0401 at maximus formula se
Printable View
0401 at maximus formula se
interesting sounds like non-supporting yorkie bios might think the QX9650 is 1066MHz bus cpu and default to 266FSB strap latencies versus 1333FSB bus cpus ???
also works with qx9770 :D
http://82.173.172.10/Rol-Co/fastpc.JPG
So, changing starp would be the same than doing this=?Quote:
Originally Posted by eva2000
That is most likely what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by eva2000
Perhaps one can simulate this by booting at 266 FSB and use setfsb to desired frequency.
Has anybody tried yet?
Nope....It's not this......I ALWAYS play on 266 strap.... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
not working....you can tryQuote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
tried several settings here with a suported bios but never came close...
in everest you see some diference in subtimings, but those timings you can't find it at the bios.
i think some hidden board timings/settings.
with this, first sub 10 score at 4515.....:shocked:
maybe 266FSB Strap for 1066Mhz bus cpus is different from 266FSB Strap for 1333mhz bus cpus.
It can't be faster consistently unless it involves lowering some hidden latencies somewhere. That's all that can really happen but good to know. Cheers. :)
I think that it has to do with the "instractions" of the CPU given and nothing more.....Maybe it doesn't work it's SSE3 or something like that....Who knows....?.... :)
ah...yes, I remembered, my 5689mhz 7.969sec is done on Blitz Extreme 0804 bios.
but after I update to 0904...I never reached that speed ag. :(
i'm too lazy to flash back the bios :D
Buy a new motherboard :D :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
Ok, no more jokes :D
This thing is weird.
What's making the SuperPi 1M faster ( with older BIOS ) and 32M slower at the same time ?
Instructions can't be, because as far I remember SuperPi uses only the SSE instructions ( the 1.5 XS version ) [ not SSE2/SSE3/SSSE3/SSE4 ]...nothing new here.
What could it be ?
Somebody checked if the same thing happens with a C2Q KF ( KentsField ) ?
Just to check if it's just the newer BIOS degrading the 1M performance anyway.
Only difference i found was:old/new
Read delay phase adjust : +1/normal
dim 1 clock fine delay 7t/9t
dim 2 clock fine delay 2t/5t
dim 3 clock fine delay 6t/9t
dim 4 clock fine delay 2t/5t
but personaly i don't think that is making the difference to the 0.3 sec
@Rol-Co or someone else, can you please take screenshots of MCHBAR sequences for me? If yes, just drop me a pm, and I'll explain how to do.
Dunno but may be I can identify what's going on.
Have you seen 500 fsb yorkie 32mpi stable scores?
I've played with this cpu and get some Vic's comparable scores, (higher fsb, lower ddr3, strap 200). I'll try better ddr3 soon.
500x9 32m pi
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/2038/1059532mi1.th.jpg http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4...0453as4.th.jpg
500x8 32m pi
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9733/0959797gd5.th.jpg http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/5...1031df4.th.jpg
1m pi don't likes me or I don't know some tweaks, get just near 11,5 at 500x. don't try 804 bios atm.
Nice testing!
Its good to see the FSB 500 :D
small update brought by kielbasa squad. this time the same yorkie, the same mb, better ddr3 (strap 266, 1:2 divider and 7-6-5-18 timmings) gives a 5s better times than few days ago :D.
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/5...4625hu2.th.jpg
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/5...4562wi3.th.jpg
it's not really maxed out yet;).
But it's MB dependant.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeLecT
With X48 driven P5E3 Premium it seems, it's not so obvious like with BE. (i meant FSB500).
Has someone figured out why that particular bios is so much faster?
Anywho, thought I posted these here: graphs from 499 45nm chips (DDR2/3 split up counts 115+233=348 results):
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...S/4100time.png
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...S/DDRsplit.png
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...-/XS/PPDDR.png
Now, I have made a few drawings on some of the graphs as well, as it seems that something rather weird is happening, at least it looks weird to me :).
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...00timeedit.png
This is the graph which shows the Mhz vs 1M information. Normally, all these points should be representated by 1 y= comparison, however it seems that there are two comparisons instead of one.
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...man-/XS/PP.png
Performance product. Here we seem to spot two groups of performance products, why?. If you look at the DDR2/3 split up graph, you see it has nothing to do with the ram. It seems like there's an empty space between 45500 and 46000 :confused:
Any of you noticed a difference in memory performance that is related to a boot FSB? Not like a cut-off as it was for P965 chipset, but sometimes a particular FSB, I mean a single FSB value among others gives far more bandwidth than expected...
I have posted it in another thread, but nobody seems to be interested because I've got no reply; BTW it might be something important to look at.
Ok; I experienced that while investigating MSI P35D3 functionning, but maybe it exists for other brands with P35 chipset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by before
I hope its not my eyesight massman, but are your graphs really showing sub 44750 with DDR2? :confused:
Is this only Kev by any chance as well?
Sub 45k:
Edit: I do not have all 1M's of course, so there might be even more sub45k's out there. I have used HWbot's and Ripping.org's data along with some scores of OCX/XS/Cooaler.Code:Name Score Cpu Memory PP cpu
OPB 7,735 5739,4 551,9 44394
OPB 7,89 5657,7 638,5 44639
OPB 8,25 5412,4 563,8 44652
Rolco 11,234 4000,2 640 44938
OPB 7,468 5913,8 844,8 44164
OPB 7,578 5811 1020,3 44036
OPB 7,578 5811,6 715,3 44040 (maybe DDR2, not sure)
Victor 9,469 4750,4 950,1 44982
Coola 7,813 5746,4 44897
Nice tweak Rol-Co, i m going to try it on maximus Extreme :D
... if first bios doesnt reconize correctly the yorkfield.
To be honnest, I'm not surprised to see this :). When testing my DFI P35 (well, I'm still testing:p) I noticed that 500x7 is 32M stable when I boot at 500FSB. When I boot at 399FSB, 490x7 wasn't even 1M stable!Quote:
Originally Posted by before
I reckon the same problem would be visible at 265 and 332 FSB.