Printable View
With support from my friend mat :up: it was possible to made a new Record .
Special thanks to CORSAIR & ASUS :up:
here some technical details from the Setup :
Memory CORSAIR GTX2 & Airflow Cooler
Motherboard ASUS P8P67 WS Revolution
CPU Intel i7 2600K L042B074
Power CORSAIR HX1200
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/5535/maxlx.jpg
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/676...enshot031n.jpg
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4...nshot032nx.jpg
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/9...enshot033r.jpg
Is this a joke?
no it is not. Proof
No this is real !Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex-Ro
Did you look at the link? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuTnicK
why is the aida numbers so slow?
Good job, congrats! :up:
Congrats!!!
Last night i checked back @ hwbot and i think u had 6th or 7th position...Great Job!!!! :up::up::up:
Congratulations Roger!
Will you hook up the T30 and try with lower timings later?
easily beat the kingstons lol
grats
jesus 30/30/27k, intense run there mate!
and what is wrong with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacka
Compared to some powerchips on 6-9-6 or something the values don't seem to be lots faster. But the latency sure is and that is most important for MaxxMem to get higher scores. For some reference you can compare dinos 2220 Mhz CL7-8-7 with Hypers and Pt1t's 2200+ MHz CL6 with PSC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splave
splmann, it was a pleasure to "remote bench" with you. Here are a few screens from my perspective :D
http://www.overclockers.at/attachmen...4493&thumb=650
stupid photo #1
http://www.overclockers.at/attachmen...4494&thumb=650
very important beer photo!
http://www.overclockers.at/attachmen...4495&thumb=650
stupid photo #2 with ASUS EFI bios in the background
My mistake, I thought you were implying that it was not a new record, but now I see you were saying "no it's not" in response to the person asking if it was a joke! :am:Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuTnicK
Nice one! I need to wait new CPU and improve my BCLK. Huge jump in the score and a bit weird correlation between aida and maxxxmem but who cares.
Keep rocking with memory!
LN2 next?
i dont know !Quote:
Originally Posted by Splave
Thanks !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
thank you !Quote:
Originally Posted by felix_w
Hey Marc next step is LN2 and CL6 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Beier
thank you Hondacity !!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondacity
thanks !Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny87au
Quote:
Originally Posted by _mat_
Hey mat thanks again for the remote support !!! :)
thanks SF3D so i hope we can push us together ! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SF3D
Damn fast.. Awesome IMC/kit.
What about P8P67 WS? I can choose between WS and EVO, any difference in efficiency?
Congrats mate, awesome! Your are the first who break 28k+ in Aida! :up:
Thank you !! so two Records :)Quote:
Originally Posted by over@locker886
Next step LN2 ;)
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7...enshot035w.jpg
Big congrats, outstanding result !!!
Seems P8P67 WS Revolution is good for BCLK. Do you try to max out it ?
I was reach 107.1 on UD7
splmann what pot is that ? havent seen it before ><
Corsair Freezer, by Besi - the heaviest and the best pot for Corsair Dominator series ram cooling, however, expensive materials comes with a pricetag, I believe it is about 150 USD, 110 Euro if I am not mistaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny87au
Yeah the thing looks super heavy with 10" thickness :D
107.8 Mhz was the absolute maximum of the cpu ... so close to 2300 MHz DDR3 frequency. :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeDaL
VCCIO was at 1.38 volts (sometimes) to reach this bclock ... the cpu did not like more than that. Anything higher - even raised with Turbo-V in Windows - just got the system to reboot.
that's nice guys, if i am not wrong u can bench cl6 @ same freq under cold?
We hope so. :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by hiwa
But CL6 is also very demanding for the cpu, so it will depend very much on how good our sandy handles the memory.
Very true....good luck guys :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by _mat_
for sure u are bclk limited but Cl6 with tight timing giving you a good boot too ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by _mat_
1140mhz 6-6-5 might be too hard, I keep fingers crossed for you guys! I fear it might start performing less effecient due level of errors around ~1130
I never got past 2340 MHz CL6 with my GTX2 modules. Not on Nehalem, Lynnfield or Sandy Bridge ... not even with -75 °C and more than 2 volts. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Beier
I did not get any performance scaling problems yet ... only when a module decides to shutdown, because of voltages/cold/too tight timings. But that only happened on Nehalem. The performance goes back to dual channel in that case.
is the red part of the ram pot ...copper?
The base plate is made of copper, the "pot" itself, if you want to say so is made of aluminium. If you like ... there is a small review of it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondacity
http://www.ocaholic.ch/xoops/html/mo...l_lang=english
Quote:
Originally Posted by NhocCuteGirlz
What is your Problem ?
is this a joke ?
very very congrattsz on tht nice score, what Ram freq are you running, i can maximize the screenshot :D
So Roger ... tell us ... what have you done yesterday?
Thanks for the amazing software! :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by NhocCuteGirlz
Did he go for cl6? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by rewarder
I don't know ... I tried to call him today but he didn't respond till now :)Quote:
Originally Posted by _mat_
More I look at your score, more convinced I am, that your 32,5ns latency test is bugged. I can produce similar / better scores.
If you bench same settings like 10x one or two of those will give you bugged results, which look almost normal, but are not real.
Looka at this new screen, where I tweaked subtimings a lot and got nice direct scaling from my previous score. I can reproduce this as many times I want.
Also aida is scaling directly with the memory speed and I have not seen any bugs in it even it is runned multiple times in a row?
http://sf3d.pp.fi/images/ASUS%20Maxi...ew%20score.png
So, I think that is the highest real score so far.
I'm not saying your run was bugged but i do have to agree that maxmem can definitely just slightly bug latency, I had to do my runs a few times and on several boots before i was content that mine were not bugged as I did get some barely bugged latency runs myself.
Was the start of your reply ment to go for splmann or me?Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
My run is not bugged, like I tried to explain and you explained too.
The difference might be small, but scaling must happen in all test, not just latency.
That is why I would like to see splmann to fix his score himself :up:
My reply was to splman, and agreeing with you that it can bug slightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by SF3D
Now we need Massman to give points for Maxxmem scores... good job all, drooling stuff ( out of my voltage league :p )
We also got (much) higher scores, that we ignored because of too low latency. I don't know if this run was reproducible, but I am sure splmann can answer this. But now that we have your values to compare with, I guess you're right ... the run could be bugged after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by SF3D
Any way, congrats SF3D for your achievements. 107 bclock with that cpu frequency is just :shocked:
Maybe we should find a solution to make our scores compareable again. I don't now ... like 3 screenshots of maxxmem, that have to be done at different times (time is display in the maxxmem window, so that would be no problem). Because when it bugs, the score is very unsteady and not reproducible. Or we ignore Maxxmem and use Aida 64 ... to make it directly compareable, we have to calculate some score out of it. Maybe ask the developers to work on that. ;)
Yes, you can not "tweak" timings to get only gain in latency test. Also the CPU speed was very low for the latency, cause there is correlation between those two.
So Matthias, if you also think that current higest score is bugged, please ask splmann to remove it? I am sure he can run it again with ln2 on memory etc.
We all should post just the correct scores from now on. We can compare the data from these screenshots we have here and in HWbot.org. Scaling is qute direct and good, so we easily know if some score is out of the line.
My next step will be ln2 as well, cause I will target 6-6-6 settings.
Keep up the good work guys and no hard feelings hopefully.
i think its fair to say maxxmem is a fairly buggy bench and it is not always as clean cut as this is bugged or not,
if we want to accept a bench like this into our community and use it in rankings then i think we need to accept he results that are bugged within the realms of actual capacity of the platform... this result is a plausable result, sure it is slightly out of line but it is something that is possible..
this is just a by product of what we are doing, pushing benchmarks and hardware to places they were not designed to go, we will always find some results like this
Well, we can not go in to that. We have to see how some benchmark behave and learn how it scale with timings and clocks. When we have enough data to evaluate, it is easy to see the odd results.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngpro
Personally I think that the score should be removed from Hwbot and all the newsites around the internet could write their news right :D I was amazed to see how much talk there was from this score, which is bugged after all.
But, if all will agree, that we can post scores which are slighty off from scaling, I will put my 31.9ns score in to bot :rolleyes:
P.S I wont do that for real :p:
Well. The second one also has a higher CPU speed (300 MHz higher). Higher CPU speed on SB lowers latency quite a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by _mat_
But the results are not stable. When i do multiple runs sometimes one is about 1,5ns slower. And yesterday i got 1,2 ns lower by tweaking the sub timings. These settings down show the whole picture. You would need to see a shot of all the dram timing settings and a more reliable test (lets say 5 runs and take the average of those 5) before you can say that 6-9-6 is not much faster.
MaxxMem still needs some work, if you ask me. We cannot judge anyone for pushing hard and trying to get the best score, sometimes the program itself is too wacky. There is slight bug, where things can be argued, and way off bugged, where it is very clear there is a bug. Problem is, I don't think it is fair to the overclocker's work to try and spot the "slight bugged" ones, I think the real solution is to work some more on MaxxMem to be sure this kind of things don't happen anymore. And if we talk about repeatable results, here's a bunch of results from me...Not very healthy if you ask me :)Quote:
i think its fair to say maxxmem is a fairly buggy bench and it is not always as clean cut as this is bugged or not,
Any serious OCer wouldn't make a big deal over a CPU-Z bugged run, and wouldn't post it at the bot either. Even though CPU-Z is usually accurate, there are situations where Bloomfield bugged to the moon.
The situation here is more difficult, and if bugging is occuring it's less noticable, but a slight bug is still a bug, and once confirmed...I think a self respecting OCer wouldn't/shouldn't post it any more than a bugged Bloomfield CPU-Z score. If the score was posted and the OCer was not sure, once identified they should then remove the score.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SF3D
@ splmann, keep pushin mate, you're obviously doing very well :clap:....but if it's bugged, you should try again for a legit run ;)
^^^ :yepp: this bench is obviously not ready for prime-time (HWBot points)Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstru
I think only splmann can remove all doubt here, but from what I see, I can't be 100% sure that it's bugged. If latency was 31.x ns it would be a bit more clear, or we had a :banana::banana::banana::banana:load of similar scores in the database to compare it to - but atm I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt.
I vote we just change the name of bench to maxcpu.
It scales alot more from cpu than ram anyway......
Only with SB though right?Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
SB - Core freq = L3 freq
Not true with older architectures, on BF/GT it scales with uncore, right :cool:
I dunno, It scaled more with cpu clocks on amd to whether it be 754,939,AM2,AM3..........In fact we found that L3 was actually worse.......semprons at 4gig were kicking phenom II's in the nads at same clocks.....difference between the 2? L3..............Quote:
Originally Posted by miahallen
Not to sure about intel, never really ran it on intel till now because I felt the bench was sort of retarded.
1. I can run this bench far more unstable than any other bench out there......1m is harder to run and that doesn't even stress ram.......and this is supposed to be a memory benchmark.
Put simply if I can validate, I can maxmem.......
2. cpu speed can trump ram speed in this bench.
For instance SF3D ran 1140 ram verus my 1115........gained what 50 points over me?
Me running at 5.0 to 5.5 gained me over 200 points no changes to ram.
Anyone with a 5.7 chip can beat the current scores without to much effort. :shakes:
chew is about to hail a storm of :banana::banana::banana::banana: all over maxxmem W.R. soon boys dont waste time discussing it even heh
on a serious note it seems that latency can bug a bit every now and then as ive seen it myself but i havent got a CPU that can bench at his frequency to be able to confirm his score
petri is that what you are seeing, latency above 33 or what?
Heh I would not say that, If I do play with it again I will at least crank ram up more, just tossing cpu speed at it is a lame way to win :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Ohh and for the record this bench is still gay, just in case i haven't said it enough.........I wouldn't even claim WR if I did get one......
@splmann...Just run it again with the same settings and be done with it:)
Although you exaggerated the hell out of your last few posts, what's the alternative for benching memory?Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
32m 01 and 3d 05 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by _mat_
Seriously don't have the answer for that, but I don't think this bench is the answer or ever will be unless it can be fixed which I doubt as most of the issues are likely us running on the edge.
Also, note I only run this bench when one of my team mates keeps poking me to.
I would much rather sit here tuning 32m on amd hours and hours on end and waiting 14+ minutes for a run to complete for water runs.......thats saying something....
aida64 :D lol nah i'd go with SuperPI 32m and everest bench..
Memory performance on our favored platforms will always be dependend on cpu frequency. But 32M involves too much cpu ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny87au
Maybe the folks over at AIDA64 can make their results comparable (and free), if that's possible. As far as I see it, they calculate even more numbers, so that should be no problem at all. The bench seens also very stable ... or lets say more stable than MaxxMem. I know someone there ... I will call him up today.
sounds like a good alternative matQuote:
Originally Posted by _mat_
Problem solved.
http://www.hwbot.org/community/submi...m_2714.9_marks
Also now that we have run at that speed, I can safely make a determination.
splmann, your run is certainly bugged, I'd pull the score if I were you.
Nice ! I have higher Backup's but i dont upload this to much discussion . I hope we get a better memorybenchmark in the future !Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
I see real record done by MSIMAX. Well done!
Splmann, you can not call those scores you have as a backup, when the one you called record was bugged. I hope you see what many people have said here in a friendly way.
Benchmark might bug sometimes, but it is us, who decide will those scores be published or not. You decided to show yours, but others didn't.
I think this discussion is over now, at least from my part.
Keep pushing the limits people!
haha this one is all chew and his veeeeesta tweak :rofl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwkSP...layer_embedded
booting in at those mem clocks damn chew :D
Very nice work and certainly a very good cpu! :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
Another run from me today with a different cpu, higher ram.
As we can see the scaling is linear with cpu and or ram speed. One does not show massive gains without the other, nor do they show massive gains in general.
gawd damn sic memory man :up:
Amen to that! :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
hax chew hax, i mean buggy maxxmem :D
So; CHew... you maintain that the result by splmann was bugged? He has not revealed his subtimings, and we are talking ~½ns delay difference...
Oh and you forgot to reveal which ram you used :p:
want to know my subs?Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Beier
Compare our 32m runs, ASUS is not that slow = my subs are tighter ;)
I dropped from 7-7-5 in my 32m run to 7-7-6 but tightened other things up for maxxmem.
Also my speed is higher. From the scaling I see, you need 5.8+ and 2300+ to hit 32.5.
Ram is corsair gtx2. So no ram or a specific rams SPD is not making a diff for latency ;)
Here is more linear scaling:
http://sf3d.pp.fi/images/ASUS%20Maxi...1149%20ajo.png
Actually this test does not bug that often, if you know what to expect from it.
chew, compare our latest scores. Memory write and latency. I think your score is a bit off.. :D
It is getting ridiculous :rolleyes:
Diff board big guy ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SF3D
Plays a very large role in this bench.
do some 32M pi petri :D
Ahh..I thought from your reply to chuck norr.. marc, that you were using ASUS as well. UD7?Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
Hehe..It will fry my memory.. can not do that :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
I'm on UD7 atm petri, I will test M4E next but just for pure comparison purposes :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SF3D
Nice run btw.
Dino, petri's 32m is about spot on for asus, he's 10ths slower than splman at a 20mhz deficit denoting tighter subs :) 20 mhz is worth almost 2 seconds, more like 1.8 secs avg.
Just address me as Deus in future.Quote:
Originally Posted by SF3D