi1M : 14.187, 14.157, 14.156
Spi1M : 14.157, 14.172, 14.156 - RamDisk
Spi4M : 1.19.985, 1.19.906, 1.19.969
Spi4M : 1.20.063, 1.20.015, 1.20.047 - RamDisk
WD Raptor Sata
Spi1M : 14.156, 14.156, 14.156
Spi1M : 14.157, 14.172, 14.156 - RamDisk
Spi4M : 1.19.984, 1.19.906, 1.19.969
Spi4M : 1.19.953, 1.19.968, 1.19.969 - RamDisk
What I got was the Raptor's might in Spi 4M and continuity in it's results. Maybe that is the HDD to use for testing tweaks, giving very similar result most of the time.
I hope I am not off-topic, I thought that you might find this little piece of information useful in your testing. If it is not please delete :)
Good luck with your testing, I am sure that there are lots of us waiting to see where this story is going to.
KTE, what do you mean by VGA port?
If you're looking for a high-end LGA 775 board with onboard videocard you'll be hard pressed i reckon, just the cheapest PCI-E videocard will do in your case.
Monstru, thanks for your test results but the only suprise is that ramdisk isn't any faster than any harddisk.
Raptor has the lowest acces time, probably due to being a 10K rpm disk, every single read and write action SuperPi will do to the harddisk will be delayed to the lowest possible level by using a harddisk with low accestime.
Remember the temp files SuperPi is creating in the SuperPi folder after each calculation? ;)
Sorry, I don't understand correctly, you are saying that Raptor gets the worst or the best time in Spi???Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
Most likely the best result due to low accestime.
The higher the accestime , the higher the delay --> slower calculationtime.
Low accestime means less calculationtime wasted by having to wait to acces the harddisk.
Raptor has a very low accestime, probably one of the lowest of all Sata harddisks around atm.
There MUST be something else because how do you explain that with Gigabyte iRAM with a access latency = 0 :D , the 32M is WORSE than a regular HD....?..... :confused: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
Do you have the SuperPi folder on your iRAM?
How much worse is it? Within error margin or really a couple of seconds or more off?
I had tested it into a iRAM and then again windows instalation and all into iRAM, but it was worse than a "regular" HD...... :) .....Yes ~3 - 6sec loss with the iRAM..... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
Erm....let me think about that.
Theoratically zero latency (or close to zero, zero latency is impossible) should yield better results.
Was the pagefile on the iRAM as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
It was in and it was out in different testings.... ;)
i've tested the CDT lastnight and it was nothing diffrent with CW
E6600 @ 7x514 on Biostar P35 1:1 CL4-4-4-4
No tweak = 13m 18s
CW = 13m 11s
CDT= 13m 11s
This does work (PF & Pi.exe in i-Ram) on a P4...it's not good on C2D.Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
My deepest symphaty KTE.
omg KTE i feel your pain man :(
the best thing to do is not sit around thinking about
THINKING=BAD atm
just get yourself busy for now and all the best. Remember you are not the only one hurting in the world....there are and have been many harder things people have endured....believe me i have :up: you'll be ok :)
sheesh just read about the accident, sorry about your loss man, never easy, i know
Can you guys get this done?
i've tested it before, i have similar amount between system cache and available memory.. no gain from CDT IV with copy wazza. both of them have similar result.
Damn sorry to hear that KTE...
Sorry KTE :(
But anyone know why KTE at startup gets that explorer commits more than 40Mb?:confused:
:)
It's OK. Thanks everyone, very appreciated and comforting when a mountain suddenly falls on you. Nice to know we're humans at the end of the day and someone you didn't know but interact with over a network still retains some humanity and care. :)
No C2D. In fact what I'll most likely be getting won't be till next Sunday now (I have to go away 4 days (funeral) then come back to an aunts for 2 days then drive to meet my uncle 7 hours away from there (who'll give me the parts as he has them)). It's looking like an E6750 now, Zalman CNPS9700, with Gigabyte P965 DS3, a Samsung Syncmaster TFT, Corsair XMS2 PC-6400 C4 dual channel kit (black heatspreaders), an X800 GT or a 2600 XT, 2x Western Digital 80GB Caviars and a Seasonic S12 650W. They won't be mine though, I'm not paying a dime, they're his and I have to return them soon after in working condition.
That's something I'm stuck on for a long time with Microsoft. Their explorer.exe gives me over a million page faults over an hour or two of running. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by spainis
I did some testing with 1M on the P4 Celeron. I expected a second or two at most. Findings are very good and consistent. I've noticed the pattern too and tested to see how it works. Look at my above old 1M best time. I'll post my new ones soon. :)
My Prediction:
I "predict" the guys who are getting ~500/500 (balanced) on a C2D won't see any more gains. Not higher than 500, not lower, balanced. That's the sweetspot with the P4Celeron anyway. Any higher gets higher time, any lower gets higher time too. But I'll test it soon to see for myself.
Not that good... E6750 has a x8 max multiplier [and wall ~500 probably, so no 514x7] and Giga i965 has "strap" >400 or so, with 450x8 the result will be absolutely non-comparable to other [like 9x400 with any board or 514x7 with P35 / X38 / QuadGT / DFI Inf 965] 3,6GHz runs... SetFSB may help [boot @ 400, in Windows => 450, x8] but I still will be 450 1:1. But it will of course let us see a real gain with Conroe.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
Standard situation for me in copywaza and/or CDT testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
Hi my experimets without copywaza and cdt, later doing with them.
Celeron 440@2.3ghz
Abit ip35-E
OCZ Reaper 6400 2x1g
40gb sata hardisk
Vista 32 bit without any updates on it.
Untweaked vista
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8...tweakedtq9.jpg
Tweaked somemore on normal mode.
http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/8346/tweak1mzc3.jpg
Safe Mode some tweaks but no mem tweaks becose it wont launch memset on safemode, also it doesnt launch cpu-z got errors only.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2176/nimetnyr6.jpg
Well another thing: Got 0.050 secs off from that safemode run but vista self booted just before screenshot :mad:
I realize JMKS. I have no other option TBH, other than that I can't test a C2D setup now and someone else would have to do it instead. If you don't want me to run tests on that for whatever reason then I'd like to be told now please rather than finding out later. :)Quote:
Not that good... E6750 has a x8 max multiplier [and wall ~500 probably, so no 514x7] and Giga i965 has "strap" >400 or so, with 450x8 the result will be absolutely non-comparable to other [like 9x400 with any board or 514x7 with P35 / X38 / QuadGT / DFI Inf 965] 3,6GHz runs... SetFSB may help [boot @ 400, in Windows => 450, x8] but I still will be 450 1:1. But it will of course let us see a real gain with Conroe.
While you have a factual point for "absolute time comparisons across platforms" here you are making the one same mistake. Let me make it clear again:
I am not testing absolute performance or my best time! We are testing the gain CDT can provide. People wanted to see that. P4C showed gains beyond reach. SO now they want to see a C2D do it because they compete with that. Pretty simple really. All you need for that is:
A. Stock best time (same all tweaks with same OS/hardware settings)
B. CW best time (same all tweaks with same OS/hardware settings AND CW done)
C. CDT best time (same all tweaks with same OS/hardware settings AND CDT done)
A - B = CW effect
A - C = CDT effect
I am only helping to see if I can replicate the gain I can get on a P4C. I am NOT a SPi competitor, you should know that by counting how many times I've submitted a SPi result or even tried for one and showed it off on XS before 2-3 days ago. :)
*I was after the E6850 but he said its needed elsewhere so the second best option was a retail E6750 (unopened yet).
*Can still get a X38/P35/680i/650i board but I see no point. Then it'd start becoming a competition which is not the reason I'm involved for neither do I have hours to spend messing and tweaking with it. I don't spend much time indoors, I have sporting commitments and work 7 days a week and study 5 days for a PhD too.
*I can get an E6600 B2 as well but it doesn't do plus 400FSB air and thats just booting. 1M/32M stable would be less.
*The board can do 520FSB air and they've used it for 4 days.
*If cooling becomes a problem and I get a really sucky chip I'll throw everything into a -20C freezer (a tried and tested method :D ).
Hope its not a dud though.
Quick SPi 1M
Ever do a really fast run and you're getting happy that it's broken your PB but then you get
NOT EXACT ROUND ?
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/4...rrorws2.th.png http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9...rroryy4.th.png
I think we all have had it some time or another.
I get it on the P4C at or above 3553MHz (needs volts which I can't change), definitely if the initial value is at or below 0.681s. There's hardly a run complete at that speed unless its a little slower than the best time. Keep this in mind very firmly. :)
Results
Best times till yesterday:
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d.../LatestSPi.png
Screenshot of that 1M time: 3554MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR423 - 2-3-3-5 (No Maxmem-3x 4.13GB CW-384-384 PF-fully tweaked hardware/OS-813MB memory-768MB cache) = 47.518s
Other best times:
1800MHz - 1x 512MB - DDR215 - 2-2-2-5 = 1m 56.547s
2800MHz - 1x 512MB - DDR333 - 2-2-2-5 = 1m 10.431s
3472MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR413 - 2-3-3-5 (No Maxmem-large PF-normal Windows run) = 54.338s
3472MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR333 - 2-2-2-5 (No Maxmem-384-384 PF-normal Windows run) = 53.958s
3472MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR413 - 2-3-3-5 (No Maxmem-384-384 PF-normal Windows run) = 53.547s
3528MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR420 - 2-3-3-5 (No Maxmem-large PF-normal Windows run) = 52.806s
3360MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR400 - 2-3-3-5 (No Maxmem-384-384 PF-stock run in Safe Mode with Networking) = 52.385s
3416.5MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR406 - 2-3-3-5 (600 Maxmem-4.8GB CW-384-384 PF-fully tweaked hardware/OS-475MB memory-649MB cache) = 50.352s
3416.5MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR406 - 2-3-3-5 (600 Maxmem-4.8GB CW-384-384 PF-fully tweaked hardware/OS-476MB memory-630MB cache) = 49.992s
3461MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR412 - 2-3-3-5 (600 Maxmem-4.8GB CW-384-384 PF-fully tweaked hardware/OS-478MB memory-607MB cache) = 49.531s
3528MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR420 - 2-3-3-5 (No Maxmem-384-384 PF-fully tweaked hardware/OS-820MB memory-105MB cache) = 49.411s
3495MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR416 - 2-3-3-5 (No Maxmem-4.8GB CW-PF?-fully tweaked hardware/OS-724MB memory-402MB cache) = 48.519s
3495MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR416 - 2-3-3-5 (No Maxmem-4.8GB CW-384-384 PF-fully tweaked hardware/OS-731MB memory-806MB cache) = 48.360s
3495MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR416 - 2-3-3-5 (No Maxmem-4.8GB CW-384-384 PF-fully tweaked hardware/OS-724MB memory-450MB cache) = 48.320s
3540MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR421 - 2-3-3-5 (600 Maxmem-4.8GB CW-384-384 PF-fully tweaked hardware/OS-484MB memory-689MB cache) = 48.099s
3503MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR417 - 2-3-2-5 (No Maxmem-4.8GB CW-384-384 PF-fully tweaked hardware/OS-724MB memory-447MB cache) = 47.849s
3540MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR421 - 2-3-3-5 (600 Maxmem-4.8GB CW-384-384 PF-fully tweaked hardware/OS-513MB memory-638MB cache) = 47.699s
Before you look further... where's my favorite emoticon gone? :eek: http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/1429/k0158qw.gif
STOCK - Standard Windows - 1GB pagefile - 1GB RAM - +35 processes running in background - +25 services running - 1x CDT quick run
3360MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR400 - 2-3-3-6 (660MB memory-670MB cache) = 44.504s
3495MHz - 2x 512MB - DDR416 - 2-3-3-6 (645MB memory-667MB cache) = 42.671s
CDT gives the system an extra 500MHz. :confused:
Can I break 40s with OS tweaks? http://www.smiley-channel.de/grafike...chlecht003.gif
KTE, thanks for your hard work, much appreciate
if you have time, try this,
use the lower full speed of your CPU is going to run
get the pre-cdt job done(while you reach the available/S.C. balanced)
either use setfsb or clockgen, pull all the way to the speed that you desire to run(ex: from 400x9 to 425x9) and then start the super pi; wait for 2nd or 3rd loop finish, directly press the x to close spi windows and start the super pi, run twice of 1m and start 32m, then check the 32m 's available...you will know what is gonna happened.:)
*puts on lab coat*
Here's some testing i spent all day doing:
1. Set up OS maxmem=600, pagefile=515~512 and registry large system cache etc. Set WIndows to run in Diagnostic Mode.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...CDT-IVcpuZ.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...IVregistry.jpg
2. Set up CDT-IV folders and files. I created the files using 1024x1024x632=662700030. Didnt have enough room on the OS partition, so ran all test copying the files between the SuperPI partition and a data partition. Rar the 3 CDT files into a single uncompressed .rar of size 1.85Gb.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3.../CDT-IVcmd.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...CDT-IVfile.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3.../CDT-IVrar.jpg
3. Reboot, let idle a while and check taskmanager (picture below). Then perform the CDT copying of .rar file from SuperPI partition to other partition 3 times (rest inbetween each until available memory settles), each time renaming the .rar so i dont replace files. After CDT check task manager again and see 5xxxxx / 5xxxxx .
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...askmanager.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...CDT-IVcopy.jpg
4. Run 3 CDT tweaked SuperPI (reboot between each) and compare to 3 pre-tweaked runs i did earlier (no reboot between each)
Untweaked:
1. 14m 37.078s
2. 14m 36.188s
3. 14m 35.797s
CDT-IV:
1. 14m 27.985s (think this run was not done properly)
2. 14m 27.891s
3. 14m 27.922s
Compare then to Hipro5's 4Gb "CW" (i dont know how to do proper CW so just did a 4Gb.rar file from a partition to the SuperPI partition.
1. 14m 28.094s
2. 14m 28.109s
3. 14m 27.859s fastest run of the day
6. Graph all results and analyse loop times (time that each loop took). Find that both CDT and CW gave exactly the same characteristics.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...CDT-IVvsCW.jpg
OPB, can you please give me some pointers on anything in the above that would cause CDT to not give a better boost than just copying across a single large random file.
I even tried "balance method" where after doing CDT out of the SuperPI folder, i then returned all 3 files back into the SuperPI folder and my time was 1s slower, although both my Available and System Cache were higher (but balanced).
Thanks Kev. I'll try it with the P4/P4C/C2D setup soon. A little far away from a computer at the moment (using laptop). :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Onepagebook
Good testing T_M.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
-When you copy the same RAR 3 times to a partition (x3), you can overwrite it.
-Did you copy the RAR file from i) SPi partition->Another partition ii) SPi partition->another folder on that partition and from iii) Another partition in i) to SPi folder partition?
Your system cache was really low and unbalanced. Those won't be your best results.
The screenshot of my task manager was before CDT. After CDT it was 5xxxxx / 5xxxxx always. I have photos of them all but cant be bother downloading them.
I was copying from SuperPI partition to another partition on same HDD.
All of the above was already written in my first post .....
your way to do CDT is completely WRONG;Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
OK, since you are the author of tweak maybe you will be willing to answer a few questions :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Onepagebook
1. Is CDT described here correct?
2. Is it full tweak or only 60% as someone mentioned here?
3. Should we see better results than CW if it is only 60%?
4. Should it be working on XP or is this specific to 2k3?
5. Any special registry tweaks without which CDT won't work as good?
Thanks, but that doesnt really help me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onepagebook
I have tried my best to understand the instructions from the broken english post in the first page.
Can you help me more constructively by saying what exactly is wrong with it?
I have put in a lot of time yesterday trying to get this working.
Maybe i should put some of my doubts down as quesitons in point form and you could indulge me with answers:
1. Does the Rar'ing of the files need to be done prior to the SPI run as part of the tweak process (rather than pre-preparing a Rar file).
2. Does the Rar need to be always copied from the SuperPI partition to the OS perition (or will any other parition do as was my case).
3. to be continued...
thanks but I thought what you wanna see is how pig can fly?;)Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
Pigs flying comment was not to do with CDT process or whether it works or not.
It was with regards to your allowing someone independent into your benching room to monitor some SPI runs, since many people cried cheat.
oh so you can just forget about how it works and go back to what you think;)because everyone cried that and you can just follow;) why bother:)Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
I think this a good case of "lost in translation".
Taking it to PMs.
1.- There are now a lot of varians from CDT (as well as for Copy wazaa) that its difficult to really know if thats the whole point. Theory still works if you can apply it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi
2.- I think Kev said this is 60% of the tweak, Actually, it is, but also its not.
In practice, what you see here (the tweak and how to do it) is 100% complete. Even Kevin added some extra comments on pre-job and how to get benching OS ready. In theory, thats were I can say its about 60% or probably less. Still, what its posted already, works, but notneccesarily its the whole theory and arguments behind it.
3.- Probably Yes, since its 100% practically for almost every guy, but you also can get better results with a lot of variations out there.
4.- Yes.
5.- Probably the ones mentioned on Pre benching and all the tweaks you know are neccesary for manage it.
Chill out guys. You'll look low if you wage war over a virtual paper you can't even touch which runs an automated calc we do not control... :D Let's just standardize and perfect the method, then test and give appropriate feedbacks and try to collaboratively explain what we can.
I can say that SCSI U160 has slower SPi times than an ATA. I was going to test C2D with that too, but I've given up. Its because of the XP check FLAGS when writing to the SCSI that add latency. W2k doesn't suffer from this AFAIK.
I STIL see bulls coming and going around here........ :rolleyes:
IF a user asks questions about the "tweak" and "someone" responds with pigs flying and things like that, HOW is it possible to continue talking?.... How the user could understand what the other user wants to say?.... :rolleyes:
IF we aren't getting answers to our questions here, I see THREE things is gonna happen:
1. ONLY OBP has the BEST time in 32M at 3.6GHz in the whole PLANET :rolleyes: because of his "CDT Tweak"..... and because of what?..... :rolleyes:
What is this that gives him THAT MUCH boost to get ~10 - 15sec LESS than Copy Waza and other tweaks?...... and we are talking about a 20 - 25sec LESS time of a run without Copy Waza and things.... :rolleyes:
2. Users are gonna start dissapointing more and more of the:
a. not hepling them with more infos IF ANY and
b. having OPB talking bad to them so they will STILL OR JUST STARTING now not to like him nor his additude after all and NO MATTER how much they're trying to be friendly to him and "understand" his point of view, they will finally give it up.
3. QUIT this silly conversation and everyone goes back to his work and OPB to his reviews that he does quite well....... :)
Someone please come up with the WHOLE "Tweak" IF ANY, so we start testing seriusly and cut the craps..... :cool:
Bsically, I stand my point is correct, if there anyone is see me as pig or cheater, please don't bother to try it and make the whole CDT just look really bad, because you did making it wrong with whole lots of work, then it's still wrong.Then Why bother, and that's the point to keep in mind that if YOU are gonna just accuse me as bulls or cheater again, and I believe I will be with you and have the war contiuned, cuz I don't care you wanna make me a friend or not.
Master Hipro5 say it very correct, basically as long as I come here and post again, I don't even keep those childish in mind, but at least speak like him, I would highly appreciate that. Honestly we are discuss a theory to help people around the world, not argue who is better tweaker in OC.
Not a reply to your post George but something in general I'd like to say that your post reminded me is the emoticon :rolleyes: I am definitely not fond of for the various meanings from one extreme to another it can show where users are friendly to one another (it causes misunderstandings) i.e. a) mock the thing->b) mock the person->c) condescend the person and it can exasperate things pretty damn fast without logical reason.
I can do some real-life XS testing on that if you'd like... :p:
Thanks kain for taking the time to answer some questions. :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain XS
Would it be possible to take some of your time to go thru the method i used yesterday and you can correct me on the glaring mistakes i made to cause my CDT effort to fall way short?
I´ve been very busy those days (still until wednesday :shakes: ) Even that, can you post step by step what youve done to manage Cache diversing?Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
I can help you in that way I think, but sorry if I get too slow because I have a lot of work.
i think thats what we need to focus on, copywaza is basically designed to push your available system cache as close to maxmem as possible, whereas cdt is about balancing your cache diversity, ive been playing with this alot, and im consistently getting 2-3 seconds faster with the methods opb described than my normal copywaza method!
No worries Kain :D
Here's step by step what i did:
1. Reasonably clean Windows XP SP2 with all updates. Set up OS maxmem=600, pagefile=515~512 in SuperPI partition, and registry large system cache / clear pagefile on shutdown. Set Windows to run in Diagnostic Mode.
2. Set up CDT-IV folders and 3 x 632Mb files. I created the files using 1024x1024x632=662700030.
3. RAR the 3 CDT files into a single uncompressed .rar of size 1.85Gb.
4. Run OPB Cleaner
5. Reboot
6. Open SuperPI and prepare to run 32M, pause at 'Click OK to begin'.
7. Copy RAR file from SuperPI partition to other partition (note it was not to my C:\) - (1)
8. Rest
9. Copy RAR file from SuperPI partition to other partition - (2)
10. Rest
11. Copy RAR file from SuperPI partition to other partition - (3)
12. Rest
13. Check task manager and see 53xxxx / 54xxxx, or 55xxxx / 55xxxx, or 54xxxx / 53xxxx, or even 50xxxx / 54xxxx .
14. Run SuperPI
If you can please give me some pointers on anything in the above that would cause CDT to not give a better boost than just copying across a single large random file.
I even tried "balance method" where after doing CDT (3 copies) out of the SuperPI folder, i then returned all 3 files back into the SuperPI folder and my time was 1s slower, although both my Available and System Cache were higher (but balanced).
Well, your metho is completely different from what has been described bro.
pagefile 512-512 in some way will work with your system available memory and cache. How many partitions are you using? Which is your OS partition? (or why did you moved to another than D: ?
Did you check then your HD was defragmented?
I wouldnt say that, given that i have the same pagefile, set on the SuperPI partition, i have the same maxmem, the same file sizes, same RAR size, copy 3 times the same, find that my task manager gives generally the right numbers the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain XS
The trouble is i was not totally sure what has been described, as its been re-written about 15 times in different languages and by different people.
This post here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...25&postcount=2 says to use 512~512 pagefile, supposedly an instruction from OPB himself.
The disk I was using has about 8 partitions of 6Gb (for OS's) and another of about 20Gb and another of 400+Gb.
The reason i couldnt copy the RAR between SuperPI partition and OS was because the 3 x RAR files are too big for my OS partition. If i could just overwrite the file each time then i could do it to the OS partition, but OPB's instructions were not to overwrite.
Partitions were only defragged using Windows XP defrag, and not necessarily prior to the run. Is that important too?
You mention "moved to D:", but the instructions say from from D:\ to C:\, is that what you meant?
I'll be honest with you, Elmor made it pretty crisp clear when he wrote his method and his subsequent replies. After that I find it hard to believe why people are still faulting to follow basic instructions he wrote down one by one and so have others many times. The only reason I could think is, is there another post somewhere I've not read where all these differences are coming from? Or some behind the scenes conversations where people are building on their misunderstandings with other than the guys who have ran it successfully? Because you're not the first and I doubt the last even, but your method was different to what was stated T_M. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
FWIW I started reading the CDT thread very late on and followed the last post by OPB/Elmor and was able to do it (albeit not perfectly). If I errored repeatedly, complained to make it clearer and that I don't understand it many times over with how George wrote down to do the CW step by step, the answer I'd get is " <rolleyes> dude go back and read it again, its all there" or just be ignored and mocked. People would get fed up of me. I'm being genuinely frank with you, you can't make it much more simpler, there is no hidden magic or conspiracy trash, what you need to do is all written there and by people adding, detracting and saying stuff about it which Kev did not say or affirm, all this confusion comes about. This is the full method: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=31
Kain is right you know. Your method is different to what OPB/Elmor stated and different to what I followed and understood by what they wrote too. Still v.good that you're trying genuinely. I'm not speaking on your qs because its best since you asked Kain, that he advises you instead so no more confusion comes about. Its bad enough as it is. :)
-Copying a single random file across does not give me any gains whatsoever (tried).Quote:
If you can please give me some pointers on anything in the above that would cause CDT to not give a better boost than just copying across a single large random file.
I even tried "balance method" where after doing CDT (3 copies) out of the SuperPI folder, i then returned all 3 files back into the SuperPI folder and my time was 1s slower, although both my Available and System Cache were higher (but balanced).
-As I listed before, you have to copy the RAR 3) to the SPi drive and 2) to a folder on the SPi drive too. This is intricate to the method.
-Why did you reboot?
-Why did you not overwrite the 1.85GB files each time?
CW does not make a difference in my case many times. Could someone explain that and give me pointers as to why not and how to get a boost everytime? Most likely not because I follow their method step by step. Such idiosyncrasies are there to stay IMO, just like you can pour LN2 in a tube and get 57xx clocks as your highest while another guy on a different day using the same hardware may pour it the same way and be able to achieve 58xx. We don't try and critique that or its underlying principles, we just know what we observed and experienced because its out of our control how a processor will behave. It would be awfully ignorant and jealousy of the first person to say "lol dude thats flat out fake even a pigeon can see that, you cheated, I ran the same damn thing and the processor does NOT go above 57xx, NO WAY!!" :D
Because i was trying to follow OPB's (the originator) method, in the second post of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
Im pretty sure i knew that when the tweak was not working for me, hence my repeated requests to ask someone who can get it to work where am i going wrong (and i dont want to hear another "its just wrong"!)Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
- Definately gives me gains, in the order of 10s. Which would likely be due to the much increased system cache value (look at my task manager i posted after bootup which only has 1xxxxxx)Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
- I rebooted because nobody told me not to
- I did not overwrite the 1.85Gb file each time because OPB's instructions say not to (second post in this thread)
Correct, and i never did.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
Anyhow, looks like i'll need to go back to the ol' drawing board and see if i can better follow the post you just linked me to.
BTW, where did you get the info from OPB on 'balancing' by copying back to SuperPI partition?
That's bad...Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
You're adding stuff to instructions now. :D
:p: Kev and Jon said don't overwrite the 632MB file in the RAR (rename them). But to overwrite the ~1.85GB file each time when copying over it (each RAR file is copied 3 times to the same place, and the copying is done from place->to place in 3 separate places as well - so you have 9 file moves altogether). Hope that's a bit clearer.Quote:
- I did not overwrite the 1.85Gb file each time because OPB's instructions say not to (second post in this thread)
Jon and Kev both mentioned it. You have to move back the RAR from the first place you copied it to back where you copied it from the first time around. ;)Quote:
BTW, where did you get the info from OPB on 'balancing' by copying back to SuperPI partition?
This is what confused me on that overwriting stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
So, in summary it would be:
1. Setup OS with maxmem, pagefile, etc, OPB Cleaner and then reboot
2. Open SuperPI and prepare to start 32M
3. Create 3 x 632Mb files in a folder (location important?), then RAR them into 1 .rar located in the SuperPI partition
4. Copy that .rar file to C:\ 3 times
5. Copy that .rar file to xxxxxxxxxxxx(?) 3 times from yyyyyyyyy(?)
6. Copy that .rar file back to SuperPI partition 3 times from C:\
7. Wait for taskmanager to balance
8. Run PI
Never heard of the copying it 9 times, so can you advise me on step 5 above?
Another question, you linked me to elmor's method, which was to RAR the file on a seperate laptop, then transfer the RAR onto his computer for use.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
That would indicate to me that the reboot i did should have no effect. Correct?
It is 9 times total like I mentioned.
1. Why reboot though? I didn't reboot and nor did Kev so there was no reboot in the method he mentioned. What happens if you don't reboot, any change?Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
3. Doubt it. I always have one 3x632MB RAR made already in the SPi partition.
4. From SPi partition to another partition, yup.
5. Copy it from SPi partition to a folder on that partition, i.e. if SPi partition is D:\ then copy the RAR you have on D:\ to D:\CDT\
The rest is right as they mentioned and what I ran. :up:
Great, thanks for a pointwise response :up:
You have mentioned "another partition", not C:\ so i presume then i can use any other partition and not the one that my OS is installed on?
Will do some tests tonight and report back with the differences to my previous runs :yepp:
After all the good advice from KTE, i thought i might finally see some better results, so i tested again last night (albeit a bit faster) on QX6850 @ 3600MHz (8 x 450), DDR3 running 12xx 6-8-6-15-xxxxx:
1. Create 3 x 632Mb files then RAR them into 1 .rar located in the SuperPI partition. Setup OS with maxmem, pagefile, diagnostic mode, OPB Cleaner and then reboot
2. Open SuperPI and prepare to start 32M
3. Copy that .rar file from SuperPI partition to OS partition 3 times (overwriting, with pause in between to rest taskmanager)
4. Copy that .rar file from SuperPI partition to SuperPI:\CDT folder 3 times (overwriting, with pause in between to rest taskmanager)
5. Copy that .rar file from OS partition to SuperPI partition 3 times (overwriting, with pause in between to rest taskmanager)
6. Wait for taskmanager to balance at 56xxxxx / 56xxxxx
7. Run PI
Tested using 8M first:
No tweak: 2m 58.547s
CDT tweak: 2m 57.000s
Single 4Gb file copy: 2m 56.859s
Tested second with 32M:
No tweak: 14m 11.188s
CDT tweak: 14m 01.969s
So, my results are still no better than copying a single large file from one unrelated partition to another.
Am i going wrong by pausing in between each file copy?
Tim how long do you pause
make sure your available and system cache don't drop to standard idle figures otherwise you will probably see no benefit
probably a good idea to have Windows Task Manager Performance Tab open so you know where you're at
In between each file copy i pause until the available and system cache both stop moving, and are generally 5xxxxx / 5xxxxx.
Each copy has task manager running to show me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
Keep on trying.........IF you see any good resault out of it, let us know..... :D
Just went back from a 3day business trip to UK, so I see a lot of things still going on about CDT here, good :D
Btw, has anyone noticed in OPB's screenies about the CDT tweak, he is actually doing the stuff a slightly different way:
(look carefully at that little explorer copying window, if copying is done from folder, the path has like drive letter + a chinese letter after it) ;)
1. copy from D:\folder to C:\ (elmor did D:\ to C:\)
http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?i...1085556yh9.jpg
2. copy from D:\folder to D:\ (elmor did D:\ to D:\folder)
http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?i...7862219yd7.jpg
3. copy from C:\folder to D:\ (OPB has even circled it, while writing the C:->D: stuff, interesting). Elmor did C:\->D:\
http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?i...8587147rn4.jpg
... which kinda contradicts elmor's way of doing CDT... as well as KTE's? :cool:
Any thoughts about it?
Yes........For start.......Screenies don't work for me so I can't see anything.... :D :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlobber
Ok, transformed them to hyperlinks :D Btw, they're from the original post of this thread, nothing new supposedly, just that little detail to turn the attention to.Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
Really? Humm not sure... details make the difference. Not sure they really make it (empirically), but we all have to take care of them. Rigourously.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlobber
TBH, folder or not folder, X partition or Y partition, etc... I don't think that could make a difference between these processes (CDT, CW, etc, different names for an equivalent aim); but if you wanna discriminate them, you have to take care of them.
So, thank you for showing us these inconsistencies.
I'm afraid, actually, we don't know what is precisly the whole CDT method. Additionnally, what's CW?
Stupid question?... not really ;) Each of us seems to have his own CW method making useless the comparison between CW and CDT...
We all need now an official CDT method and an official CW method. Continuing without this requisite will never draw an end. Simple as that.
:)
Absolutely agree. This difference might be something, and might not - but it again proves the fact that nobody has confirmed we have been testing the "correct CDT", and it hasn't been clearly denied either except for a couple of "completely wrong" remarks without explaining what exactly has been done wrong :)Quote:
Originally Posted by before
As to CW methods... although Hipro has posted his CW method with clear details how to do it, it's also true we most of the time are doing our own methods (and I have a personal CW which on my C2D 3600 Mhz setup is working 1second better in 32M than hipro's). However, as long as people can't get CDT working better than their copywaza, it doesn't matter which CW they're using because we are looking for the difference between the two methods to analyze in our "laboratory"... and if there isn't any, there is nothing to analyze :)Quote:
Originally Posted by before
About the inconsistencies I have pointed out, I've been in process testing both the "written CDT" (original / elmor / KTE) as well as the "pictured CDT"... While testing, I have observed different things going around with both the amount of available memory and system cache as well as the ratio between them. I have done also various copy numbers of that 1.85Mb big file (from 1x to 5x) and found so far that the more you copy /replace the file around according to CDT rules the more available memory / system cache rise... and the more closer they get.
However, atm I've not finalized the testing yet and thus can't provide exact numbers... and regardless of numbers I haven't seen the revolution in my 32M times so far, so any hint from the CDT experts would be appreciated anyway :) (especially about that "written CDT" vs "pictured CDT" thing).
I'll try to post more details this evening.
Also, massman was posting previously in this thread he was able to get some 6secs better time with CDT, but also mentioned he has not finished his testing... I wonder, when would he post his final results? :)
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=48
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=60
Haven't had the time to finish my testings, REALLY busy atm. Sorry guys.
I built a setup as promised, although I'm honestly not feeling too well these days and haven't had the slightest of extra time. I also have not messed with a new chipset since the 680i SLI, bear in mind please. ;)
E6750 L726 SLA9V 1.350VID / Zalman CNPS9500
Gigabyte P35 DS4 rev 1.1 (F4 and F8 BIOS)
2x 1GB Corsair XMS2 PC2-6400 CAS4 rev 2.1
Sapphire HD 2600 XT
WD Caviar SE 80GB SATA II 16MB cache
Seasonic S12 550W
Two extra fans
Idle @ 2.67GHz 1.2V DDR2-800 1.8V : 123W VAC
Load (orthos) @ same : 253W VAC
Idle in BIOS draw: http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007196.jpg
Board suffers from vdrops everywhere. :(
A quick few stock 1M runs, completely no tweaks at all, new Windows fully loaded, auto "high" volts/latencies, just frequencies are higher up to compare with later. All set in BIOS.
CPU MHz / FSB / Divider / DDR MHz / tCL-tRCD-tRP-tRAS: 1M Time
2667 / 333 / 5:6 / 800 / 4-4-4-12: 19.281s http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/8...0044412rc9.png
3290 / 470 / 5:6 / 1128 / 5-7-7-25: 15.875s http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/374...4701128sj5.png
*3600 / 450 / 4:5 / 1125 / 5-5-5-18: 14.406s http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9113/3600465uu8.png
3720 / 465 / 1:1 / 930 / 5-4-4-12: 14.188s http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5274/37465gn4.png
3720 / 465 / 1:1 / 930 / 5-5-5-18 (:confused:): 14.157s http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/624...6555518mh0.png
3720 / 465 / 5:6 / 1116 / 5-7-7-26: 14.141s http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/6...5857728gr7.png
As you can see by the 3.6GHz run, RAM can do 1125 5-5-5-18 (can do 15 but not stable, 16 is stable) at 2.05V. I was about to try for some real runs before trying CDT with better clocks and so never really saved anything but out of the blue the system does not boot anymore. :( If the motherboard wasn't dead, at least the fans would spin up. Nope, the chip and everything else should be fine, it's the board that stopped booting completely. I had 5 hours off and on, 2 hours spent on Windows/programs, 1 hour spent on overclock, and the last 2 hours just to get it to boot, even froze components to subzero in a -28C freezer but no go. The DS4 is not booting up at all. I can't figure out what or why since the VDIMM/VCore were left untouched around 2.35V/1.472V at the last higher clocks and all temps were very low. :shakes:
Some random cell phone pics when setting up yesterday night taken with a Nokia N95-2 (the phone pics are not digital standard anyway but it really messed up far worse later because of JPEG conversion and decreasing resolution and size from many megabytes to a few kilobytes to upload):
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007188.jpg
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007179.jpg
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007169.jpg
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007170.jpg
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007195.jpg
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007194.jpg
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007189.jpg
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007191.jpg
Below is my blog for today for any that's interested -> to expand a little... :D
Quote:
As promised, I did get the setup yesterday morning, but the problem was space in my flat. There is no room free anywhere at all. The E6750 SLA9V L726 1.350VID and from the choice of motherboards I chose a Gigabyte P35 DS4 rev1.1 F4/F8 BIOS for its known consistent high FSB and an Abit IP35-E Offlimits that was lying around unused I picked up too. Everything 'aint mine so I have to return working to my uncle who it belongs to. Two other systems I picked were older P4s and an AMD that Ill test soon. All standard air. One of the P4s died near the start and I don't know how or why since it was fully stock. I'm still thinking...
My god I hate long journeys for nothing. :mad: The CRT monitor I picked up was so bloody heavy walking up 6 flights of stairs to my flat I have a crazy back ache that made me want to throw everything back out again!!
Anyway, I ran into hundreds of problems, the first of which was the monitor and its weird colors. I don't like the DS4 BIOS at all. Its too simple and lacking in a lot. I have no way of finding out what the NB/FSB voltages actually are, only what is being added on to them, nor any PLL voltage control. The setup wasted so much of my time because for 3 hours it wouldn't boot since the board set the VDIMM at 1.8V stock which I couldn't tell until I got into windows one lucky time. 1.85V was good for ~464MHz 4-4-4-12 and the RAM I wanted was taken by someone else so I'll have to go back this weekend or so to get it (Crucial Ballistix Tracer 8500). I picked up some PC2-Corsair XMS2 6400 CAS4 that was lying around v2.1 which are ProMos ICs I believe. Not supposed to be any decent but mine ran 2.05V DDR2-1160 5-5-5-16 500% (1600MB) Memset clear without error. They booted in Windows at 1262 at 2.3V which is +0.55V in BIOS for us to set, :rolleyes: I've still not tweaked them at all, just raised the voltages pretty high on most components to see where the limit on each is, the temps and the ability. Left timings to "auto" mostly.
This DS4 cannot do 500FSB. It can ONLY do 475 tops from BIOS at max FSB/NB voltages or even if lowered down many notches. No voltage added would change that situation and nothing is even warm to the touch so I don't know what the hindrance is or if I just got a dud board. It 'aint the CPU because I tested with x6 multi and with x8 I got 475x8 into Windows at 1.40V BIOS volts (never tried lower). It's unstable because the board is unstable at such high FSBs.
So I can't do runs of 600FSB 1:1 or 500FSB or even 475FSB 32M like many guys are doing, nor can I do 3600/1200. Max I can do at 3600 is 1125 (all in BIOS staying below DDR2-1200) and latencies are high. tCAS I can't even change to below 5 (not an option) nor change Command Rate and that doesn't matter on the temps or volts. I even tried +0.66V which is 2.46V real VDIMM at 1262 which was running at 2.3V before but no go. Not tried raising clocks within Windows using Clockgen/SetFSB yet.
First thing I did is run stock TAT/Orthos/OCCT testing. TAT was hardest on my system, topping out at 253W VAC stock 2.67GHz volts was 1.2V, ambient was 10C, and the setup ran very cool with a Zalman CNPS9500, a 40mm 6000RPM fan on the NB, open bench and a 12 inch powerful fan cooling the DIMMS/heatpipes all the way from Asia :D EVEREST and Speedfan report the real temps and voltages accurately (I tested without a heatsink just to make sure) but Core Temp and TAT read 15C lower than the real temp at any time. Here's is TAT after 1 minute 100% load at stock. LOL its just so you get a rough idea of stock temps, I aint keeping it for use: http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/5472/tempsww8.png
Stock temps, volts and EVEREST mem/cache: http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7...pustockkk2.png
Did you check your video card mount?
In the photos its not in the socket correctly, but i presume that you would have setup the system properly, just that it was like that in the photo.
Ye, I packed it in yesterday and put in back in box thinking its dead and threw the board in the freezer while I went to sleep. Talk about condensation, but when I came back and thought "let's give it a try" as I did with one of my overclocked phones which stopped booting, it worked right out first time. ;)
Have been messing a little more but the OS got corrupt and won't pick up IDE DVDRW anymore from which I need drivers urgently. RAM is bad, as in I took it to 2.85V and 2.90V for 2 hours and it did exactly the same latencies/MHz as it did at 2.35V. Nothing more. :( I just wanted it to get up to 3600MHz/450/1350 or be able to drop some latencies lower clock as they were v.high.
My testing showed me this:
tRFC 25-50 made no difference in 1M
tRAS also did not make too much difference lower than 5.
Performance Level also did nothing below 5 apart from increase instability.
Don't recall the rest as I don't have access to the drive here. :p:
Will post some new testing scores soon. Need to find the limit before I can apply to test a tweak or I might just say the tweak worked whereas it hadn't and was just the hardware capability I hadn't raked.
Just came back and started up again. Starting to tweak a little now from stock to see a 1M pattern on this board/CPU... no extra tweaks applied, just the timings you see. These ProMos chips absolutely gain nothing from voltage. 2.35V was tops that made a difference. I tried up to 2.90V, they were cool, but it gained zilch. CAS only changeable from BIOS and can't change Command Rate anywhere.
http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/2606/benchot7.th.jpg
Stock:
2667/400/4-4-4-12: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268244 [screenshot + 1M = 19.047s]
(the CAS5 is because I couldn't be bothered to reboot and manually change it since BIOS sets higher than SPD)
Bit tweaked:
3200/400/3-2-2-5: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268231 [screenshot]
3200/400/3-2-2-2: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268249 [screenshot + 1M]
3200/400/3-2-2-1: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268235 [screenshot + 1M]
3200/500/4-4-4-9: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268228
3600/540/4-4-4-8: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268257
DDR MHz limit @ 2.35V:
650/5-5-5-15: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268262 [screenshot]
656/5-5-5-15: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268232
658/5-7-7-25: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268233
660/5-7-7-25: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268240
Not tried lower latencies. The latter should do 5-5-5-17 at same volts.
EVEREST showing VDIMM @ 649 5-5-5-18: Screenshot 2.35V
Various clock/latency 1M tests. Timings kept loose, VDIMM 2.1-2.35V 1M.
3483/653/5-5-5-18 1M = 14.609s:
5-5-5-15 made no difference.
3594.7/561.6/5-6-6-25 1M = 14.187s
3600/450/4-5-5-13 1M = 14.172s
3600/450/4-4-4-15 1M = 14.156s
3594.7/561.6/5-5-5-15 1M = 14.141s
3600/450/4-4-4-12 1M = 14.125s
3600/562.5/5-5-5-18 1M = 14.016s:
[3600 Idle TAT & Core Temp] [3600 14min loaded TAT and Core Temp]
Talk about a strange bench. :D More coming soon...
what settings are you selecting in bios
make sure you use Turbo memory setting at least
Chose 'Extreme' for all runs I posted and the 4-5 other values beneath that I left pretty much stock which was quite low. Can't access the drive here to check what they were but there were more runs. Was missing too many tools yesterday but I've got them today and will try some benches at night or tomorrow morn. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
fine
also look at memset as well and tighten it up
your times are pretty slow :confused:
Well, a 515x7 1:1 4-4-4-4 run on Asus P5K-E at PL=7 does ~13.92 secs 1M and with a clean OS around 13m20s to 13m24s 32M:Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Taskmanager before the run:
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/8994/5stockoj0.jpg
32M:
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/3...2mstockub9.jpg
Edit: should have mentioned, those timings I used aren't the tightest either :)
Anyway, KTE, can't wait your 32M CDT C2D testing ;)
Yeah there is a lot to be tightened up as I left them loose, just as I mentioned. But even though the times weren't supposed to be quick when I tested dropping EACH timing one and two notches at the same clock, the difference was negligible. I'm talking 0.02s-0.001s. I didn't even have Maxmem on those though and a 2GB pagefile and no LargeSystemCache. Still its a good base to test a tweak for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Looking around if I compare my 3483/653/5-5-5-18 14.609s rough run to a tweaked 3520/660/5-5-5-15 14.265s I don't see much efficiency difference. :confused: But I'm stuck with these timings until I go back to get some Crucial.
here's my fastest run @ 2.4ghz 2x512mb @ ddr2 1200 cas5 :)
tweaks :
LSC=1
Pagefile=512/512
CopyWazza=744MB
Realtime Priority
Processor Affinity=1 core
Maxmem=600
ERAM=412000
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2923/cdtpostdn3.png
will try the CDT & Hipro5 tweaks as soon as i get a new drive :D
Nope. I just tried lower timngs at 3600/562.5 5-5-5-5 Perf.Level 6, it booted and the 1M time was 14.078s but I've lost my OS again for the 2nd time and it deleted the latest programs installed and files saved. C:\WINDOWS\system32\config\system gets corrupt each time and I have to reinstall and setup everything back again which is a PITA!! :mad:
It's obvious that there is a hardware limitation here (RAM) so the only way I can compare properly is if people all run their best without CDT at the same fixed MHz/timings/sub-timings and make it quite doable. Or I have nothing to compare against simply put.
But before I can move on, I had a feeling timings are not doing anything more than 0.1s to 1M here so I tested the supposed gain I can expect with RAM timings on P35/C2D, low stable MHz...
LSC/Maxmem=600/PF=384=384/RealTime/SATA II 16MB
Stock: 2667/400/4-4-4-12 19.047s: http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5060/stockallrd0.png
2667/400/5-7-7-25 19.094s: http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6...board04pn7.png
2667/400/5-6-6-20 19.063s: http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/3...board03ls7.png
2667/400/5-5-5-18 19.047s: http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/2...board02ku2.png
2667/400/5-4-4-4 19.094s w/ CDT (look at cache/mem): http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5...board01kw4.png
2667/400/5-2-2-2 19.015s: http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8...board05as9.png
Is this what everyone is getting?
Someone please explain to me why there is hardly any gain (0.079s) from 5-7-7-25 to 5-2-2-2 in 1M :confused: especially considering people posting 0.1s lower time at the same clocks/latencies. Somethings wrong here. Also look at that CDT run, its the slowest, yet it has lowest tRFC and WTP.
Because 5-7-7-25 is way to slow and 5-2-2-2 ain't faster.
Try 5-3-3-11/13
Hmm, what's the exact problem here? :confused:
KTE, it seems you can't run 3600mhz 514x7 1:1, can you?
If not, what about 450x8 1:1? Both your board as well as RAM should be up to this task, and it's not that much slower than higher fsb runs which we have plenty to compare with. Moreover, you need to do the stock/copywaza/cdt comparison inside your system first, and only then we could start doing a comparison with runs other people have made.
I don't understand what you're saying massman. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
They weren't runs to show fastest time possible but to see effect of tRCD-tRP-tRAS on 1M. Let me explain how clear this is:
I only changed major timings (tRCD-tRP-tRAS) that have a large supposed effect, no subtimings changed. That shows what effect each timing is having on 1M clearly. CAS had a bigger effect than all so I left it to 5 for all. Findings: Change in timings from 5-7-7-25 to 5-2-2-2 made not even 0.08s difference in 1M. Look at my results before at higher clocks, they are showing a very similar trend.
So take for example my 3600/562/5-5-5-18 14.016s run... if I ran same MHz/subtimings but 5-5-5-5 according to this trend on my hardware I'm spotting the difference would be ~ -0.03s to 14.013s, but not much more. Either something is wrong, it's board difference or I'm missing something.
Already did it. It was slower than 5-2-2-2, which is fastest (all things kept constant).Quote:
Try 5-3-3-11/13
Nope, 475 is max FSB. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlobber
Yep they can do that, but post the timings and sub-timings to try please. So I a can begin a comparison. :)Quote:
If not, what about 450x8 1:1? Both your board as well as RAM should be up to this task, and it's not that much slower than higher fsb runs which we have plenty to compare with.
They're not that important, the relative tweak comparison on your system is.
But you can try these, just for example (Memset 3.3): http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/3...2mstockub9.jpg
I "think" the RAM maybe doable at high volts but not FSB/divider, no way. Closest this setup can do to that is 450x8/900 4-4-4-4 or 540 5-5-5-5 which I don't think is even 4M stable. :shakes: Plus the hard drive is getting corrupt very quickly now, fitness already dropped to 92% and had over 3000 fragments. I'll try maybe tomorrow after reinstalling an OS. No OS yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlobber
You're doing something wrong I think. All times tested on effects in 1M bench, keeping every other setting than the variable constant.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
http://www.thetechrepository.com/att...7&d=1193158209
http://www.thetechrepository.com/att...8&d=1193158209
http://www.thetechrepository.com/att...9&d=1193158209
Yeah, that's why I posted the initial results so someone can notice that the timing/sub-timing change is not giving me any difference in results. Negligble difference which is not what I expected and not what others I saw were getting, incl yourself. There's nothing wrong I'm doing other than what everyone does, it's a standard simple procedure, all things are constant, but I think it's hardware related...
Massman what CPU MHz/DDR MHz/latencies did you run those tests at? (so I can try them) I don't get those differences at all, no where near. :shakes: