The Close spi1m to 8.xxxs from Coolaler

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-02-2006, 10:03 PM
STEvil

tried this? start > run: Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks
08-02-2006, 10:09 PM
CanadianTSi

9.000 what are the odds...
08-02-2006, 10:12 PM
Onepagebook

non real time:

http://www.ocxtreme.org/onepagebook/.../nrealtime.jpg

real time

http://www.ocxtreme.org/onepagebook/...o/realtime.jpg
08-02-2006, 10:15 PM
NickS

Nice result man, but I miss seeing you rock the MSI board :(.
08-02-2006, 11:14 PM
cpulloverclock

Wow, unbelievable time Coolaler :eek:

You are a beast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :slobber: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :woot: :woot:

Ouch, gogogo for a sub 9s

No words to describe that :up:

AWESOME WR!!!!!!!

I'm sure with 1.8-1.88v u can get 8.7-8.8s :)
08-02-2006, 11:19 PM
Garrett

Awesome... :D
08-02-2006, 11:24 PM
BlackX

Thats crazy! :eek:

Try to remove icons from the desktop and put white background ;)
08-02-2006, 11:44 PM
PlatoonSgtElias

Coolaler u sick twisted pleep :P do 3DMarks once in your lifetime =p
08-02-2006, 11:49 PM
kyosen

Congrats!!!
I hope RAMdisk may bring you to U9 era:)
08-03-2006, 12:12 AM
cpulloverclock

Sorry Coolaler but something is weird in your 9.000s run

Here is your 9.156s score

Between the loop 19 and 20 there is a difference of 0.406s (normal)
http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/WR...5512_9156s.gif

Your 9.000 screenie

The difference is now at 0.140s... impossible except with a BUG
http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/WR...26_9000S_1.gif

To be sure an Omega 1M screenie

Difference of 0.422s (logical)

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/557/9594xb4.jpg

I want an explanation... Bug for me or awesome tweak...
08-03-2006, 12:25 AM
BarkerD

Yup certainly a quick 19 to 20 step - can anything else account for this other than a bug?
08-03-2006, 12:37 AM
Tyrou

Ramdisk + copywaza + OPB tweaks I think... :)

congratulations, good luck for the 8.xxx !
08-03-2006, 01:02 AM
cpulloverclock

I have some doubts
I'm skeptic...

I dont put FTM that record in the OCM's records table until a logical explanation
08-03-2006, 01:07 AM
kyosen

Hi cpulloverclock,

> Sorry Coolaler but something is weird in your 9.000s run
>
> Here is your 9.156s score
> Between the loop 19 and 20 there is a difference of 0.406s (normal)
>
> Your 9.000 screenie
> The difference is now at 0.140s... impossible except with a BUG
>
> I want an explanation... Bug for me or awesome tweak...
--
Interesting...but look carefuly again between loop 18 and 19.
0.642s consumed there.
In ~10s 1M run, 1 loop takes ~0.4s as you pointed out,
and the gap may vary longer or smaller in each loop.
I think that final 0.140s gap is derived/compensated from preceding longer calculation,
i.e. 0.642 - 0.4 = 0.142, and 0.142 + 0.140 = 0.282...hmm still smaller, but within feasible, I feel.

Of course I have no intention of blaming for anyone, you and coolaler:)
...If coolaler has special tweak for shortening final loop, please private mail to me;)
08-03-2006, 01:11 AM
cpulloverclock

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrou

Ramdisk + copywaza + OPB tweaks I think... :)

congratulations, good luck for the 8.xxx !

TEAM JAPAN Is the best for all spi optimizations and I've never seen that difference between the 2 last loops

ATTENTION : I dont say it's a fake, just a bug or an awesome mystery tweak by COOLALER (but why just for the last loop?)

another comparison from Kyosen

0.437s

http://222.151.144.235/c-board/file/...800_5086.0.png

look at the difference between the other loops, alway regular

0.1 is at 10-12GHz

0.1*20+0.050 normally
08-03-2006, 01:13 AM
cpulloverclock

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyosen

Hi cpulloverclock,

> Sorry Coolaler but something is weird in your 9.000s run
>
> Here is your 9.156s score
> Between the loop 19 and 20 there is a difference of 0.406s (normal)
>
> Your 9.000 screenie
> The difference is now at 0.140s... impossible except with a BUG
>
> I want an explanation... Bug for me or awesome tweak...
--
Interesting...but look carefuly again between loop 18 and 19.
0.642s consumed there.
In ~10s 1M run, 1 loop takes ~0.4s as you pointed out,
and the gap may vary longer or smaller in each loop.
I think that final 0.140s gap is derived/compensated from preceding longer calculation,
i.e. 0.642 - 0.4 = 0.142, and 0.142 + 0.140 = 0.282...hmm still smaller, but within feasible, I feel.

Of course I have no intention of blaming for anyone, you and coolaler:)
...If coolaler has special tweak for shortening final loop, please private mail to me;)

I agree with you

it's just weird

If there is 0.15s with the 2 last loops, that would be the same thing between each loops
08-03-2006, 01:41 AM
cpulloverclock

Ok
Thx Kyosen for your explanation :)

A friend has just checked that a little more and I confirm now this 9.000s is a correct time

now I'm sure

look

between the loop 18 and 19 there is a miscalculation and a reevaluation with the loop 19 and last

Just a SPI bug :rolleyes:

SORRY COOLALER, MEA CULPA :slapass:, YOUR TIME IS REAL AND BIG CONGRATS FOR YOUR OFFICIAL WR :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :toast: :toast: :toast:

http://pix.nofrag.com/6c/e4/8f26aed7...7852f7699.jpeg

I put immediatly your WR in the table

done :) http://www.overclocking-masters.com/index.htm
08-03-2006, 01:45 AM
Tuvok-LuR-

lol nice find
08-03-2006, 01:48 AM
coolaler

That was what got for the result
but that;s not a big deal for me
08-03-2006, 02:27 AM
coolaler

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlatoonSgtElias

Coolaler u sick twisted pleep :P do 3DMarks once in your lifetime =p

i will
i am waiting for rma finish
08-03-2006, 02:30 AM
coolaler

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpulloverclock

Ok
Thx Kyosen for your explanation :)

A friend has just checked that a little more and I confirm now this 9.000s is a correct time

now I'm sure

look

between the loop 18 and 19 there is a miscalculation and a reevaluation with the loop 19 and last

Just a SPI bug :rolleyes:

SORRY COOLALER, MEA CULPA :slapass:, YOUR TIME IS REAL AND BIG CONGRATS FOR YOUR OFFICIAL WR :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :toast: :toast: :toast:

http://pix.nofrag.com/6c/e4/8f26aed7...7852f7699.jpeg

I put immediatly your WR in the table

done :) http://www.overclocking-masters.com/index.htm

thx for ur patience:)
08-03-2006, 02:33 AM
coolaler

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyosen

Hi cpulloverclock,

> Sorry Coolaler but something is weird in your 9.000s run
>
> Here is your 9.156s score
> Between the loop 19 and 20 there is a difference of 0.406s (normal)
>
> Your 9.000 screenie
> The difference is now at 0.140s... impossible except with a BUG
>
> I want an explanation... Bug for me or awesome tweak...
--
Interesting...but look carefuly again between loop 18 and 19.
0.642s consumed there.
In ~10s 1M run, 1 loop takes ~0.4s as you pointed out,
and the gap may vary longer or smaller in each loop.
I think that final 0.140s gap is derived/compensated from preceding longer calculation,
i.e. 0.642 - 0.4 = 0.142, and 0.142 + 0.140 = 0.282...hmm still smaller, but within feasible, I feel.

Of course I have no intention of blaming for anyone, you and coolaler:)
...If coolaler has special tweak for shortening final loop, please private mail to me;)

thx 大箸先生,u got a microscopic eye
08-03-2006, 02:53 AM
hipogtr

Incredible time! 8.XXXs is surely only a few clocking sessions away. Congrats.
08-03-2006, 03:30 AM
cpulloverclock

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolaler

thx for ur patience:)

Oh, I'm sorry :p:
08-03-2006, 04:49 AM
S&M

cpulloverclock, :slapass:
NEVER EVER AGAIN DOUBT THE MASTER ... HE IS A SENSITIVE GUY ! :D

Great Work as always coolaler san ... :toast:

:worship:

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page