that's nice guys, if i am not wrong u can bench cl6 @ same freq under cold?
Printable View
that's nice guys, if i am not wrong u can bench cl6 @ same freq under cold?
We hope so. :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by hiwa
But CL6 is also very demanding for the cpu, so it will depend very much on how good our sandy handles the memory.
Very true....good luck guys :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by _mat_
for sure u are bclk limited but Cl6 with tight timing giving you a good boot too ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by _mat_
1140mhz 6-6-5 might be too hard, I keep fingers crossed for you guys! I fear it might start performing less effecient due level of errors around ~1130
I never got past 2340 MHz CL6 with my GTX2 modules. Not on Nehalem, Lynnfield or Sandy Bridge ... not even with -75 °C and more than 2 volts. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Beier
I did not get any performance scaling problems yet ... only when a module decides to shutdown, because of voltages/cold/too tight timings. But that only happened on Nehalem. The performance goes back to dual channel in that case.
is the red part of the ram pot ...copper?
The base plate is made of copper, the "pot" itself, if you want to say so is made of aluminium. If you like ... there is a small review of it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondacity
http://www.ocaholic.ch/xoops/html/mo...l_lang=english
Quote:
Originally Posted by NhocCuteGirlz
What is your Problem ?
is this a joke ?
very very congrattsz on tht nice score, what Ram freq are you running, i can maximize the screenshot :D
So Roger ... tell us ... what have you done yesterday?
Thanks for the amazing software! :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by NhocCuteGirlz
Did he go for cl6? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by rewarder
I don't know ... I tried to call him today but he didn't respond till now :)Quote:
Originally Posted by _mat_
More I look at your score, more convinced I am, that your 32,5ns latency test is bugged. I can produce similar / better scores.
If you bench same settings like 10x one or two of those will give you bugged results, which look almost normal, but are not real.
Looka at this new screen, where I tweaked subtimings a lot and got nice direct scaling from my previous score. I can reproduce this as many times I want.
Also aida is scaling directly with the memory speed and I have not seen any bugs in it even it is runned multiple times in a row?
http://sf3d.pp.fi/images/ASUS%20Maxi...ew%20score.png
So, I think that is the highest real score so far.
I'm not saying your run was bugged but i do have to agree that maxmem can definitely just slightly bug latency, I had to do my runs a few times and on several boots before i was content that mine were not bugged as I did get some barely bugged latency runs myself.
Was the start of your reply ment to go for splmann or me?Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
My run is not bugged, like I tried to explain and you explained too.
The difference might be small, but scaling must happen in all test, not just latency.
That is why I would like to see splmann to fix his score himself :up:
My reply was to splman, and agreeing with you that it can bug slightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by SF3D
Now we need Massman to give points for Maxxmem scores... good job all, drooling stuff ( out of my voltage league :p )
We also got (much) higher scores, that we ignored because of too low latency. I don't know if this run was reproducible, but I am sure splmann can answer this. But now that we have your values to compare with, I guess you're right ... the run could be bugged after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by SF3D
Any way, congrats SF3D for your achievements. 107 bclock with that cpu frequency is just :shocked:
Maybe we should find a solution to make our scores compareable again. I don't now ... like 3 screenshots of maxxmem, that have to be done at different times (time is display in the maxxmem window, so that would be no problem). Because when it bugs, the score is very unsteady and not reproducible. Or we ignore Maxxmem and use Aida 64 ... to make it directly compareable, we have to calculate some score out of it. Maybe ask the developers to work on that. ;)
Yes, you can not "tweak" timings to get only gain in latency test. Also the CPU speed was very low for the latency, cause there is correlation between those two.
So Matthias, if you also think that current higest score is bugged, please ask splmann to remove it? I am sure he can run it again with ln2 on memory etc.
We all should post just the correct scores from now on. We can compare the data from these screenshots we have here and in HWbot.org. Scaling is qute direct and good, so we easily know if some score is out of the line.
My next step will be ln2 as well, cause I will target 6-6-6 settings.
Keep up the good work guys and no hard feelings hopefully.
i think its fair to say maxxmem is a fairly buggy bench and it is not always as clean cut as this is bugged or not,
if we want to accept a bench like this into our community and use it in rankings then i think we need to accept he results that are bugged within the realms of actual capacity of the platform... this result is a plausable result, sure it is slightly out of line but it is something that is possible..
this is just a by product of what we are doing, pushing benchmarks and hardware to places they were not designed to go, we will always find some results like this
Well, we can not go in to that. We have to see how some benchmark behave and learn how it scale with timings and clocks. When we have enough data to evaluate, it is easy to see the odd results.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngpro
Personally I think that the score should be removed from Hwbot and all the newsites around the internet could write their news right :D I was amazed to see how much talk there was from this score, which is bugged after all.
But, if all will agree, that we can post scores which are slighty off from scaling, I will put my 31.9ns score in to bot :rolleyes:
P.S I wont do that for real :p:
Well. The second one also has a higher CPU speed (300 MHz higher). Higher CPU speed on SB lowers latency quite a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by _mat_
But the results are not stable. When i do multiple runs sometimes one is about 1,5ns slower. And yesterday i got 1,2 ns lower by tweaking the sub timings. These settings down show the whole picture. You would need to see a shot of all the dram timing settings and a more reliable test (lets say 5 runs and take the average of those 5) before you can say that 6-9-6 is not much faster.
MaxxMem still needs some work, if you ask me. We cannot judge anyone for pushing hard and trying to get the best score, sometimes the program itself is too wacky. There is slight bug, where things can be argued, and way off bugged, where it is very clear there is a bug. Problem is, I don't think it is fair to the overclocker's work to try and spot the "slight bugged" ones, I think the real solution is to work some more on MaxxMem to be sure this kind of things don't happen anymore. And if we talk about repeatable results, here's a bunch of results from me...Not very healthy if you ask me :)Quote:
i think its fair to say maxxmem is a fairly buggy bench and it is not always as clean cut as this is bugged or not,
Any serious OCer wouldn't make a big deal over a CPU-Z bugged run, and wouldn't post it at the bot either. Even though CPU-Z is usually accurate, there are situations where Bloomfield bugged to the moon.
The situation here is more difficult, and if bugging is occuring it's less noticable, but a slight bug is still a bug, and once confirmed...I think a self respecting OCer wouldn't/shouldn't post it any more than a bugged Bloomfield CPU-Z score. If the score was posted and the OCer was not sure, once identified they should then remove the score.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SF3D
@ splmann, keep pushin mate, you're obviously doing very well :clap:....but if it's bugged, you should try again for a legit run ;)
^^^ :yepp: this bench is obviously not ready for prime-time (HWBot points)Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstru