OPB's 3rd attempt got super pi 1m 8.906s and new pifast wr

Printable View

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

10-17-2006, 02:26 AM
over@locker886

Insane run, great job OPB!
Congratulations!
10-17-2006, 02:37 AM
DEVIL K-ce

Simply ---> Congratulations!
:clap:
10-17-2006, 02:53 AM
Big_Sam

Very very much impressive result ! :toast:
10-17-2006, 03:01 AM
RichBa5tard

Amazing! A great tribute to Insano indeed. :)

http://www.hwbot.org/show.img?style=...81&iehack=.png
10-17-2006, 03:44 AM
Marioace

congratulations bro

nice WR
10-17-2006, 03:44 AM
OMEGA3

Congrats!! OPB-san:toast:

Broken the nine seconds at last. :clap:

After all, it was achievement with B1.
Though B2 seemed to be also good...:)
10-17-2006, 03:52 AM
cpulloverclock

Congrats OPB, nice time at 5XXXMHz

Did you try the luna theme and 3-4-4-4 timings?
10-17-2006, 04:11 AM
ruggero

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onepagebook

http://www.ocxtreme.org/onepagebook/1010ln2/5566.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onepagebook

http://www.ocxtreme.org/onepagebook/...906spi1mwr.jpg

OPB

Uhm...sames timings,same multiplier,the frequency is 5566mhz against 5549mhz but the time is lower of 0,2s?

nice optimization,but do you remember?...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onepagebook

okok, behonestly, 5.6g is not my highest CPUZ-Verfied freq.
The highest one is here. And also got WR for 2m I think.
1m sub-9 seconds is not that easy though. I have tried from 5580~5625mhz.
all about 9.156 or 9.188s

There are others thinks which we must know?
10-17-2006, 04:16 AM
Ludus

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruggero

Uhm...sames timings,same multiplier,the frequency is 5566mhz against 5549mhz but the time is lower of 0,2s?

nice optimization,but do you remember?...

There are others thinks which we must know?

i quote ruggero. yesterday is impossible to reach 8s on superpi on yours frequency (you said it) and the next day POOF! 8s is here :rolleyes:
10-17-2006, 04:22 AM
boblemagnifique

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruggero

Uhm...sames timings,same multiplier,the frequency is 5566mhz against 5549mhz but the time is lower of 0,2s?

nice optimization,but do you remember?...

There are others thinks which we must know?

still a new miracle and it is often with the same people :slobber:

God of the overclocking must be for some things, it doesn't have there a possible explanation :woot:
10-17-2006, 04:52 AM
umbre_tombetoil

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Maybe I'll go to church on sunday ... who knows ...
10-17-2006, 05:34 AM
Artem87

his friend cooaler gave him the mystic tool that helps u with superPi...
10-17-2006, 05:58 AM
Langley

yeah!
Maybe OPB is the right hand of god and Coolaler is the left... so clap clap clap! :D
10-17-2006, 06:06 AM
camouflage

:D Maybe OPB put his sticks into the refrigarator over nite before second try.........;)

:toast:
10-17-2006, 06:08 AM
lawrywild

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruggero

Uhm...sames timings,same multiplier,the frequency is 5566mhz against 5549mhz but the time is lower of 0,2s?

nice optimization,but do you remember?...

There are others thinks which we must know?

He had to change an old tweak to a different value for the last milliseconds

OPB can tell you the rest if he wants I guess
10-17-2006, 06:09 AM
VictorWang

gratz a thousand time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10-17-2006, 06:22 AM
PcCI2iminal

Congrats!!!!!!!!

very impressive

:worship:
10-17-2006, 06:24 AM
K404

@CPUllOverclock.... Luna helps???

I`ll try that ;)
10-17-2006, 06:44 AM
Langley

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawrywild

OPB can tell you the rest if he wants I guess

Sure and now i'm waiting for all the tweaks in a readme file in my mail.... lol
Be serious man.... He can't and if he can, i think he doesn't do it!
10-17-2006, 06:45 AM
charlie

awesome.

:woot:

My prediction of <9 came true before the end of the year.

...as predicted.
10-17-2006, 06:47 AM
C.h.r.i.s

Quote:

Originally Posted by umbre_tombetoil

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Maybe I'll go to church on sunday ... who knows ...

I'll come with you...who knows :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruggero

Uhm...sames timings,same multiplier,the frequency is 5566mhz against 5549mhz but the time is lower of 0,2s?

nice optimization,but do you remember?

mmm,i hope that he doesn't have short memory because is the same thing that i'm interested to know...
0.05s are very hard to gain on Conroe at the same frequency,especially at 5500mhz,0.25/0.3s are...:rolleyes:
10-17-2006, 06:57 AM
Ghost

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.h.r.i.s

I'll come with you...who knows :D

:slap: you can't go only......i'm with you........2 is better than 1 :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.h.r.i.s

mmm,i hope that he doesn't have short memory because is the same thing that i'm interested to know...
0.05s are very hard to gain on Conroe at the same frequency,especially at 5500mhz,0.25/0.3s are...:rolleyes:

:clap: quote my friend
10-17-2006, 07:13 AM
KKJasmin

Grats OPB!
You are the best!:clap:
10-17-2006, 07:13 AM
umbre_tombetoil

Now, we must stay serious men ...
We all know that between two s-pi1M runs we can have a difference and sometime a gain but not in this range .. 0.2s with 17Mhz less in the cpu frequency, it's absolutely impossible or :
- he found a tweak or an optimization (why not),
- it's a s-pi bug (why not),
- I don't want to imagine the last possibility ....
So we must waiting for OPB's explanations ...
10-17-2006, 07:13 AM
Maxxpower

EDIT.

great shot..but I don't think that it's true..

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