-
Intel 2 Quad QX6700@4.4GHz : Update! result
-
Wow, thats some pretty nice scores :). And a good set of benchmarks, grats!
What cooling were you using?
-
nice
can you check with cpu-z 1.35 or 1.36, think 1 die is stil running 10x315 .
maybe the gigabyte changes both die on multi 14 but didn't see any board do that yet.
please try it
-
Really Nice results :toast:
-
Very nice for kentsfield. What cooling do you use?
-
OMG...Can I have that chip for 1 week?:banana:
-
วู้ !!! ท่าน Crazy... มันแรงจน AquaMark3 อ่านค่า GFX กับค่า CPU ไม่ออกเลยเรอะเนี่ย ???
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friday~13rd
วู้ !!! ท่าน Crazy... มันแรงจน AquaMark3 อ่านค่า GFX กับค่า CPU ไม่ออกเลยเรอะเนี่ย ???
English please....
-
sweet.. can you run pcmark05 suite + cpu tests as well to compare
-
Where's PCMark04 , 05 ___ SuperPI 32M ___ SP04 .
Unstable ????? ___ you just fake ,with the world's PEOPLE. :slapass:
-
are all 4 cores running the same speed with the mult set at 14?
You can check with cpuz 1.5
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BilLiZe
Where's PCMark04 , 05 ___ SuperPI 32M ___ SP04 .
Unstable ????? ___ you just fake ,with the world's PEOPLE. :slapass:
Why ur word look so serious?
I'm Just try to play with it and no reason to make a fake result. :)
NO. 04,05,SuperPI 32M,SP04 didn't mean it fake.
and when i've more time I'll test 04,05,SuperPI 32M,SP04 If it not stable on that program I can say it not stable. Just easy answer.:)
Why u look so serious?:p:
We're are same Thai People......Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by irev210
are all 4 cores running the same speed with the mult set at 14?
You can check with cpuz 1.5
Thank for ur information I'll try with CPU-Z 1.5 and report it again?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyVirus
Why ur word look so serious?
I'm Just try to play with it and no reason to make a fake result. :)
NO. 04,05,SuperPI 32M,SP04 didn't mean it fake.
and when i've more time I'll test 04,05,SuperPI 32M,SP04 If it not stable on that program I can say it not stable. Just easy answer.:)
Why u look so serious?:p:
We're are same Thai People......Right?
Thank for ur information I'll try with CPU-Z 1.5 and report it again?
555 :p:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BilLiZe
555 :p:
English Please :banana:
-
those sandra scores are really low for that speed, are you clockgen'ing up?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by freecableguy
those sandra scores are really low for that speed, are you clockgen'ing up?
Just Look at mem speed...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by freecableguy
those sandra scores are really low for that speed, are you clockgen'ing up?
i think he only has two cores at full speed... dunno
-
The '06 CPU score isn't low, but thats not saying much ;)
-
1megs are nice and all but lets see some stablity runs... 8 hours of prime.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmay
1megs are nice and all but lets see some stablity runs... 8 hours of prime.
nobody cares about stability here ,.......maybe another forum
like i said , nice clocks but chech if both die runs at multi 14
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rol-Co
nobody cares about stability here ,.......maybe another forum
like i said , nice clocks but chech if both die runs at multi 14
that's a first one...so all i see here are suicide overclocking?
-
Crazy ... v.nice results ... :) would like to see more results on CPU related scores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
English please....
It appears that his Q is about why the AQM3 score is v.high when compared to the actual GFX & CPU speed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friday~13rd
วู้ !!! ท่าน Crazy... มันแรงจน AquaMark3 อ่านค่า GFX กับค่า CPU ไม่ออกเลยเรอะเนี่ย ???
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rol-Co
nobody cares about stability here ,.......maybe another forum
to right :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by slykid
that's a first one...so all i see here are suicide overclocking?
suicide......benchmark.......8houre of prime .......a lot of difference isn't it ?
but i can tell you , most of the screens are just benchmark stable indeed......and nobody cares ....its great. prime suck's and nobody gona do that for 8 houre on phase/dice/ln2.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2metre*
English Please :banana:
five five five
Is that right? my bro..
ha ha ha :hehe: :hehe: :hehe:
-
Nice CPU speeds, but I think theres something wrong between the CPU speed and the performance?? I get just slightly smaller scores with a Conroe at 3.6 and a 7800GTX512. My benches were tweaked though...
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyVirus
I understand that 4 cores sucking the same cache would slow down overall performance... but doesn't this 32m look a tad drastic for the speed? 31mins @ 4.4ghz that takes the cake :slapass:
nonetheless, nice work :)
-
You need to set Affinity for Super Pi...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rol-Co
nobody cares about stability here ,.......maybe another forum
Clearly the attitude I was expecting from someone :nono:
-
-
Nice ZoLKoRn
ดังแต่ท่อล้อไม่หมุน ( More Mhz But Low Score )
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by M3 CSL
Nice ZoLKoRn
ดังแต่ท่อล้อไม่หมุน ( More Mhz But Low Score )
Eng. Please ... :party3:
-
I have to admit that the 32m superpi scores are aweful for the speed.
Also - on my kentsfield step 4 6700 I was only ever able to overclock two cores using an adjustable multiplier - so cores 0&1 would be multiplier adjusted speeds (300*14 for example) and core 2+3 would be fixed at x10 (300x10).
Is it so that newer steppings allows all 4 cores to have adjustable multiplier?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverik-sg1
I have to admit that the 32m superpi scores are aweful for the speed.
Also - on my kentsfield step 4 6700 I was only ever able to overclock two cores using an adjustable multiplier - so cores 0&1 would be multiplier adjusted speeds (300*14 for example) and core 2+3 would be fixed at x10 (300x10).
Is it so that newer steppings allows all 4 cores to have adjustable multiplier?
yeah was wondering about that quad 32M time.. thought at 4.4ghz would be way faster than at 2.4ghz stock here with 266mhz 4-4-4-8 mem timings
Quad 32M untweaked
http://fileshosts.com/intel/Intel975...2m_quad_tn.png
-
Yes.I'm agree with all comment that maybe something wrong with score on 4.4GHz speed. Especially in SuperPI32m that make me wondering too.
My assumption it could be something wrong in mainboard bios,cause when I check score with other program like Cinebench 9.5 , sisoft-Process Arithmetic ,3DMark06 - CPU Score All cpu score can acceptable with 4.4GHz.
and on my setup I use CPU:Ram 1:1 with 14x multiple make my FSB just 315MHz.Maybe with this setup will effect poor performance.
with my default test I expect more result from O/C like everybody here,but it don't for some program.:p:
thank for all suggest here. Especially ZoLKoRn our friend from neighbour website :D
-
I know what it is for superpi - you have not set the affiliation for each instance to a different core (ctrl-alt-del then set affintityto core 0,1,2,3) - or you are not running it from 4 separate folders of superpi :)
-
no need to set infinity for each core when i ran my quad 32M above... just make sure separate folders for each pi instance :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyVirus
and on my setup I use CPU:Ram 1:1 with 14x multiple make my FSB just :D
http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...700/pi3211.jpg
OK... I testing Ratio 1:1 for FSB and Memory and the final PI32 4thread just fisnish is 25.xxx min. is highed than ratio 2:3 at 2 min. on CPU speed 3.7GHz :toast:
-
-
Quote:
OK... I testing Ratio 1:1 for FSB and Memory and the final PI32 4thread just fisnish is 25.xxx min. is highed than ratio 2:3 at 2 min. on CPU speed 3.7GHz :toast:
Thank for ur help.:p:
Yesterday,I try to test with the same as ur config and I've found the same poor result in PI32.
or Use defult multiple higher FSB (10x400) CPU:Ram 1:1 in SuperPI32M alway give me poor result.
what do u think about this situation? and surely I'm run separate folders for each PI.:)
-
OK. I come back again with a binggo "ANSWER" Why I've poor result in PI32M (4 Thread) with QX6700 @ 4.4GHz?
Today I've try to change my HDD from PATA to SATA and test PI32M with the lower speed @3.3GHz CPU:Ram 1:1.And below is the result
http://www.unlimitpc.com/webboard_pic/Copypi32-3.jpg
Result of PI32M (4 Thread) @3.3GHz is better score than My 4.4GHz which I've test it before.
Just change the HDD and problem was gone....DO U Belive it or not? 2 HDD set up with the same winxp setup CD.
Thank ZoLKoRn our friend for ur observe.And now My 3.3GHz. slower than ur 3.7GHz. just about 1 or 2 minutes.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyVirus
OK. I come back again with a binggo "ANSWER" Why I've poor result in PI32M (4 Thread) with QX6700 @ 4.4GHz?
Today I've try to change my HDD from PATA to SATA and test PI32M with the lower speed @3.3GHz CPU:Ram 1:1.And below is the result
http://www.unlimitpc.com/webboard_pic/Copypi32-3.jpg
Result of PI32M (4 Thread) @3.3GHz is better score than My 4.4GHz which I've test it before.
Just change the HDD and problem was gone....DO U Belive it or not? 2 HDD set up with the same winxp setup CD.
Thank ZoLKoRn our friend for ur observe.And now My 3.3GHz. slower than ur 3.7GHz. just about 1 or 2 minutes.
Good... i'll try laster . I will chang HDD same to you from PATA to SATA because on the my test i'm use HDD Western WD800 PATA do not SATA :toast: This now i'm not free, i'll congratulations in next week :)
-
-
What cooling are you using?
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom-Crusher
What happen with your FRIEND.
55555 :slapass:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom-Crusher
Who is him ? :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoLKoRn
Who is him ? :D
I'm sure he is now among us.
^^
-
WHAT COOLING ARE YOU USING?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidcooled
WHAT COOLING ARE YOU USING?
I would think it'd be phase. :rolleyes:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidcooled
WHAT COOLING ARE YOU USING?
It's already fade away.......
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by rathwjj
It's already fade away.......
sometime !! He don't fake.
But He said don't clear.
Wow !! %@#!#%!@#%!&%^&^((_$&^#@&!(_%^*@!%*$*)_$*!@#*_)
-
holy smoking fast CPU!
QX6700 ftw...!
-
Only 4.4 gig? and only 11.7 secs in 1m?, i'm not very impressed. I would have expected higher from kentsfield (8 cores & 8mb cache).
But a good effort I must admit.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFI pit bull
Only 4.4 gig? and only 11.7 secs in 1m?, i'm not very impressed. I would have expected higher from kentsfield (8 cores & 8mb cache).
But a good effort I must admit.
Kentsfield is 4 cores, and super pi is Single Threaded aplication, more cores, dont improve the score, as the program only uses one core.
11,7 is pretty good, considering he runs (aparently) untweaked, and with low clock mem...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeToNaToR.cl
Kentsfield is 4 cores, and super pi is Single Threaded aplication, more cores, dont improve the score, as the program only uses one core.
11,7 is pretty good, considering he runs (aparently) untweaked, and with low clock mem...
Vale, claro que si, perdona, solo 4 cores.
Ok agreed, yes of course, sorry, only 4 cores. :slapass:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BilLiZe
sometime !! He don't fake.
But He said don't clear.
Wow !! %@#!#%!@#%!&%^&^((_$&^#@&!(_%^*@!%*$*)_$*!@#*_)
Hope that someday he will back to make it all clear.
Hope I can see it in my life.
-
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by rathwjj
Hope that someday he will back to make it all clear.
Hope I can see it in my life.
YeaH !!! :clap:
