Printable View
Sandy bridge Under 100GFlops submission
i5-2500K
http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/3...211336p.th.png
Mobo = Asus P8P67 Deluxe B3
Normal Water Cooling RoomTemp around 28C
Batch L149A959
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4...0kbatch.th.jpg
Votage BIOS = 1.350 V
Voltage Load CPUZ = 1.336 V
Loadline = Ultra High
Window 7 SP1 64 bit
CPU:i7 2700K
M/B: ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z68
Ram: ADATA DDR3 2000G Gaming Series 4GB
Cooling: Cooler Express Single Stage Phase
http://image.ohozaa.com/i/790/WvW3oh.PNG
http://image.ohozaa.com/i/374/0pOsgf.JPG
http://image.ohozaa.com/i/e64/Hf7dhI.JPG http://image.ohozaa.com/i/b74/KLqjOA.JPG
These last two submissions are the sorriest excuses for submissions I've seen in about a year.
You both need to read the front page and update your linpack binaries.
The only thing you are showing is how little you know about overclocking and stability.
New Intel linpack:
http://registrationcenter.intel.com/...10.3.9.015.zip
Compiled into LinX: http://www.mediafire.com/?to6b6c0msp6ww8z
:rofl: I like how brutally blunt you are. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
lesson learnt here is old linpack & non SP1 win7 are not relevant to SB anymore just because it doesn't stress much the CPU nor showing full potential of SB in AVX capability.
I upgraded to 12 GB, seems OK to me, but I didn't tune mem settings at all...
http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/7...0x450912gb.png
Be interesting to see how Linx/Linpack fairs with prime95 now that it has some AVX optimization.Quote:
Originally Posted by owikh84
A second try with the same CPU with better airflow and cooler (Noctua NHD14) :
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/8...446551424v.png
hellper | C2D E8500 [2C] @ 4655.18MHz | 1.424v | Gigabyte GA-P35-DS4 rev. 2.0 | Air | Q822A535
Well I have found lately that my chips can be LinX 3 hours stable and then fail AVX-optimized Prime95. Same with SB and ol' 990X..Quote:
Originally Posted by some_one
More circuitry being used that can fail. That's a good thing though, maybe lower clocks, but better stability.
Have you guys with AVX enabled cpus tried LinX with the updated Linpack (10.3.9.015) libraries yet?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post5058126
I tried on my 990X but my gflops dropped to ~60 I think? Removed my OC and GFlops were still on the low side. Anyone else given a shot? On SB-E it works properly for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
Quote:
Originally Posted by xarot
What kind of preformance do you get with SB-e? do you have a pic?
The newer libs are probably designed to take advantage of SB-e you would have to use the older libs with 990X.
While still waiting for my last result to be listed ( see post #2214 above), I did a slightly better second run (~50mhz up, but not so elaborate, I admit - afraid I mixed up some settings):
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7...0470032bit.png
hellper | C2D E8500 [2C] @ 4702.96MHz | 1.472v | Gigabyte GA-P35-DS4 rev. 2.0 | Air | Q822A535
Let's hope that this will not be the last we see from this wonderful CPU...
OVER 100 GFLOPS SUBMISSION
Attachment 125019
NickF | Core i5 2500k @ 5.0GHz [4c 4t] | 1.48v | ASUS Maximus IV GENE-Z | WATER
Sorry dont have stepping written down and dont feel like unmounting my water block
I think zalbard has forgotten about us.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickF
Also this is an invalid submission. Not enough memory/not a large enough problem size to qualify.
Not really. But not sure when I am going to have enough free time to re-do the OP, sorry. The old formatting is no good for so many submissions, and rebuilding all the tables using new neat tabular structure takes forever, not to mention going through the new ones. I may have to wait for my vacation time if I am ever granted any. :) You can still share and discuss stuff among yourselves, though. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
By the way, SimpleTECH and zoson are correct, you should use LinX with updated Linpack libraries. It's essential, especially for Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge (the latest release should fully support Ivy). I updated the download link in the OP as well. That being said, it should also work with older CPUs very well. :)
Thanks zalbard, looks like we need to keep bumping the thread so ivb users see it and do some submissions.
amd can post at this or not
http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/2384991.png
http://image.ohozaa.com/i/703/pKgCgW.PNG
Nope, not a sign of stablity and that score is just wow ! 8.8Ghz at 1.86Vcore blimey.... new GF manufacturing ?
Sadly this thread is for 24/7 stability not for CPU-Z suicide screens... which meanntothing for daily usage...
5Ghz linx stable IB on anything but sub-zero it's gonna be really hard. Maybe if requirements went down a bit...Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
this should be ok for joining the club ... (i hope)
p3gaz_001 | Core i5 2500k @ 5.1GHz [4c 4t] | 1.56v | ASUS Maximus V GENE | SS
Screen
and a 5Ghz on 3770K
http://i.imgur.com/E9YdW.jpg
if the IB is not ok, i'll do it back.
Whoa! Good point. I'm just trying a couple of 3770's now and LinX is no go for me on water. Retry on SS. HWBot doesn't seem to have many CPU-Z entries either.Quote:
Originally Posted by st0ned
Pretty nice CPU with 1,32v and 5gig...
Phase for CPU's is like beer goggles, can make an average chip look good ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzz3l
Lol! This one's on water: 3770k 5.05Ghz 1.315v on biosQuote:
Originally Posted by tool_462
alex_tpc | Core i7 3770K [4C 8T] @ 5049.9MHz | 1.312 | ASUS Maximus IV Extreme | Water | L215B620
http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/p.../Linx5050_.jpg
Am I the only one who thinks 119GFlops for 5GHz Ivy is woefully low?
He has HT on maybe it would look better off
Oh, i didn't see the "SS" :DQuote:
Originally Posted by tool_462
Anyway still a nice cpu, do you test it under air or h2o and let's say 4500?
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by C-N
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post4802911
There's a 5ghz Sandy beating him by >10GFlops at a lower clockspeed. Something isn't right with that submission. Maybe outdated linpack binaries.
Ok next go lol... His mem is also slack & 2T .......
yes i can try 4.5ghz on water.Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzz3l
I thought that as well when I posted it but there was not much 3770k 4c8t 5Ghz benches to compare with. I did look at the 2600k 4c8t benches from page 1 (see comments below) and p3gaz's 3770k 4c4t result (I get similar results when I do the same).Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
Yes, it does get better GFlops with HT Off. I mimicked the settings from p3gaz's 3770k 5Ghz 4t4c results and got very similar gflops (stopped at 3 iterations as the official 21-iteration submission is the one above):Quote:
Originally Posted by C-N
http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/p...4T_2400c10.jpg
Seems I'm on par at least with 4c4t 5Ghz.
I used the latest linx(0.64)_10.3.10.017 binaries. deachus' 135GFlops peak for 2600K 4c8t 5ghz result is something special, beating the other 2600k 4c8t results on page 1, even those with 5.1-5.3Ghz. It also beat by 20GFlops Dumo's 5.004Ghz results which had close but tighter tRP timing. I took out my hypers from storage and mimicked the settings (5Ghz 2133 c7-9-7-20) from deachus on my 3770k and was able to beat Dumo's results only by a couple of GFlops:Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/p..._8T_2133c7.jpg
So there's some marginal IB gain from Dumo's SB results but still lagging like everyone else when compared to deachus.
Yup (ran it slack on purpose to make it easier to get stable results). But tightening CR and subtimings there would give only marginal improvement and still won't catch deachus' results.Quote:
Originally Posted by C-N
So let's have more 3770k >= 5Ghz 4c8t results please ... :p:
now i'm jealous because I got the same batch as yours but mine needs at least 1.57v for 5GHz then throttled due to overheat issue. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_tpc
There are several of us that don't lag behind deachus. It's because we leave C states enabled, among other technologies that make it harder to overclock. But the end result is our performance at equivalent clockspeeds is better than everyone else. For example, my 108 almost 109 GFlop run at 5GHz vs kitfit's 5.1GHz run that netted him only 110GFlops. Where the response by others was 'wait, that seems low now that I've seen zoson's runs'. =PQuote:
Originally Posted by alex_tpc
In short, the only thing special about deachus's run is an obvious display of actual overclocking skill.
I may be in a wrong thread, but the new LinX with most up-to-date Linpack libraries just doesn't work anymore properly for me. Could some guru help? :( I was trying to shoot for 4.5 GHz HT on again after a while. :confused:
I am getting VERY low gflops with my 990X and Rampage III Black Edition. If I use older libraries version LinX 0.6.4, I get what I expect, but with the newest versions, no go. Here is a screen shot to describe the problem, OS has been installed just a while ago. Removing OC does nothing or running RAM at 1333MHz. I have tried to up and lower QPI voltage and fiddle around with uncore and nb frequency.
The most upper LinX showing 84.2438 GFlops run is an older library version of LinX 0.6.4. Run with max memory (12GB).
The middle LinX showing 56.2561 Gflops is the newest library LinX 0.6.4. Run with max memory (12GB). Very low GFlops. Lower temps reported by RealTemp GT.
The third LinX showing 82.3844 GFlops run is the newest linrary LinX 0.6.4. Run by usin 4096 MB only. GFlops are on the right track again.
Anyone else seen the same? Prime95 27.7 produces the same temps as older LinX.
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/9133/linxproblem.png
My OC tested here is stable for 4 hours older LinX, 8 hours Prime95 27.7 and 8 hours Memtest86 without errors.
You must look at the Linx window downstair in the status Line. Here You see, that high GFlops show 4 Threads (even CPU-Z show HT is on) and lower GFlops show 8 Threads.
Here is the example: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post4802911
There is nothing special about my 5Ghz LinX 2600K run other than alot of tweaking which took alot of time. I still have that setup minus that CPU, have another 2600k in that rig batch# 3122C601.
Exactly. As I said... Just an obvious display of overclocking... *SKILL* ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by deachus
@xarot:
Set your problem size to 9216 for stress testing.
@mikelmolto:
ROFL. I hope you were making a bad joke that makes no sense whatsoever.
Thanks! I googled and found your old thread where you hit the same issue. At first I was confused as I tried to change the actual problem size, but I found from your thread that it is actually the memory size that must be set to 9216. Now it works! :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
@zoson
Why should I joke about this? Repaired the link and please have a look for Your self.
Very easy. Just go at LinX to settings and select the number of Threads.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post4802911
one more:
http://www.zhoulander.com/projects/ivy/3770K-4300.png
Near 135Gflops peak with HT? Didn't see much of those in the list on page 1. I didn't scan the whole thread though so maybe there were HT results that didn't lag 135Gflops not yet listed on Page 1?Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
I don't disagree there but I still think it's special because few (none?) of the list on page 1 even came close with HT on. Those other SB 4c8t results and the single IB 4c8t submission (which was on par or better than most of those other submissions) were all "woefully low" in comparison. It may turn out to be low with respect to future IB with HT submissions but I wouldn't mind that at all.Quote:
It's because we leave C states enabled, among other technologies that make it harder to overclock. But the end result is our performance at equivalent clockspeeds is better than everyone else. For example, my 108 almost 109 GFlop run at 5GHz vs kitfit's 5.1GHz run that netted him only 110GFlops. Where the response by others was 'wait, that seems low now that I've seen zoson's runs'. =P
In short, the only thing special about deachus's run is an obvious display of actual overclocking skill.
Yes, that's what's special about it (and the other HT submissions not coming close).Quote:
Originally Posted by deachus
edit: corrected mistyped 4c4t to 4c8t.
Zalbard hasn't updated the front page for many, many pages of results. He's been too busy, which is totally understandable.Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_tpc
I started a discussion in this thread about optimizing GFlops in LinX for the highest performance results. We ended up with a ton of really impressive GFlop/MHz ratios.
Ok, I got 144 GFlops on Ivy with 5Ghz 4c8T HT on in bios but not due to any special oc or tweaking skills:
http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/p...144_3887GF.jpg
Yup, it's by forcing Linx to run linpack with 4 threads even though the setting is hyper-threaded in bios. Which means it's really running with HT off despite the bios setting (and it's pretty much the same Gflops +/- as the 4C4T result I posted earlier). Which is actually how the 135GFlops run with SB was obtained. Should have seen that earlier but was only looking at the CPU-Z screen when checking for Hyper-threading. Should have checked the Linx screen first time round. Oh well.
Incidentally, fired up my old SB again (2600K batch 3101A482) using 4GB hypers with 4T on linx, 8T on bios and got 141GFlops at 5Ghz with 2133 7-9-7-20 with full stable run:
alex_tpc | Core i7 2600K [4C 4T*] @ 5000.7MHz | 1.512 | ASUS Maximus IV Extreme | Water | 3101A482
http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/p...F_4Threads.jpg
Also tried a bunch of tweaks (C-states, page file disable, real-time prio, background prio, LSC, most devices disabled in bios, etc.) but they didn't really help much on SB/IB (that I tested). Best tweak was still tightening mems of course but diagnostic mode did help with a couple of fractional GFlops.
BTW, the IB chip was getting only around 138GFlops with the same 4GB Hypers and OS at 5Ghz 2133 7-9-7-20, 3Gflops less than SB on same settings and OS. Could it be that the linpack binaries that came with linx(0.64)_10.3.10.017 could still use additional optimizations for IB? Or is it because the IB run was also on a P67 board instead of Z77? In any case, is that 119GFlops IB run with true hyper-threading still "woefully low"? :rolleyes:
owikh84 | Core i7 3770K [4C/8T] @ 4999.94MHz | 1.440 | ASUS Maximus V Formula| Water | L220B296
http://i458.photobucket.com/albums/q.../IVY/507gb.jpg
Intel releases a new binary for new chips. If you're running on the binary that came with LinX posted in this thread, you're doing it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_tpc
Dr_Dx | Core i7 3770K [4C/8T] @ 5000.1MHz | 1.296v | ASUS Maximus V Formula| Water | L221B009 | LinX 0.6.4 AVX w/ Linpack 10.3.11.019 | stock TIM
Attachment 129371
@ 1.288v using Liquid Pro/Liquid Pro
Attachment 129372
That's a hell of a CPU ;) Should be amazing on cold too.
Not really. Got it from the Linx thread here at XS and crossed check the version at the Intel site: only 10.3.11.017 was available at that time. Have since tried .019, same result. I think I might have used a leaner OS install from my raid card on the 2600k run (just noticed the desktop background was different). have dismantled that array after getting a new board -- will try to get it back again later and try it if it indeed gives better linpack throughput.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
decent indeed, if I could say so myself :DQuote:
Originally Posted by dr_dx
http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/p...linx_1_296.jpg
here is my rig
core i5 ivy bridge 3570k @4.5ghz
corsair vengeance 1600mhz memory9.9.9.24
gigabyte z77ud5 mobo
gigabyte windforce gtx 670
corsair force 3 gt ssd 120gb
bios settings all set to stock but
cpu @1.220v bios
cpu pll@ 1.7v bios anything lower and my gflops go down to about 100gflops
here is my proof (hopefully i have done it right) i know its not 5ghz but i really dont neet that much :)
plese let me know if i qualify for this thread
Attachment 129045Attachment 129044
My first IB:
http://img.techpowerup.org/120803/3570_50_140.jpg
Watercooled, 25c ambient.
3219B510
^^ That chip needs an IHS removal ;)
It is removed ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by tool_462
Temps are fine if I run 1.33v @4.9, or dont use avx.
Then either you have a weak watercooling or you have some problem in terms of TIM/IHS remont your temps shouldn't be nowhere near that high at those volts.
The mount is good, every cpu is different - and so is the internal core temp circuits. Temps went down 10-12 by removing ihs.
LinX with avx is hot, this is prime at 4.9:
http://img.techpowerup.org/120804/prime 49x.png
That chip is starving for bandwidth, lol. What watercooling and what tim if i may ask sniper?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sniper
Well with 1.38v I only hit 62ºC on the hottest core so yes... something must be wrong with your setup.
The tim is ic diamond, and simple 360 rad with silent fans in 25-27 ambient. Havent started on ram clocks yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
And what do you mean by "starving for bandwidth", is the GFlops too low ?
No i Gflops is pure calculation power by the cpu. It's starving for bandwidth as you're only running 800 9-9-9. Running 1100+ provides much more bandwidth for the cpu to utilize. Run Aida's bandwidth benchmark to see what i mean.
There's no point in getting the cpu that high without having the ram running fast(er), it bottlenecks the system so to speak. ;)
Ok, running 1100 7-11-7-28-1T now - does not affect gflops. Only 2x2gb so far, see what I can get with 4 sticks.
Stuen4y|i5 3570k@4.7GHz with 1.39V (Ultra High LLC)|L208B070|TRUE Spirit 140 + 2xTY140@~900RPM|ASUS P8Z77-V|OCCT 4.3 Linpack +AVX|Stock TIM
Generally a bad overclocker, needs almost 1.45V for any benches @4.8GHz and anything above that is a no go only for validations and SPi like stuff... I think the most prime/LinX/OCCT I got @ 4.8GHz is 15 minutes with insane temps. 24/7 settings are 4.6GHz with 1.3V but I think I'll lower it to 4.5 to get more sensible voltages.
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/8...3aug051204.jpg
I'm not here to make it into this club (I already made it on my x58 anyways) but I'm currently satisfied with this (components in my signature): http://i.imgur.com/0slux.png
Dr_Dx | Core i7 3770K [4C/8T] @ 5000.1MHz | 1.288v | ASUS Maximus V Formula| Water | L221B009 | LinX 0.6.4 AVX w/ Linpack 10.3.11.019 | Liquid Pro
Another one - going for low voltage 5Ghz 100+Gflops Lynx stable
Attachment 129317
med1kl 4.85ghz i7 3930k SandyBridge-E 6C+6T 1.4 Vcore 16GB Ram Asus Rampage 4 Formula Bios 2105 Koolance Exos 2.5 External Water Cooling with CPU 370 Waterblock
http://i.imgur.com/7mtgv.png
Dr_Dx | Core i7 3770K [4C/8T] @ 5100.0MHz | 1.328v | ASUS Maximus V Formula| Water | L221B009 | LinX 0.6.4 AVX w/ Linpack 10.3.11.019 | Liquid Pro
Attachment 129387
Why is realtemp opened when you don't show the real load temps?
I think it is showing real load temps but dr_dx is running a water chiller. 5.1 at such low voltage is absolutely insane, what a chip!
May be you are right, I just saw it's opened 1 minute ago, but checked his other picture and saw it was opened during the whole test.
Dr_Dx | Core i7 3770K [4C/8T] @ 5300.3MHz | 1.488v | ASUS Maximus V Formula| Water | L221B009 | LinX 0.6.4 AVX w/ Linpack 10.3.11.019 | Liquid Pro
Attachment 129397
I currently run my rig with an OC that includes full-featured ops, all the way through four levels of Turbo, that peaks at 5 GHz single core. It's stable and reliable enough to lend confidence to an all-out attempt at full 5 GHz rigging for a qualifying run submission, but I have a question on the requirement for using "All" of the RAM within LinX's setup in a system sporting much more of a RAM load than is the norm for most gaming rigs.
Right now I have 32 GB installed, and after the OS and an 8 GB RAMDisk for Temp files there's usually a bit over 22 GB remaining. With that info, here's a snap of the first iteration of such a LinX setup with my system at 4.625 GHz which may immediately highlight what I'm about to ask:
Attachment 129662
Since there won't be too much more time trimmed off each iteration at full OC, can there be a reasonable ceiling to the amount of RAM used for LinX runs so as not to tie down the system completely for 12+ hours just to generate a qualifying screenshot?...
The last few screenshots in this thread show that with more than 8 Gb memory people still use around 7Gb in LinX equaling just about 1 hour of LinX run.
Thank you for pointing that out.
I shall return...
the community decided on 9216 awhile ago. zalbard hasn't been around. also 99% of the recent submissions won't be accepted.
Do you know what post that is? I didn't see it on Zalbard's original post. If in fact that was decided, it would be good to indicate that in post #1 so people will know what the "current" requirements are (like using AVX, etc.). Running "MAX" RAM is not a good solution. I know I have 16g of ram but have been testing at 7168 simply because I didn't want to sit around for 3 + hours (much less 12 hours like the above poster) to complete 20 passes and that is a very common amount for folks running 8G RAM to test with. Historically, most of the "accepted" runs are between 60~90 minutes. IMHO, since RAM amounts vary greatly, a better solution would be to set a minimum time that LINX has to run without an error. That way guys that run a lot of RAM aren't penalized by having to run for 12 hours and conversely you don't have these 13 minute runs of less than 2G RAM either. Somewhere between 60~120 minutes should be sufficient to verify system stability.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
3570K 4.5Ghz
Attachment 129697
9216 was decided on because it is(was?) the maximum memory that LinX can address before suffering GFlop dropoff when HT is enabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_dx
It is always best to use the most ram possible. If you do not, you are not testing stability. I have seen on a number of occasions myself where an OC I have will pass with 5120MB, but when set to 9216 will fail.
Above 9216MB stress drops drastically.
If LinX was the ultimate stability test proving an absolute stability in a system I would be more inclined ta agree with a "All memory" or as much as possible requirement. But, we all know that neither LinX nor Prime testing provides any such guaranty.
Therefor LinX testing with a time limit and reasonable amount of memory makes just as much sense to me :shrug:
Then, with such a debate now raging, how is one to know just what actually will constitute a valid qualifying run?
Also, without trying to fuel the conflagration further, is CPU-Z a requirement? It doesn't seem to get valid readings with this particular i7-3820/DX79SI combo. The Vcc, for example, seems permanently locked at 1.000 Volts and the RAM/SPD tabs are totally off the wall. I tend to stick with Intel's own Tuning Utility to get proper read-outs...
LinX is superior to any other stress program out there. That does make it 'the ultimate' stability test.
I have yet to find an overclock that will pass a 9216MB LinX that won't run 24/7/365, unless there's a stability issue in one of my GPU's. Which of course has nothing to do with my CPU overclock.
The majority of people who claim LinX isn't good are just flat out doing it wrong. They're either using outdated binaries, or not all memory/diagnostic mode.
CPUZ is a requirement.
How you're supposed to know what a valid result is? read the thread.
I have read the OP, which is where the "rules" have been initially stated. However, I have NOT read all 92 pages to see how many times things have changed since the author left.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
And I'll certainly be glad to use CPU-Z, since it will make my system look sooo much better and have everyone wonder just how I managed such a feat on battery power and the world's slowest RAM:
Attachment 129751
But that may be after I remove all of my Quad-channel RAM for Dual, since it's only 4 GB and I won't have to be hobbled by incredibly long qualifying times.
And thanks very much for crediting me with nothing but frivolous questions. I believe I'll pass on this offer...
Just to show that LinX 0.64 is not as stressful as prime95 27.7 in terms of vCore...
3770K @ 5.0GHz
LinX for 1 hour @ 1.416v... passed
http://i458.photobucket.com/albums/q...VY/501416v.jpg
LinX for 7 hours @ 1.448v... 1.416v-1.434v BSOD
http://i458.photobucket.com/albums/q...VY/linx7hr.jpg
straight away run Prime95 at 1.448v... failed in 1 hour +
http://i458.photobucket.com/albums/q...imefail1hr.jpg
bump up to 1.48v... passed 4 hours + prime95
http://i458.photobucket.com/albums/q...VY/prime50.jpg
I also kinda wonder where this magic figure of 9216 MB comes from, since there doesn't seem to be a way to set it in my copy of LinX. There is not a direct mem setting, nor does choosing any available problem size set it. I would second having to point that "requirement" out in the thread as well rather than just claim no one knows how to properly use LinX in the first place.
Again - since the author has left and there is no real control here, and no two people seem to quite agree on anything...
...what's the use?...
EDIT -
BTW, LinX's most useful feature is it's ability to run multiple instances (face it - it's just an interface to Intel's LinPack, a feature shared by myriad stress tests outside of Prime95) as well as setting the thread count and problem size. Here's an example of how I find it handy when testing a rig's stability, where I've tried to push not only the CPU freq but to push out the Turbo capabilities as well:
The rig's set for ops at 1.25x BCLK, and on the CPU I use 32x (4.000 GHz) for boot with the four available Turbo slots set for 37-40x (4.625-5.000 GHz)
Test 1 - Single-Core speed of 5.000 GHz using a small problem size to maintain speed on the CPU. (It's hard to "lock in" the true single-thread speed with the OS in the background, so I grabbed a shot with sensor lag spread between the two monitors showing both speeds as it shifted. The graph line shows it sticking to that range during the run.)
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resi...021B73932!1091
Test 2 - Locking in the 2-Core stepping at 39x. A larger problem size for more use of RAM, but not so much that it kicks in hard enough to drive the system core count higher than needed)
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resi...021B73932!1093
Test 3 - 3-Core speeds, and a little more headroom for RAM use without kicking in that fourth core.
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resi...021B73932!1092
Test 4 - things get a bit more interesting here. A full eight threads, but with three instances of LinX doing the same while running simultaneously. Emphasises multi-tasking as well as multi-threading in one shot.
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resi...021B73932!1094
But I could do all of the same things with Intel Burn Test. Or even OCCT - and get all of the features of LinPack as well as incredible logging features.
LinPack is LinPack, that's all...
You can set it in the Memory(MiB) textbox... Just unclick the 'all' button and type it in.
9216MB, as I explained before, is the maximum memory linpack can address while HT is enabled and maintain full performance... At least that's how it is on Gulftown and lower. I haven't had time to test my 3930k yet.
Also, owikh84... You're obviously not using updated linpack binaries, AND you're not using as much memory in the LinX test as your Prime95 test. So yeah, apples and oranges comparison from someone who doesn't know how to operate LinX doesn't prove anything other than your lack of skill.
Then consider this post a placeholder until I can generate a run in the morning. I'll edit it in so as not to add another to this already lengthy conversation...
We can see your memory usage in your prime95 screenshots and in both it's greater than your memory assignment in linx... So yeah, nice try. Also, all of the older members of this forum will laugh you off the forums for thinking you've done anything 'more' or 'better' than I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by owikh84
And if you are using the latest binaries, your overclock obviously has something wrong with it seeing as in the last two pages everyone at 5GHz is 2-4GFlops higher than your performance.
Lie more noob.
Lastly, if there were ANY truth to what you were saying, Intel would stop making LINPACK and just test with Prime95 instead. But oh yeah... They do make LINPACK, and do their own stress testing with it.
Just asking.......Quote:
Originally Posted by owikh84
Is the LinX memory over 7Gb and the Prime memory 6Gb?
Thanx
LinX >7GB, Prime95 7GBQuote:
Originally Posted by newhit
Dr_Dx | Core i7 3770K [4C/8T] @ 5300.3MHz | 1.488v | ASUS Maximus V Formula| Water | L221B009 | LinX 0.6.4 AVX w/ Linpack 10.3.11.019 | Liquid Pro 7168 RAM
Attachment 129812
Dr_Dx | Core i7 3770K [4C/8T] @ 5300.3MHz | 1.488v | ASUS Maximus V Formula| Water | L221B009 | LinX 0.6.4 AVX w/ Linpack 10.3.11.019 | Liquid Pro 9216 RAM
Attachment 129813
All else identical except tested RAM amount - GFlops are lower with 9216 RAM...Looks like 9216 is not the "best" amount for an IB...
That's within margin of error from boot to boot. 125.79 vs 126.46... Less than 1 GFlop.
Dr_Dx | Core i7 3770K [4C/8T] @ 5000.1MHz | 1.288v | ASUS Maximus V Formula| Water | L221B009 | LinX 0.6.4 AVX w/ Linpack 10.3.11.019 | Liquid ProQuote:
Originally Posted by zoson
Same Boot @ 5Ghz in order of GFlop performance
Attachment 129814
9216 is way down the list (there were actually 2 other mem settings that were faster - didn't have the room to show), but it's clear 9216 is not the setting to give max GFlops.
Zoson - You have yet to show us the post # of where Zalbard or the "community" decided on 9216 for the RAM setting. Several people have provided accurate measurements; all you have provided is hearsay.
It's time to put up or shut up. Otherwise folks will think you are just a TROLL.
While I'm still tryin' to get more than 20 minutes' stable here (a bit trickier than I imagined based on how well the rig runs with a 5 GHz top Turbo), I have to admit to being stumped on everyone's incredible through-put rates. I seem to enjoy but an embarassing 50% of that, and I had thought this system to be designed for such. Apparently not so successful at it, either.
I would be most appreciative if anyone would be willing to point out some specific posts or threads on this. You need not walk me through a hand-holding session - just point out where I can do some relevant research, if you would...
Do a thread search for 9216 you lazy bastard.
You're the one who's late to the party, not me. You have to do your research and homework.
It also looks like the reason why we chose 9216 may have been fixed. There are TONS of results showing the issue in this thread.
Lazy Bastard? Lying Noob? That's the pot calling the kettle black. Your search button broken? There are 15 posts in this thread (most of them recent) that have "9216" in them and none of them show where Zalbard or the "community" decided on 9216. You started a discussion in 2011 about it but no one agreed to it. Zalbard updated the OP in 4/2012; If 9216 had been decided upon, he would have put it in. And now you are giving people a hassle over something that isn't even an issue anymore but you were too lazy to verify was still valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
I am sorry that you can't get your 3930K onto the list but that is no reason to take out your frustration on everyone else that is trying to comply with the requirements set out in the OP. Try being helpful, instead of critical and calling people names. It's because of TROLLS like you that this thread is dying.
I agree on this, after I got my 3960X I saw it much harder to stabilize P95 than LinX. Well of course LinX GFlops may tell if something is really wrong, but usually I got a BSOD in P95 right after one hour or so even if LinX passed with flying colors. My 990X on the other hand was a different story, LinX was more stressfull.Quote:
Originally Posted by owikh84
On my 990X, after I upgraded from 6 to 12 GB, the max mem I could use with LinX was that 9216MB, otherwise I would get a radical drop in GFlops.
At no time did I say zalbard decided. just the community. And it's in there if you read the discussion. Cryptik, donmarkoni, newhit, xarot, and several of the big players in this club all agreed based on the results from our testing. This was all started by people noticing that there was a sharp GFlop dropoff between the 8192MB and 10240MB settings.Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_dx
lol, my 3930k isn't in the club because I didn't bother trying. It's an HTPC and I don't need it running that fast. It's got an air cooler on it... Way to attempt an insult and fail miserably.
Also, way to not address the fact that the whole reason why we decided on 9216 may be fixed now.
LOL@U. Keep trying, but you're just a failure.
Bumping the threat with Limpak updated libraries ver.11.0.1.005
You need to copy also the libiomp5md.dll file from redist directory for 32 or 64 Win u use in Linx folder.
ASUS P6X58-E WS, Water Cooled, i7-980X, 3045A974, 4.81GHz, 1.536V, 101.8569 GFlops
Very nice values. Just water?Quote:
Originally Posted by big.al.v
ha ha ha ha
I7-8086K