You mean you actually have one of those?Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
I've heard about them... but ... I mean... What' it like? :rofl:
Printable View
You mean you actually have one of those?Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
I've heard about them... but ... I mean... What' it like? :rofl:
Something weird here....Your right, the lowest multi in the bios is 10x. doing that shows 3.7 gig for uncore in the preview....Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Something AFU on the math in the bios?. It shows in 3.7 in CPUz too...I can't seem to match the 860. Is it a function of dual vs triple maybe?
I'll have to pick up on this later. Time to work the day job.
Bob
Lol, no.. lowest uncore mult should be 12x, probably 6x in your bios then. Maybe a bos update?
Edit: If you want, I could match a 920 or w3520 to your 860. Would just need those test WUs ^^
Bios update in progress. I am 2 versions behind. The notes on both newer version said "memory compatibility" changes. Isn't it wonderful how detailed that message is???? :D
I'll report back in a few. Hope I don't blow the rig into the dirt....:eek:
It is weird that I set uncore multi to 10x and it shows 3.7 gig, exactly the same as the dang CPU at 20x.....
If needed, I can send you the WUs. :up:
Bob
Not weird at all bob, if the board is really doubling all the mults - 185*20 is 3700Mhz, after all ;)
What it should do, however, is let you change uncore from 12x to 40x or so. 12x being the slowest at 12x185=2220Mhz.
On the LGA1156 CPUs, the uncore mult is locked. For the 860 it's locked to 18x, for the smaller ones like my 750 and the Xeons (I think) it is 16x. I will try an X3450 in a minute, I'll see whether it's 16 or 18 then.
LGA1156 CPUs also don't need uncore to be >= 2x Dram, >=1,5x Dram is enough for them.
The bios is definitely busted. EDIT: WELL MAYBE CONFUSING AT LEAST. SEE BELOW :END EDIT Bclk is set to 185, for 3.7 gig on the CPU. I have uncore bios options of auto, then 10x to 24x. When I set 10x, it goes to 3.7gig (which is 20x185). It shows that in both the preview and in CPUz. When I set 18x, it goes to 6.66 gig (which is 36x185). I had set that before, and of course it couldn't even boot. Had to clear CMOS. So, there's an extra 2x uncore multiplier in the MSI platinum SLI board even using bios 3.6, which is the current one? The Auto setting seems to be stuck at a true 16x. :mad::(:mad::down:Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Obviously, I won't be acquiring another one soon....
Bob
EDIT: Did some more playing around. Found that if I take the mem multiplier from auto to x4, then I am given the option for a x9 uncore multiplier in the uncore multi section of bios.... So, got ram at 1480 and uncore (NB in CPUz) at 3330. Now it matches the 860 rig. I'll try to get 1T timing, then see if it's stable. So much for getting anything done on the day job. Still, it will be Gigabyte on the next rig.....:D :END EDIT
OK, now I should be straight.....
Here's the setup screenie for the 920 with the NB boosted and timing at 1T. This is loaded with BOINC.
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...20cpuzshot.jpg
New test run on this rig will begin soon with the exact same 24 WUs as before. I'm going to try not to abort the current WUs I have running on the 920 now, just move the folder out of the way and put the test folder in it's place. It should work....:rolleyes:
Bob
EDIT: OK, it's crunching away as of 14:40 PDT....
Nice, lets hope its stable. :D
Wow I didnt know you can run 1t CR on these.
Man I need to study.
jc & Bob...you guys rock with the detail & the info you provide. :up:
Nice work bob.. and +1 on your next board NOT being an MSI :D
Very nice work indeed 123bob...Purchased my next CPU because of all you've done.:toast::toast::toast: Enuf already...
Now that you mention it.......I stopped over at Fry's to look at back up drives. Wouldn't you know it, they have an 860 with a Gigabyte UD4 on sale this week for $379, a Thermaltake 750w supply for $99, and 4 gig Kingston 1800 sticks for $99. Smells like a cruncher to me....:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
@All, as to doing the work, I don't mind doing it. I was just as curious about it as everyone else. I think we can conclude testing at this data point when this run is over. What I want to see next is my max clock and it's power figures. This current point at 3.7 may be the sweet spot for power vs ppd on the 860, IDK.
One thing I'm really curious about now is how well the X3440 clocks. :up:
The WUs are crunching away on the 920.....
Bob
I will try to update you on the X3440 this week! I am not the greatest at overclocking, but I might be able to give you a rough idea :shrug:. I know it should easily do 3.8ghz with a good cooler (Megahalem on the way!!!!). will report back asap:up:
Thanks again for your dedication BOB:up:
$315 X3440/UD2 coming this week....:ROTF: :yepp:
...And I'm thinking you're going to have the most cost effective rig.....$315, dang that's not a whole lot....Quote:
Originally Posted by INFRNL
Certainly the folks here can help with the clocking. I'm not the best at it either, but I'm getting the hang of i7 now.
Bob
EDIT: A further thought...For around the $315 plus the cost of two sticks of cheap DDR3, I might be able to cost justify upgrading the rigs in the kents farm. If I catch the timing of a sale right, it might be do-able. At least some of them... I'll have to look into some of the B3 kent's power draws and PPDs. It could be a no-brainer upgrade. :END EDIT
Keep in mind that $315 will be effective in about 50some days when I get my $18.xx from bing. Also this is just for mobo and cpu, but still damn cheap.
As for the day job comment, is that a day job, or like mine...an ALL day job :rofl:
as for the uncore/nb freq. statement: how true is it that it makes a difference? I do not know if something has changed this weekend while screwing around with my rigs. obviously my ppd has fallen dramatically:(
but I just noticed that my nb freq on main rig is @3800 while one of my other rigs is @2880. I do not see much of a difference in production. :shrug:
I thought the one that is @2880 was producing a little better, but I think for the most part its maintaining pretty good production:shrug:
When I get time, I will have to play around a little bit to see if I can improve my ppd. I also noticed that my W3520 is runnin @4ghz@1.232v...I will have to check the bios as I thought it was running @ 1.3x v:shrug:
Oh well thats another story for a different day:rofl:
Interesting results to say the least! We'll see if the higher uncore speed and 1T CR can make up that 0.3% difference. :up: Only difference now is dual channel vs triple. We always knew it had little to no effect, but your final results should show just how little.
What's wrong with MSI ?
I prefer Gigabyte myself , but never had issues with MSI boards .
Remember the MSI K8N Neo2 (socket939) ? that was a great board.
Usually MSI boards are pretty good performers imo.
Well thanks to Bobs dedication and stickling for procedures I was able to duplicate it perfectly! (unlike putting my machines on another account! :shrug:)
Anyways both my i7 860 and 920 now have the same WUs and are now crunching these . I made a few changes to Bobs procedure though see bold below (I never could follow the rules! ;))
Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
OK, results first and then I'll post to some of the other questions/comments above.
The only difference now is the 920 has triple channel and the 860 has dual channel RAM. Screenie of the new 920 setup posted above, again.
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...20cpuzshot.jpg
Here's the raw data of the 920 matched exactly to the 860. (Except, of course, for triple vs dual channel RAM.)
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...0boincdata.jpg
As before, you are welcome to check my math here....
Doing the same math as above we get 84:639:806.
Converting to hours that's 94.873888. Dividing that by 24 WUs we get 3.9530787 Hours/WU.
That's .042488396 hours FASTER than the 860. Converted to minutes, the 920 is now 2.54930 minutes per WU FASTER than the 860.
Perhaps the triple channel does come into play?
Perhaps there is some natural variance in the numbers? I'll make one more 920 run at these settings to see. We don't know how consistent the numbers are without multiple tries......
If there's not much variance between runs, we can make a couple of conclusions. (OR at least I can. You may, or may not, agree....)
1. Even at 2.5 minutes per WU difference between rigs, the 860 is still in the same league with the 920. The difference is just over 1%. The back end variances of WU score, quorum wingmen, quorum score, and WU daily timing are MUCH greater than that..... 1% difference would be lost in the noise. The 860 is more power efficient. For those with high power rates, this is a no-brainer.
2. QPI setting makes a pretty good difference in production. This was shown when I had the QPI cranked down on the 860 and the rig was fairly well behind using the older "random WU average" method before. I could test this using the new "fixed WU" method, but I'm convinced it's real.
3. Uncore/NB and/or the 1T timing change makes a reasonable difference. The 920 with the faster Uncore and 1T timing was 3.21 minutes/WU faster than the lower uncore and 2T timing. This is about 1.3% faster. Personally, I would bet it's the uncore that made more of the difference, over the 1T vs 2T timing change.
4. The new "fixed WU" method of testing rocks!! Thx to Snowcrash for suggesting it and everyone else for fine tuning it. I'll be keeping those test WUs on the stick for a long time....I may have to run them on some of the kent's farm rigs when they come home. What I'll have to keep in mind now is the difference between threads and cores. The i7 rigs do 8 threads at a time vs the kent's 4 cores. :slobber:
Regards,
Bob
First of all bob, let me thank you again for your time and dedication put into this, truly amazing :up:
Below is just my 2 cents on your conclusions.
I agree, they are equal crunchers, as was expected. The 860 may be more power-efficient at 3,7Ghz, however, judging from the LGA1156 and 1366 CPUs I have tried until now, this picture changes dramatically if you go to around 4Ghz. Almost all Lynnfield CPUs seem to require vast amounts of Vcore to handle 4Ghz, 1,4V seems like average, while most D0 920's can do 4Ghz at around 1,25V. I compared an X3450 running 4Ghz (bad one.. 1,43V and crunching at 87C for this test :rolleyes: ) to an average i7 and came up with ~44W less for the 920 with otherwise identical setups (PSU, GPU, SSD identical).Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
Yes, using a high QPI mult seems to be crucial for Lynnfield performance. However, I could not detect the same behaviour with Bloomfields, I ran my 975 at different BCLKs and QPI mults over the last half year or so, and I never noticed any changes in PPD or WU runtimes caused by different QPI bus speeds. Of course I didn't do a real scientific test, but I still don't think Bloomfield cares about high QPI mults the same way Lynnfield does. maybe someone wants to try it out?Quote:
2. QPI setting makes a pretty good difference in production. This was shown when I had the QPI cranked down on the 860 and the rig was fairly well behind using the older "random WU average" method before. I could test this using the new "fixed WU" method, but I'm convinced it's real.
Yeah, most probably it is the higher uncore speed giving the boost, as 1T vs. 2T does next to nothing on Intel X58 chipsets, not even if you run Everest mem benches etc.Quote:
3. Uncore/NB and/or the 1T timing change makes a reasonable difference. The 920 with the faster Uncore and 1T timing was 3.21 minutes/WU faster than the lower uncore and 2T timing. This is about 1.3% faster. Personally, I would bet it's the uncore that made more of the difference, over the 1T vs 2T timing change.
However, I must revise my earlier statement (that Uncore speed = L3 speed). It appears that the L3 is synched to the CPU's core speed, ie Core speed = L3 cache speed. I apologize for the misinformation, I read that on some tech site a while ago, obviously they were wrong. The Intel spec finder lists L3 speed = core speed for all Core i7 models, so I guess that proves it.
1. Sometimes it's a day and night job. Speaking of that, I have some serious catching up to do....Quote:
Originally Posted by INFRNL
2. The results are in the above post. It seems to me that QPI makes a pretty good difference. The Uncore/NB difference is there, but not as pronounced.
I figure if we know this, we all can tweak for it and get the most out of our rigs. I would suggest none of us go "ape crazy" to push these, just be aware that they should not be ignored.
I have had very good luck with the MSI P45 Neos I still run on the kents farm. Those work fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaco
However, with these i7 boards, for some reason I find them confusing in the mechanics of the bios. For instance, to change CPU vcore, you have to push the +/- buttons on the numpad, not next to the backspace key. No where in bios or the book do they tell you this. Page up/Page down also works. I have a tiny laptop keyboard on the racks and that took me a bit to figure out. I had to ask the question at the WSI forum to figure it out. Talk about feeling like a noob...:slobber:
Another example. The X58 Platinum SLI comes with OC switches on the board. It overwrites your bios on boot. The intention is for auto overclock. It comes set for 133 bclk. No where in the manual does it say how to turn the damn thing off so you can bios OC. I found that by trial and error. Very irritating.
The "one button OC" feature on the 860's P55-CD53 mobo didn't work worth a dang. It just kept rebooting when I tried. Bios OC shows that the system is very capable of OCing, just that the board couldn't come up with any combinations it liked on its' own. It's not a feature I really care about, but I feel sorry for the noobs that would like it to work....They paid for the feature.
I think they just have some kinks to work out. Right now, from what I'm seeing from others, for the same money, the Gigabytes seem better.
Remember, this is just my opinion, based on ownership, right now.
Your tweaks look good. I realized after I blew all the WUs out of the 920 (or "target" rig) that I could have just moved them out for a day and put them back. That's a good improvement to the original write up.Quote:
Originally Posted by emuexport
I disconnected the net cable just to be REAL sure my test WUs didn't escape on me...:rofl: I had the horrible picture of them escaping from the 920 rig, getting out in the wild and possibly bringing the server down, or destroying the planet.....:eek: I've since had the chance to see how "Net Act Supend" works and will likely do that in the future.
Regards,
Bob
Agreed. Something less than 4 gig, so far, seems to be the 860 sweet spot, based on my data and Emu's 4 gig power data. The key will be in the production numbers. If 3.7 vs 4 gig makes substantial production differences, then the scale tips to the 920 for some people's cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
I'm going there next. :up:
See ya'll at 4 gig....
Bob
That's an 8% clock difference, and since we know that performance per clock is the same also 8% greater production. For just a higher investment in hardware I'd say that is a nice bonus.Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
But then you have the power consumption. Personally I would always go for the 860 at a reasonable 3.7Ghz and save ~40w. Crunching is all about good performance for the lowest possible costs.
Also, it's not only the inital investment in the 860 system that is lower compared to the 920 system, I think you can increase that difference when you realise that a budget board and budget RAM are good enough because you are not going to push it past 3.7. The 920 pretty much needs high end stuff.
I agree with you V0dka, for pure cruncher duty. In fact, I think INFRNL's choice may be a winner for that. I run my pure farm rigs so they don't need a babysitter. I want them to run, run, and just run. If I can have that and power efficiency, I'm interested.
However, for some folks using rigs for games, applications, and such, the 920, the 860, and budget come into play. I can see that aspect too.
In other news......Well, I tried my best to get 4 gig out of the 860. I couldn't even get 3.885gig stable on it. (185x21) :(
I tried the max vcore the bios would let me set. I mean I had CPUz showing 1.536v at idle! :eek: I could boot, but no primes....
I jacked up all the other voltages to what they had for max safe, dropped the QPI to x16, still no love. This particular chip ain't going there.....
I dropped it all back to the magic 3.7 point and it's fine. No harm done from the voltage, at least right now....:slobber:
So, it's up to Emu to give us the 4 gig point. Best of luck to you my friend! :toast:
Regards,
Bob
When figuring the 860 vs 920 equation... there's also the hexacore factor, yes ?
I was really excited to go 860 until I figured out that the upgrade path for 1156 seems to be dual core, whereas the way to get hexacore is to go 1366. That made the decision for me, I'm going with a 920. Then I have to hope there's a reasonable hexacore some day soon enough to make it worthwhile, otherwise I'll wish I'd gone 860. There's always that waiting option... NAH !!!
The waiting option: XS style
Buy one now, and if you were wrong just buy the other one too. Don't worry, they'll both crunch. :rofl:
So I am guessing the 920 is the better option....
It just depends on your situation. What this thread shows is that at least you won't get hurt in crunching performance, clock-for-clock, by going 860. The rest depends on what the machine is for, your immediate budget, your power cost, and the upgrade path considerations...Quote:
Originally Posted by drizzt5
Bob
I'm thinking "XS style" is the way Emu and I did it. Get one of each right away so you can "evaluate" them for the team....:rofl::ROTF::up::toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by Otis11
Bob
On second thought, I like yours better. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
Glad you pointed that out! :up:
As I said above, I wanted to see how close identical parameter runs of our new test method would come to each other. So, I ran another test on the 920, using EXACTLY the setup from the previous run.
So, this post is about how accurate we can expect the data, using this method, to come in.
Here's the previous run posted about above.
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...0boincdata.jpg
As reported before, it's average is 3.9530787 Hours/WU.
Here is the raw data from the next run, at the same exact settings.....
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...0boincdata.jpg
It comes in at 84:659:780.
Converting to hours = 95.2000000 hrs. (Yup, I know it seems strange that it hit zeros in the second decimal place, did the math several times....You're welcome to check it....:yepp:)
Dividing by 24 WUs gives 3.9666666 hours/WU
The difference between this and the run above it is .013587962 hours, or 48.91 seconds.
So this second run was about 49 seconds SLOWER than the first run. Remember, exact same parameters were used.
So, I would put the variance of this test method at around +/- a minute per WU, or so, at least. Many more runs would have to be done to get a statistically valid varience, but I don't have that time since it blows 12+ hours of crunching away to do each run.
What this shows me is that if we get within a couple of minutes per WU for a test run, we can just as easy say it's equal, due to the test variance.
As we get finer into parameters, more runs would need to be done to establish averages. I'm thinking like at least 10 runs per setting change....:eek: I'm not going to be doing that, and I would not expect anyone else to do it either...
However, it is clear that this test method is WAY better than we were attempting before.
So, here's the order of accuracy as I see it.
Most accurate - This method of running the EXACT same set of WUs.
Less Accurate - The method of taking a random batch of many completed WUs and averaging completion times.
Least accurate - Taking daily scores over a very long time, say several weeks, and working those backwards.
I'm not bothered by this in any way since the nature of what we are doing is probabilistic. As I understand it, a given WU is calculated down a path and has many branches. It may not take the same branch every time it's run. Therefore, we should not expect it to complete in EXACTLY the same time.
Agree?
I've been dying to get into this conversation years ago. I just never had a real reason. Damn my engineering genes.....:rofl:
Regards,
Bob
EDIT: Curious side note. It took exactly 13 hours, 5 minutes of "clock time" to complete this run. I don't think that means anything, but I was curious to see, so I timed this run. I'll bet this number will vary even more than the run-time data. :END EDIT
Hey mate I'm dedicated too just more distracted :yepp::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Not sure wether they are equal crunchers the higher you go though but I am sure you will confirm my results below shortly. I greatly appreciate your knowledge in these as I am just bashing my way through LGA1366 and LGA 1156 atm:shakes:
I'm also glad to find out that my 860 isnt such a dog after all. When shes done her job she'll go back to more appealing voltages if she wants to.
hmmmQuote:
Originally Posted by jcool
hmm more tests required at 4GHz me thinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Should check out my results for more confusion mate! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
Yeah I found out about net act suspend when I was manually updating the farm via a shared 3G wireless card on my laptop. If I didnt suspend it the computer gradually ground to a halt as it was constantly trying to connect to the net.Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
It will definetely be interesting once we put power costs against the 3.7GHz results that Bob has done.Quote:
Originally Posted by v0dka
Cant wait to see INFRLs results! (Might need another "upgrade" :rofl:)Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
4GHz results incoming!
I thought it was dont tell the wife you bought another computer! :shrug::rofl: Mine are all "upgrades" to my existing comps :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
they put a frequency activated resistor into 1156 cpu, to destroy the idea of a perfect crunchers rig, so we still may drool at Jcool's 1366 under SS , j/k
So here are the screenies.
i7 860 @ 4GHz
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...4GHz_24WUs.png
i7 920 @ 4GHz
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...4GHz_24WUs.png
Well different WUs to Bob so the duration will be different but you get the idea.
The 860 @ 4GHz has a runtime of 99:51:44 for 24 WUs or 4:09:39 per WU on avg
The 920 @ 4GHz has a runtime of 96:09:33 for 24 WUs or 4:00:24 per WU on avg.
This is a 9min difference per WU or 4% per WU
So not sure what I need to change except for the memory settings. Any ideas as I'll set these to run again if required.
Nice work emu.. is that on the highest QPI mult already for the 860? If not, try increasing it.
So you dont think the memory timings explain that difference then?
I don't think so, no. That 860 has more than enough bandwidth as it stands. Still, the observation that WCG doesn't care about ram performance is based on running solely HCC, where this holds 100% true.
Maybe HFCC is more memory intensive. What indicates HFCC being more memory intensive is the fact that on my Quad Opteron, HFCC is incredibly slow with the TLB fix turned on (24h WUs). With the TLB fix OFF, I get normal runtimes (8 hours), while the difference in HCC was only 30minutes or so.
What the TLB fix does is cripple the memory bandwidth of the CPUs by a huge margin.
So, maybe HFCC is memory-intensive.
hmmm will have to see. I'll run these QPI queries you requested first then we can check out timings.
I have dropped the multi on both CPUs but upped the BCLK to 201 (mainly cos this EVGA board doesnt appear to have a QPI multiplier!?!?!?!)
Screens below:
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...Us_20Multi.png
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...Us_20Multi.png
It may have already been said but increasing your PLL and IMC voltages seem to have an effect on performance. Give it a go maybe?
Also, thanks for the tests. I'd be interested to see the 920 bumped up in vcore to match the 860 (even if it's not required). This way we would have an absolute apples to apples comparison... Well as close as possible anyway. My suspect is that the 860 would still be a little faster and more power efficient. It is a newer design, after all so we can pretty much expect that.
Great work here, folks!
Thanks Emu! :up:
You own the 4 gig point since I can't seem to get there with my 860...:(
It will be interesting to see how the QPI alone affects the runtimes. Now you have two rigs with just a QPI boost running. I'm expecting it to make a noticeable difference.
After this are you planning on pushing out the RAM timings on the 920 to match the 860? Or the other way around, reduce the RAM timings on the 860 to match the 920? I would think it would be easier to push out the 920 and still have a stable clock than to pull in the 860.
Hehe, maybe we should hit the team up for a couple of XS lab coats with all this science going on here....:rofl::ROTF:
Rock on Emu :toast:
Bob
Will look into the PLC and IMC voltages at the next opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinas
I understand where you are coming from but if my 920 is average in terms of voltage required to meet 4GHz then this is an advantage over the volt hungry 860. Besides I dont think I want to put 1.4 VCore on my 920 for an extended period :(
Yeah mate I thought mine was a dog when jcool suggested less VCore. :shrug: Have you tried MOAR VCore:DQuote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
Well the 920 crashed overnight with the increased QPI so I guess just adjusting that and nothing else wasnt enough:rolleyes: Off to do my HUET today so no time this morning, it will have to wait till this arvo.
Memory timings is next on the list after this one. Then PLL and IMC as Vinas suggested then I'm going for max clock with stock VCore:up:
Oh and I am only doing this for the t-shirts :D There is t-shirts right?:(;)
XS Lab coats in transit, complete with pocket protectors...:clap::up:
:rofl::ROTF::rofl: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by DAK1640
I gave it all the vcore my bios and board would allow. I had CPUz 1.536 vcore on it at idle for 3.885 gig and she still wouldn't prime.....It just won't go.Quote:
Originally Posted by emuexport
Dak has us covered. The pocket protector is a nice touch. Thx Dak! I haven't worn one of those in years....
Bob
Is that the situation with most 860's? Or do most do 4ghz? And 4% difference is not so bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
IDK, we have exactly a pool of two to work with here, for now....Buy one, Let us know....
Bob
The X3450 ES I have right now can hardly do 4Ghz... not on air anyway. :rolleyes:
Sweet! I definetly need a pocket protector! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DAK1640
So you arent hard modding the board with some solder? :shrug: Why not? ;):DQuote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
I thought mine was a dud when jcool said they shouldnt need so much VCore but I guess you never know!
Mine is one water with a triple rad and fans at full (Scythe Gs) and a Fusion v1 with whatever TIM I could find ie not very good temps are around 60-65 DegCQuote:
Originally Posted by drizzt5
Yes Bob is right go down the store and get one mate! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
hmmm bummer anyone want to buy my "Golden 860 Chip" then? :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
In other news the 860 with increased QPI has finished its results but the 920 didnt make it through the night! :(
I'm currently running prime95 in Blend (as per jcools settings) and will run this batch of WUs ehn it passes enough.
My EVGA board only has the option of 4.2GHz and 4.8GHz QPI yet the 920 goes much higher. So this will be another thing to test at 4GHz and see what difference it makes for the 920.
Another update shortly. Spent half the day in class and the other crawling around smoke filled rooms and fighting fires. So I am off for a "cold one" (read beer!):up::D
You two guys MADE me purchase an i860 with a Gigabyte mobo. Arrives today, so come Saturday we will have a pool of 3.:rofl:
well Bob "made" me buy one too!
Careful, don't fry the 860, or your mobo socket .... http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=234723
The 860 price made me buy a Xeon 3440. Although I don't think 4 GHz is in sight of air cooling, a man can dream, right?
You had to say it :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerou
Looks like a dead mobo :shakes:
Tried two different PSUs but same issue spinup but no boot (if you get my meaning) even after a CMOS reset :down:
Wait till I upload the pic of the protection mat!:shakes:
You'll have to report in and let us know what you do get out of it. I'm real curious about that chip now. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerou
Sorry to hear that Emu. :( It was in the name of science though.....Much like benching is. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by emuexport
I'll be interested in your pics. Did it burn a pin like the one in other thread?
Good to hear you have another on the way though. The test must go on. :up:
Bob
HI all, this has been a VERY interesting thread to read, lots of great info. Bob/EMU you have spent a lot of time and energy and it's greatly appreciated. :up:
I purchased an i7 860/Gigabyte UD4P a few weeks ago and have been loving it so far. It's mainly a GPU Folding/Surfing rig so I don't really need to push her too far. I did a few benches at up to 4.6 GHz @ 1.44v and then settled back to 4.0 GHz @ 1.30v (UD4P overvolts a little under load with LLC enabled, so CPUZ states 1.31v under load) but now just run it at stock.
Read the burned socket thread and freaked, so I pulled my processor out and looked at it and the socket. TG no damage at all :)
OK, the reason for my post, just wanted to share my 4.0 GHz voltage (prime stable, but DID NOT do a 24 hour prime run with it though, still a little paranoid of the burned socket thing still) but here's a screen shot.
Oh, almost forgot, this is on AIR = Mega Shadow.
[IMG]http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/6885/40ghzi7860.th.jpg[/IMG]
Thx for posting RJR. Good to have a bit more data. I guess I got a bit of a dog CPU. Runs rock solid at 3.7 though. :up:
Oh, and welcome to the forum. I see that's your first post. :welcome:
Bob
could you try running sciencemark2 clock for clock? it would be a nice benchmark to represent crunching and you wont have to deal with different WU's.
Don't have it. Got a link for a 64 bit Vista capable version? All I see is 32 bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
32bit version works fine on 64bit. i can run it on vista x64.Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/170/
Yeah me too!Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
Yeah bummer hey. I wasnt even pushing it that much harder than before so not sure what happened :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
Took the CPU out and gave it the once over and nothing likewise for the socket. I cannot see any damage on the board at all and the "sniff" test didnt turn up any burnt out parts on the mobo.
the bit that did catch my eye was the insulator (from the box) that I had the board sitting on. It melted away under the PWM :(:rofl:
Oh and I dont actually have another board atm just means I will have to go and get another one(maybe a Giga). Will try taking this one back to the store.
Chum, OK it's works better when the operator pushes the dang start button....:slobber::rofl:
Here you go.
920
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...ienmarkrun.jpg
860
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...ciencemark.jpg
Not sure what this benchmark means, but there you have it. :up:
The more critical one is how it runs BOINC. I put my stock in that since it's the reason we have crunching rigs.
Regards,
Bob
Where is it man? I want to see the burn and I am not talking about the sun.....Quote:
Originally Posted by emuexport
Why is the molecular dynamics test score higher on the 860?
Well, the 1156 socket is physically much smaller than the 1366 socket. Therefore, the 860's molecules have to be closer together than the 920. Since they are closer, the molecules are more dynamic, much like cramming 10 people in a VW bug. At least that's my story and I'm sticking with it.....:shrug::rofl:
In other words, I have no clue. :up: This was a 32 bit benchmark program from 2005.
Bob
I think it was more of a melt, but you get the idea!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Slinky
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q.../XS/photo2.jpg
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...t/XS/photo.jpg
hmmm maybe I need a benching table?:D
Some more stats for you all! (well those of you still following this thread!)
I managed to raise the QPI on the 860 as per the screen below but am still struggling with the 920 :(
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...i_complete.png
So Total run time of 98:58:20 (for 24 WUs) which is an avg of 4:07:26 per WU. Which is 2:14 faster on average per WU than the other 860 case with a slower QPI - 3438MHz but the same core speed 4GHz. Now remember this is the same core speed ie 4GHz but with a dropped multi to increase the QPI.
Food for thought for those crunching on all i7s I would think!
Might have to see how high I can get the QPI on the i7!
Currently I am running them both at stock speeds with the same WUs I know they wont be the same core speed but it gives a baseline for each CPU which might help with energy cost estimates as well.
Good info Emu. This helps quantify the effect of QPI. When I raised QPI on my 860, I knew it was faster but not how much since we were using the old test method.
Question, I notice CPUz reports what I'm assuming is idle volts at 1.117? Did you get that clock with a LOT lower voltage this time? If so, WOW!
Good to hear you got them to exchange your old board. :up:
Bob
Great work guys!
This thread reminds me so much on the Mythbusters show. :yepp:
I can literally hear the two guys (Adam and Jamie) say:
"Result: Myth confirmed
What can do we do next ...
... we gonna blow it up ... yeaaaah! ... ha ha ha ..."
:rofl:
Emu, try booting the fried board and cpu with a heatsink just sitting on top, but not tightened or anything. JUst a bit of paste, slightly press and check if it boots.
I thought it would be a good test seeing as jcool pointed out that it would be a differentiator. After these stock core tests finish I think I will try adjusting the QPI with stock core speeds if possible and see what difference that makes.Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
Sorry mate Idle CPU-Z the 920 @ stock was at 0.95VCore last night when idle :shocked: I never knew it was that low stock as it went straight from stock to 4GHz as soon as the OS was installed!:up::ROTF:
We gonna burn the PWM area of the foam below! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by mreuter80
Next test Adam!
Aerou the store replaced the dead board for me no worries so now I have a replacement. I did try what you suggested above but no go. So cheers for the help anyway. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerou
The new board is crunching away on these test WUs with no problems.
Currently they are both running stock BIOS settings and the 920 is getting its arse whooped by the 860:confused:
They both have the same core speed ie 2800MHz (due to turbo) and the QPI link (in CPU-Z) is 2400MHz on both of them. However the NB frequency is 2133 on the 920 and 2400 on the 860. The 920 is spending 10 hours on WUs that the 860 finishes in less than half the time :shrug:
I'm gonna stop these WUs on the 920 as this is just weird.
I'll post up a screen dump if someone wants to throw in their two cents!
I got an update for you guys:up:. Sadly It has been a very sad day today:(; There has been a DEATH in the family:eek:. I got my Prolimatech Megahalem the other day, but not time till last night to get it installed :D.
I had it running the X3440@4GHZ@ 1.36v :D; Temps were mid 20's @ idle, mid to high 60's full load on WCG. I was having issues with my wireless lan adapter; stayed up till 3:30 this morning went to bed, got up @ 6:00 this morning....come downstairs to find a dead system laying there helplessly(<<<not sure on spelling) Had to go to work, come home still nothing.
I turned off the PSU, turned it back on and watched the mobo; I saw the led's come on for a split second and shut off. Tried to power back up and nothing. The led's only light up for that fraction of a second if I unplugg the psu for a few seconds then plug it back in; so obviously something is shorting out or fried.:( :confused: :mad:
I do not have money or spare parts to try and figure it out. I really do not know what to do; I am guessing mobo first. Might have to go to local store to get Raped, then send this one in for RMA :shrug:
Hope you have better luck than my UD2, unless my problem is in the cpu:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by DAK1640
I know what you mean, you and Bob are the ones that got me to buy mine:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by emuexport
I think it will be easy to do 4ghz on air with X3440, unless this is what caused my problems :shrug:. my temps were fairly good, was reading 1.36v :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerou
I hope mine is just a dead mobo as well. I tried a different psu too, but no luck. I can't even get anything to power up on mine:shrug: :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by emuexport
I will keep you posted on my findings; I am not sure what caused this, but if it happens again, I will sell what I have.
It sounds similar to what happened to mine. What voltages were you running?
When mine died I was trying for 4.2GHz after this board sat at 4GHz for a little less than a month. The power would only come on for a second and then go straight off.
Take it back to the store and see if they will swap it out for ya.
I was only running@1.36v.Quote:
Originally Posted by emuexport
It is definately the mobo. If anyone is familiar with the Gigabyte UD2; In the upper left hand corner just below the cpu fan header there is a cap. Just to the right of that I can clearly see one of those little chips is burnt up around it. I will try to take a decent pic for everyone to see. There is also a little resister fried by this little chip.
The bad thing is I got it from ewiz; will have to try to rma. If not will have to RMA through gigabyte. I plan to go to my local store to see what they have for P55 mobo's. I think they carry the UD2, but I do not know if I want one anymore.
EMU: wasn't yours an eVGA? That would mean its something with the p55 chipset/ or design in general. But others have had great luck with much higher voltages. Did we miss an important note sent out:rofl:
Then the question would be, what are safe voltage levels to stick with, 1.36 is not too terribly much; even Anandtech went higher than this I believe on their review; can't recall.
Such a sad day; can't wait to tell the Wife I already broke her new puter :rofl:
Yeah mine was EVGA but I had a lot more juice going through mine! Mine is the EVGA P55 SLI one so it is not a budget board and should be built of better components than the cheaper models you would think. Also seeing as they pitch it as a OC board it should be able to do the volts I had through it originally. I should have checked the revision on the board as maybe they have changed some stuff already.Quote:
Originally Posted by INFRNL
One question did you have airflow down onto the mobo?
Yeah I would like to know what safe voltages are. I think Bob posted a pic of Intel max voltages on this thread or my LGA1156 thread.
:shakes: Have you not learnt anything yet!:p: The PC just died I dont know why? :shrug: etc etc
Hope the store helps you out with it.
As you can clearly see the damage. Also notice the discolored area , more damage than I though. Obviously something got a little warm and/or just fried. What does everyone think I should do. If EMU had a similar problem on his evga, makes me thing its in the p55 board design or something. I might get it rma'd and sell the mobo when it comes back and sell me X3440
hold on...pics were too big...k think I might have it now. Its easier to see all the detail in the full pic,but I do not know how to get it so these zoom out
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9316/pa090084.jpg
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/5024/pa090082.jpg
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/464/pa090067.jpg
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2313/pa090063.jpg
Is that one of the PWMs?
Mine didnt even smell mate. so not sure mine was a burnout etc
PWM's need active cooling when you are overclocking a quad. I don't buy boards without PWM heatsinks anymore, but in the past, I would just buy a pack of BGA RAMsinks and stick them all over the PWM's. Then apply airflow to the area and you're good to go!
I agree. I wouldn't get one of the smaller gigabyte boards (w/o heatsinks on the PWMs) either for that particular reason. My P55M-UD4 is holding up just fine even though I ran an x3450 @ 1,45V on it shortly - PWM sinks were getting pretty hot too, I can only imagine what happens to them if they don't have any sinks on them :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by fallwind
So the basic unwriten rule as I understand it is that PWMs without heatsinks should not be overclocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
I know this is my rule. I always put heat sinks on there and the a fan!:up:
This seems to be a problem with some of the 1156 boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by INFRNL
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...d,2436-15.html
Now you guys tell me :rolleyes: I guess I didn't even bother to think about it. :shrug::doh::slapass::am: Hope I can still get it rma'd will let you guys know. Guys over at the burned sosket thread said the same thing.
I doubt my local store has any of those heatsinks and I do not feel like driving 1- 1 1/2 hrs to microcenter. I will see what they have at my local comp store; they have some stuff, but I do not think they have much for ocers
I will get something figured out as I do not want to spend too much on a mobo for p55; otherwise it would have been the same price to get another 920.
Guess I should have went with the UD4 or the Biostar I was originally going to go with. Anyway, I will keep you guys posted on what I do or how the rma turns out. Might be a couple weeks
Even the P55-UD3 is fine.. and that one's really cheap too.
The only boards at my local shop are:
evga: LE $170
evga SLI: $200
UD4 micro$150
Asus P7p55D: $150
pro:$170
Microcenter will have similar prices. My local shop will only match neweggs pricing; which is basically what I have posted above.
I will have to give this some serious thought while I eat lunch. If I buy a $150-200 board; I might as well sell this setup and go with a 920. The $150 range isn't too bad, might save $20 if I am lucky.
So either I need to suck it up and buy a new mobo now (too impatient) and end up paying for 920 performance for the same price. or suck it up and order one today and have mid next week. Sell what I have and get a 920 setup, or just RMA this board and wait a couple weeks or so and also buy some heatsinks:shrug:
I really want this up and running again(this weekend) but I guess it woldn't kill me to wait, but I will be gone for a week after this coming week:ROTF:
What do you guys think? I know some of you get impatient as I do:shrug:
This is with the Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P ...Note the low volts. Haven't tried more than 4Ghz yet. I want the mobo to at least make it 48hrs old...:rofl:
Nice and funny DAK! Glad to see you at 1.3v I probably could have used your voltage, but I would still have had my issues, since my dumb a** didn't even think about the pwms frying. Now to decide on what option is best for me. lunch is over and still no final decision :rofl:
From that list, I'd definitely take the UD4.Quote:
evga: LE $170
evga SLI: $200
UD4 micro$150
Asus P7p55D: $150
pro:$170
Thanks Jcool; I was kind of leaning towards it. I found that after rebate and cb I can get the evga le for $118. initial price of $150online. I also have luck with Biostar, but have to order online as well.
I have a stupid question though. most of the budget boards are 16x/4x. Does this mean there is no sli support at all? main reason why I ask is cause if you run 2 gpu's for gpugrid; I believe the new boinc and drivers require sli to run more than 1 gpu. I could be totally wrong, but I think my x58 rig with all the latest versions of drivers/boinc require sli to run multiple gpu's. Unless thats when they were doing cuda 2.3.
I will only be running 1 gpu for the moment,, I am just trying to think about in a month or so when I add another gpu.
I am just trying to figure out the best option; now wondering if I need a 8x/8x mobo? However the UD4 micro has 8x/8x, but is also $150 plus tax=approx $160 There are other 8x/8x boards for $135 mark
Bottom line for the moment is whats the best sub $200 mobo to go with? preferrably sub $170 and do I even need 8x/8x? Thanks
Note the built in PWM heatsinks.
Bottom line for the moment is whats the best sub $200 mobo to go with? preferrably sub $170 and do I even need 8x/8x? Thanks
The UDP also support SLI or Crossfire. Meets your sub $170 requirements.
I ran 2 GTX 260s on a AMD chipset board with no problems. AMD chipset cannot do SLI. I have read nothing anywhere that has said SLI is required. You should be fine.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by INFRNL
K, thanks guys.
I did play with my X58 board: SLI is not needed, but would require dummy plugs or just another cable to the monitor. I guess since this is the wifes computer and her monitor supports dvi and vga, I would not have a problem in the future on a non-sli board.
I really want to get this back up, but best price locally is roughly $160 including tax for the P55m-UD4. looks like a great board with the heatsinks and supports SLi. I just have a hard time kicking myself to pay $160 locally when I get get other boards online for the same or less. Basically I can get either non-sli or sli boards for about $115-$130 range online. Is the xtra $30 for being impatient worth the cost :rofl: I could even get the full UD4P for $160 and I can get this micro for $20-30 less online. I hate this
Also just to note. I found an article on anandtech that said they ran the UD2 @1.36v up to 1.375v with no issues. They did not run and fans either, maybe I got a bunk board, maybe they didn't run theirs long enough, I dont know.
I understand impatient...That's my calling card...:rofl::ROTF:
Do you have the space for a full size ATX board? If so, the UD3 is your cheapest option I guess. I've had one here until yesterday, and it made a pretty solid impression to me. Of course, the UD4 has more PWM phases than both the UD2 and ID3, so I'm guessing the safe choice would be the UD4 and up.
As for Anandtech, well - they didn't crunch 24/7, obviously ;)
Whole otehr story than just "running it at XXX volts"
OK some more results this sunday night! :D
Have run acouple more configurations of the computers but I am moving away from matching the QPI's as that wasnt possible on this P55 motherboard.
Here are two more screens:
860 @ 2.8GHz (stock settings and QPI of 2400MHz and NB of 2400MHz)
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...8GHz_24WUs.png
920 @ 2.8GHz (stock settings with Turbo on ie 21 multi and QPI of 2400MHz and NB of 3730MHz)
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...Us_21Multi.png
The total runtime of the 860 (for the same 24WUs) is 139:56:36 which is 5:49:52 per WU avg
The total runtime of the 920 (for the same 24WUs) is 133:16:26 which is 5:33:11 per WU avg
I'm keeping a table of all my results so I should be able to make up a fancy chart at some point! :rofl: :D
In the meantime I am running the 920 at 2.8GHz with QPI of 3200 and NB of 3730 the 860 is running at 2.8GHz with a reduced QPI of 2130MHz and a NB of 2400MHz. So more results should be in by tomorrow.:D
Oh and I am coming back for my pie fellas so look out! :rofl: ;)
How are you going Bob?
INFRNL did you manage to get a replacement mobo in the end. I am sorry to hear that its dead. Maybe these 860s arent destined to be 4GHz crunchers. Maybe more like 3.5-3.7GHz crunchers with low power consumption! The 860 is running at 40DegC on realtemp under water whilst crunching flatout.
I've got the 920 at 4 gig now and I'm going to make a run with my same set of WUs. This is to show what the difference 300MHz of bclk, and it's associated NB and QPI increase, makes for the 920.
The next point I'm going to with both of them is 3.4. (That will be +/- 300 MHz from my start clock of 3.7 gig.) This will give me three points on the 920 and two on the 860, since it ain't going to 4 gig. :( I want to get a closer feel for clock on performance. Maybe we can use the data to better refine jcool's performance formula and see if the 860 fits in that same formula.
I can see that if we keep up with this, we could build a formula that has multiple terms for bclk, QPI, Mem, and NB freqs. Not sure how practically useful it would be, but I think it could be done.
Interesting results on your last test. The 920 was significantly faster. It's RAM is running faster and the NB is significantly higher. That's the only difference I see. If so, can we attribute the 16 minute difference to RAM and NB? Thoughts anyone? If so, we now know it makes a significant difference. More than I would have thought.
Regards,
Bob
Can you guys tell me what gadget is this? I see RJR using it :D
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2963/coremeeter.jpg
A clock :DQuote:
Originally Posted by xXxDieselxXx
I knew that was coming :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by artemm
it had to be done :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by xXxDieselxXx
Anyway, that looks like mCPU meter. One of the few (only?) that can actually detect threads as opposed to physical cores. I wouldn't run it under a dedicated cruncher, though, as it just takes up overhead.
Thanks chief!
My guess is that HFCC does care about ram performance, while HCC does not care in the slightest.Quote:
Originally Posted by 123bob
No clue about the other projects.
Hooray, this just got more complicated :D
I see rigs tuned for specific projects on the horizon, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Get ready to build 10 rigs specifically for each project depending on what kind of performance it demands :eek: