I got this off google worth a shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
If 0 (default value) reports a wrong vcore, try 1, 2 and so on. ...
Have u tried to go on with the numbers ?
Printable View
I got this off google worth a shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
If 0 (default value) reports a wrong vcore, try 1, 2 and so on. ...
Have u tried to go on with the numbers ?
Oh nice, tweak some and get sub 21 :P
phantastic job , victorQuote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
No. 0403...is this for the -E or -WS variant?Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisf6969
Congrats Victor..
And i hope that you will get better bios :D:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:
as a teaserQuote:
Originally Posted by ubi
till victor got the time
yonah@2980 Cinebench > 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by mine
Hehe Thx :) Now we have something to check for. You think the conroe in its current state will beat it ? With that BETA bios etc. :stick:
Good Job
Victor:woot:
955XE @ 4800 more than 900. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mine
Super Pi is the general standard thats used not system tools version.
like to see a 8m super pi.
I agree Intel looks to have stepped up to the bat finally.
still comes down to gaming and decoding and photoshop reproduction, things that the general public uses not crunching PI.
and I agree 18 mins 32m pi is very fast ***hats off***
What CPUz reads is irrelevant. The CPU is running at stock speeds, and Victor said it's 1.2V stock vcore. If it really is 1.1v, 1.2v or 1.3v doesn't matter, especially when it's not overclocked and when there are no other CPUs to compare it to. Besides, CPUz or any other software aren't trustworthy at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ORCBEAST
some update info.Quote:
Originally Posted by mine
later will post pictures:
sisoft
cpu alu=28k
multimedia=144k
mem=4k8
cache=55k
3dmark05, cputest=3008
pi_32m toooo slow, 'cos of only 256m*2 ram, my mobo now cannot support 1G*2 ram, pity !:( :(
I know :) Just trying to help him out. Not much I can do :(Quote:
Originally Posted by crotale
I'm not claiming I could get my hands on an ES or get it working, and I'm not impatient.Quote:
Originally Posted by tsuehpsyde
But, I am pissed because when I hear "CONROE INCOMING" and lots of hype about benchmarks coming "within 6 hours" to paraphrase FCG, then I see all the posts get deleted, and nothing said but well we couldn't get our mobo working I feel cheated. Again, my advice is to keep your mouths shut until you can actually get something working before triumphantly announcing the arrival of a much anticipated product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
try a 8m run that would be nice to see and should be attainable
thanks for the benchmarks, victor.
Excuse my French, but go :banana::banana::banana::banana: yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebo_4jc
for the -E !Quote:
Originally Posted by freecableguy
Well you aren't forced to check this threads so you know ;)
Let FCG get his things together.
:owned:Quote:
Originally Posted by freecableguy
1st off, you should be so lucky they haven't banned you yet. second off, xs " reader ship " pft ... do you know how many members xs has? :fact: ya know, just chill out, guy. quit complaining and do something productive for the community if your going to post :slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by jebo_4jc
btw, victor good job on the benchies man keep up the good work
For comparison, did some quick tests on the systems I could grab:Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
FX57 @ 2400Mhz (240x10) = 56xx (clock to clock comparison)
955XE @ 4500MHz (300x15) = 89xx (my 24/7 rig)
(FX-system used X1900XTX, the Intel-system a 6600GT)
Great work victor, I hope you get a PCI graphics card working on that board.
XS is thankfully not a community that bans for no real reason - but I totally agree that we certainly could forgo the whining in this thread!Quote:
Originally Posted by i found nemo
@ jebo - trust me FCG + Fugger are doing all that is in their power to get things off the ground - while information given to them by some mobo manufacturers promised 'all go' for the Conroe to work - things turned out to be not as green as expected...Not need to stick the finger at them while they are trying all they can atm. Better to support the efforts rather than putting them down - neh?
@ Victor - what was the culprit for the performance swings?
Can you enlighten us with some BIOS settings - in particular Voltages and what type of power management options the Conroe/965 platform has / is running.
time to sell all my amd stuff lol.
Victor, plz do us a favor and post all the results in the first post. its pain to press F5 every 5min to read some irrelevant info, tnks
Something is going wrong with bios.Quote:
Originally Posted by nCrusader
merom 2G - 5775
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1920378
yonah 2G - 4411
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1918673
Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
2x256mb might be doing some harm here - along with onboard graphics ( taking even more ram away) - not sure
I believe that there is an old wise man saying: "dont bite the hand that feeds you." These guys owe nothing to you. Im pretty sure if I got a conroe in the mail before public availability Id be excited enough to tell my buddies on a forum after changing my underwear. Then I would tell them how long I thought it would take to get it working. Then I would be frustrated that it wasnt working. Then it would be made worse by lots of d-bags joining the forum only to :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: at me for letting my forum know that I got a conroe before I had it working.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebo_4jc
Basically, anyone that joins a forum just to complain to the people on the forum should probably sit down in a nice comfortable chair, and have a nice warm cup of shut the :banana::banana::banana::banana: up.
Cool it guys - let's all stay on the topic - no need to rehash it over and over. It's about Conroe here
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeguava
find the problem at last
the Network Card or it's driver may have some problem.
after installed , cpu always under 25%~35% load...
now , more test coming, see my blog:
it's more easy for me to upload pictures, haha
http://vic.expreview.com/read.php?1
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
Thanks again for the time and trouble!
I think we are overloading your Host Victor :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
Whole world wants to see...hehehehe
Keep up the great work :D
Only DDR2@533.. :(
Tried with some 512MB sticks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyderOCZ
:p: that's ok.
welcome all of you.
I'll post PCmark05/3Dmark03/SienceMark2/Cinebench9.5 soon
bios need some fix.Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
cannot support my Micron DDR2 1000 1G*2 and add-on PCIE-VGA Card
Thanks soooo much for that :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
VictorWang
Thank you and good luck :toast:
BTW onboard gfx sux anyway :(
Don't know if it's the RAM size thats not supported or the timings?Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
oh my god.........
you guys are crazy.
to many connection on my blog, even myself cannot enter :(
Bo-Blog Database System Tips: Can not connect to MySQL server
Time: 2006-4-5 4:58pm
Script:
Error: Too many connections
Errno.: 1040
:(
Glad that it worked for you. Usualy its some driver that screwsup and overloads your sys. GJ on finding that it was network card. Great scores in Sisoft. Post thoe pics here:toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
Thank you for the results..
23minute superpi32m, that's pwnage, especially since it's only 2x256ram and cpu usage, lol, simply amazing
:( :( :(Quote:
Bo-Blog Database System Tips: Can not connect to MySQL server
Time: 2006-4-5 5:12pm
Script:
Error: Too many connections
Errno.: 1040
Quote:
Originally Posted by StyM
now it's okay.
fixed the connection limit :p:
woow... thanks a lot.. great 32M results...
It's funny how people kept posting that 32M times would be hindered because once the CPU had to go to Memory, the performance would be reduced greatly. Seems to me 23min wouldn’t be the time of a "hindered computer".
Again, Thank you Victor for dedicating your money and time to inform the rest of us.
Fugger and FCG, Same goes to you. Thank you for what you're both doing. Some may not appreciate it but other certainly do. I’m positive that not many of us would be able to dish out hundreds for a new motherboard or whatever just so they can do some tests for US. So good job and thanks again.
Yum! The 32m score was what I was waiting for and it did not dissapoint. Although the way it ran the 1M I would have guessed the 32M would have been a bit faster. Thanks Victor!
Victor , please test the latency of the caches.Use latency.exe from CPU-Z.
Thanks for your work.
sorr victor whre do u take that cpu??
thank you
QFT :DQuote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
lol pwned by ones own popularityQuote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
No offence, but why do you think that FUGGER, FCG, Victor, etc don't get pleasure in testing this new stuff, playing with it and tweaking it? Don't get me wrong I'm quite grateful for the info they provide, but don't be so sure they're doing it JUST for US. I think they have simply found a way to be helpful and enjoy themeselves at the same time and that's great realy!:clap: For me solving different problems that occur with the hardware is maybe even more fun than the testing itself.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by n91htmare
Anyways I'd like to congratulate Victor on the good buy and info. Hope you solve all the issues and will be able to do some OC-ing very soon, so that we can realy "see what this baby can do":D
Victor, one thing, is your 32M run done with the LargeSystemCache=1 set the registry. Makes a HUGE difference on my system.
Bo-Blog Database System Tips: Can not connect to MySQL server
Time: 2006-4-5 5:54pm
Script:
Error: Too many connections
Errno.: 1040
:(
No it's not :(Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
horseball
Try again, it's ok ;)
I just saw this and Im sure others have made replies back, but we don't need people like you coming around our forum if you keep acting the way you do. Anyone here at XS, knows both FUGGER and FCG aren't like that. In fact. I can't remember how many total times I've seen Intel ES because of FUGGER. Think about what your mouth is saying before you upon it up again.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebo_4jc
:slapass:
Quote:
Originally Posted by freecableguy
Yeah optimizing the o/s usually improves performance...there's alot of uneccesary things that you will never use
Here's one thread I found, there's probably hundreds more but here's one
http://forum.nfsunlimited.net/viewto...ighlight=tweak
Nice scores youv'e got there Victor.
Can't wait to sww how fast the Super Pi is going to be, when the chip is clocked at 4-5GHz :D :o
BUGGERS - wish they would have included all the info - lol. Thanks for the find - awesome!Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisf6969
Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
in fact it is 18.05
and here a only slightly oced intel yonah@2,7 on air
8m 4m 14.3
see yonah thread
You better get your 975XBX m/b back Vic! :P
OOOOOOOOOOhHhhhhhh yeah!!!!!!!!!
finally add a 6600LE on the board.
3Dmark05 cputest... huge increase !!!
from 3008 to 8279 :eek: :eek: :D :D :D
my goodness !
don't know what will happen if with a 78gtx 512m :p:
thx to you guys. I'll try ur sys tweak guides soon !
we want cinebench :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
omg:banana: :banana: :banana: :eek: :eek:
Dayammm :toast: and with a 6600LE lolQuote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
Nice, but probably not much perfomance increase by going to higher videocard b/c as much as possible has already been offloaded to the GPU (supposed to be a CPU test). But 8,279 is still very impressive as its 10% faster than my 920D at 3.9Ghz (7,531). God I wish you could overclock that chip!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
cannot run cinebench , neither 2003 nor 9.5 :(Quote:
Originally Posted by demek
seems the software cannot support
8.2k sounds better :)
A 6600LE should be fairly equal to a 6600GT in CPU tests, which together with a 955XE @ 4500MHz get EDIT: 9.2k.
Me need Conroe :slobber:
its not goodQuote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
can you test PI 16M ? with special dedication for tweak.pl ;):toast:
:eek: :eek:
That's awesome :D
Can you test 3DMark06 CPU test? It shuld be very high score there too. Awsome cpu! :woot:
Looks like need to go for Intel now, for Intel Conroe, AMD AM2 will not beat this monster :rolleyes:
Also, what about a run of dual super pi? (one on each core)
I'm wondering what will be the affect on performance when both cores make heavy use the L2 cache.
Hmmm ... seems like it should you on page 2 for CPU scores?Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
http://img303.imageshack.us/img303/3645/cputest2yq.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Coolest
will be test soon.
now pcmark05_cputest :D
seems everything goes faster when add a 6600LE on board :D
pi_1m=21.390sec now
cienbench9.5=398/738
sciencemark2=1308
pi_fast=32.55sec/40.41sec
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
Awesome news dude :D
Whats the CPU load still ? 25% ?
Things can only get faster...So prepare yourselfs :D
Can you run Aquamark?
No longer using mem for the IG? That's a massive jump Victor...glad to see your hard work in tracking down issues is paying off in a HUGE way!!!Quote:
seems everything goes faster when add a 6600LE on board
Awesome Results man!
Thanks to everyone who is trying to get results for everyone. (Fugger, FCG, Victor)
after disable NIC and uninstall its driver,Quote:
Originally Posted by ORCBEAST
cpu load came to normal.
idle=0%~1% :p: :p:
have you thought about trying an ati card victorwang?
i'll go ahead and agree with a previous post that the CPU-Z latentcy test would be a nice one to run. See if this improvment is coming from a fast cache, or a fast core:D .
Amazing Results :eek: :eek: :eek:
will be nice to see 3dmark06 cpu score :banana: :banana:
Omg!! Get this baby higher :)
cienbench9.5=398/768
what was time that render?
For comparison cinebench:
955XE @ 4.5GHz (300x15 3:4 4-4-4-12)
389/798(28sec, 4 threads)
FX57 @ 2.4GHz (240x10 1:1 2-2-2-5) = 358
FX57 @ 2.64GHz (240x10 1:1 2-2-2-5) = 399
FX57 @ 3.0GHz (200x15 1:1 2-2-2-5) = 451
Impressive considering I have to run my 4400+ at 2.85 ghz to equal his 2.4 ghz run in cinebench 2003
damn, conroe is faster then I expected.
Seems like it's realy time 4 a conroe setup :D
Some Cinebench 9.5 scores:
http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cb95/top.php
Now.... More test come after a 6600LE added :D
http://vic.expreview.com/read.php?2
for you to compare:
955EE @ 300*14, with 78gtx 512m, 3Dmark05_cputest=8197 ;)
E6600 @ 266*9, with 6600LE, 3Dmark05_cputest=8320 :D :D :D
:woot: those results are better than i exspected
This thread, whole XS, especially this CPU ... TOTALLY INSANE! :D :slobber:
I even cant believe those Pi Times! :eek:
@ Victor:
Can't connect to your blog! :D :D :(
The 3DMark06 CPU test seems a bit low, can someone with a X2 post results @ 2.4GHz?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
Could you add the pictures here ? They dont load for me because the server is so loaded :(
Pifast seems a bit low?
so, those who speculated that Yonahs L2 was slowed down becasue it would be same as higher clocking Conroe were right. 14 cycle latentcy of Conroe is the same as Yonah. The 3 cycle L1 also the same or not, don't remeber that number for Yonah?
First thing to take into account, this is not DDR2-800@ tight timings, but plain vanilla 533.. There is still some performance to be had :D