board not junk!

this is the PROVISIONAL wr i guess, we all know nick "strong body" shih has done something much better on that cpu with female ghost attached...

as andre would say...

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...ezy/1213zr.jpg

okay andre i will, but i am sure nick "nice guy" shih will stomp me out shortly... :rofl:

gigabyte x58a-ud9
corsair gtx2
antec 1200oc

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...030_77720_.jpg

Jeebus that board is fast for 32m. Lower clockspeed than Classified and 3 seconds faster :eek:

Nice WR...for now :p:

Yikes...that's throwing down Mate....great score...looks like this board is the biz.....anything about the board you can pass on?? Quirks, temps, etc.?? Congrats!!

wooow....very fast.....:D:up:
I can't catch up.....;)

Very Very fast !
Your tweks are great , like this Motherboard ;)

Did you create that capture.exe pro?

UD9 its sooooo fast! :D

hehehe....:p:;):D

A lit less frequency and NB but faster....
Very nice tweak
Congratulations for the amazing work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tool_462

Lower clockspeed than Classified and 3 seconds faster :eek:

---

Are you wondering about it? EVGA Boards are known for beeing the ones that can get your CPU a bit higher than others but with a bit less efficiency. I have VERY PERSONAL AND SUBJECTIVE list of Asus, EVGA and Gigabyte that (after latest UD9 results) looks now like this:

You can reach best pure clockspeed on:

1. EVGA (if somebody questions this, I strongly disagree)
2. ASUS
3. Gigabyte

You can reach best pure perfomance per clock (2D, without weeks of board optimizing, just with basic ram timings on manual and most things on auto) on:

1. Gigabyte (UD9)
2. ASUS
3. EVGA

I am not sure about 3D I am about to find out a bit more in deep but it seems for me clock per clock (on CPU) you ASUS > EVGA. I am not sure yet where to put the UD9 but I am somehow sure there are enough good guys around showing enough results in the future :toast:

Great work youngpro! Always a pleasure to see the female ghost beaten down :up:
*grabspopcornfornick'sbackup* :p:

Congcrat James...sick result...:up:

wicked thats a killer run right there James

some previews please ?

very fast run james ,Congrats but we know some one post soon :(

congrats man

wow James out of the blue 5min 38.x WR!

congrats mate :D

Nice run young pro. I love this bench :p And your score is very fast. 5min2* soon :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco André

Did you create that capture.exe pro?

---

I've got this sw ;)
Capture.exe

Crazy :D And with a "low" voltage to boot ;)

i should learn some thing from your beauty mounting:D
do you change the paper of pot :rofl: same roll:ROTF:

Wow, nice one James :up:

supernice

Awsome tweaking James , congratz on WR bro , well done:up:

what hes forgetting to tell you is he has a 7 GHz one that is under 5 min.

lol jk jk. but i wish and i know he wishes.

Very fast sick score! well done:)

That should've been done one week ago :D

Crazy efficiency!

Great score , also very good efficiency at those clocks ...Congrats .... :)

wow nice efficiency :)

thanks everyone for your kind words,

your right jon.. this is what we were looking at a few days ago but our ram clocks was what was stopping us...i had myself a bit confused about this platform to start with, but its really no different to bloomfield for pi benching

Solid result!

Why would Gulftown be any different from Bloomfield? Nothing changed apart from size and amount of cores.

higher frequency benching... initially i thought it was scaling slightly different in terms of gains from increasing memory and increasing uncore.. but i was just confusing myself..

there are some minor differences, be them not to performance differences but temperatures used, but like having to manage a cold bugging IMC and pushing ram voltages...

im also not so sure you can get away with low uncore and tight RTL anymore unless you really can get those rams clocks up..

Huh?

I would assume that increasing the CPU frequency would increase the memory/uncore bottleneck, hence the need for better memory is bigger on Gulftown than on Bloomfield. The more performance coming from one component, the bigger the bottleneck from another component?

Something I am still puzzled about is the increased imc-to-dram bus. As far as I understand, it has been increased to a 144-bit to allow MEM/UNC ratio of 2/3. That would make me think GT can achieve same memory bandwidth at 2000/3000 as BF at 2000/4000. Someone care to test?

For benches, the above doesn't matter at all ... you still need UNC clocks for cache bandwidth :D

Noice! Sick results, congrats! Even Andre is pleased! :D :up: