Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 567891011 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 391

Thread: The CDT and copywaza lab

  1. #176
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Baltics
    Posts
    1,120
    Just went back from a 3day business trip to UK, so I see a lot of things still going on about CDT here, good

    Btw, has anyone noticed in OPB's screenies about the CDT tweak, he is actually doing the stuff a slightly different way:

    (look carefully at that little explorer copying window, if copying is done from folder, the path has like drive letter + a chinese letter after it)

    1. copy from D:\folder to C:\ (elmor did D:\ to C:\)

    http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?i...1085556yh9.jpg

    2. copy from D:\folder to D:\ (elmor did D:\ to D:\folder)

    http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?i...7862219yd7.jpg

    3. copy from C:\folder to D:\ (OPB has even circled it, while writing the C:->D: stuff, interesting). Elmor did C:\->D:\

    http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?i...8587147rn4.jpg


    ... which kinda contradicts elmor's way of doing CDT... as well as KTE's?

    Any thoughts about it?
    Last edited by mrlobber; 11-08-2007 at 05:14 AM.
    away & gone

  2. #177
    k|ngp|n/Sham my brothers
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Athens---Hellas
    Posts
    5,693
    Quote Originally Posted by mrlobber View Post
    Any thoughts about it?
    Yes........For start.......Screenies don't work for me so I can't see anything....
    INTEL PWA FOR EVER

    Dr. Who my arss...

    .........



  3. #178
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Baltics
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by hipro5 View Post
    Yes........For start.......Screenies don't work for me so I can't see anything....
    Ok, transformed them to hyperlinks Btw, they're from the original post of this thread, nothing new supposedly, just that little detail to turn the attention to.
    away & gone

  4. #179
    approaching aphelion
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Aix-en-Pce | France
    Posts
    1,616
    Quote Originally Posted by mrlobber View Post
    Ok, transformed them to hyperlinks Btw, they're from the original post of this thread, nothing new supposedly, just that little detail to turn the attention to.
    Really? Humm not sure... details make the difference. Not sure they really make it (empirically), but we all have to take care of them. Rigourously.

    TBH, folder or not folder, X partition or Y partition, etc... I don't think that could make a difference between these processes (CDT, CW, etc, different names for an equivalent aim); but if you wanna discriminate them, you have to take care of them.

    So, thank you for showing us these inconsistencies.

    I'm afraid, actually, we don't know what is precisly the whole CDT method. Additionnally, what's CW?

    Stupid question?... not really Each of us seems to have his own CW method making useless the comparison between CW and CDT...

    We all need now an official CDT method and an official CW method. Continuing without this requisite will never draw an end. Simple as that.
    Best Regards,
    Xavier


    "I prefer to fly alone... when alone, I perform those little coups of audacity which amuse me..." Col. René Fonck (1894-1953), the Ace of Aces.

  5. #180
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Baltics
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by before View Post
    Really? Humm not sure... details make the difference. Not sure they really make it (empirically), but we all have to take care of them. Rigourously.
    Absolutely agree. This difference might be something, and might not - but it again proves the fact that nobody has confirmed we have been testing the "correct CDT", and it hasn't been clearly denied either except for a couple of "completely wrong" remarks without explaining what exactly has been done wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by before
    We all need now an official CDT method and an official CW method.
    As to CW methods... although Hipro has posted his CW method with clear details how to do it, it's also true we most of the time are doing our own methods (and I have a personal CW which on my C2D 3600 Mhz setup is working 1second better in 32M than hipro's). However, as long as people can't get CDT working better than their copywaza, it doesn't matter which CW they're using because we are looking for the difference between the two methods to analyze in our "laboratory"... and if there isn't any, there is nothing to analyze

    About the inconsistencies I have pointed out, I've been in process testing both the "written CDT" (original / elmor / KTE) as well as the "pictured CDT"... While testing, I have observed different things going around with both the amount of available memory and system cache as well as the ratio between them. I have done also various copy numbers of that 1.85Mb big file (from 1x to 5x) and found so far that the more you copy /replace the file around according to CDT rules the more available memory / system cache rise... and the more closer they get.

    However, atm I've not finalized the testing yet and thus can't provide exact numbers... and regardless of numbers I haven't seen the revolution in my 32M times so far, so any hint from the CDT experts would be appreciated anyway (especially about that "written CDT" vs "pictured CDT" thing).

    I'll try to post more details this evening.

    Also, massman was posting previously in this thread he was able to get some 6secs better time with CDT, but also mentioned he has not finished his testing... I wonder, when would he post his final results?

    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=48
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=60
    away & gone

  6. #181
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,714
    Haven't had the time to finish my testings, REALLY busy atm. Sorry guys.
    Where courage, motivation and ignorance meet, a persistent idiot awakens.

  7. #182
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,792
    I built a setup as promised, although I'm honestly not feeling too well these days and haven't had the slightest of extra time. I also have not messed with a new chipset since the 680i SLI, bear in mind please.

    E6750 L726 SLA9V 1.350VID / Zalman CNPS9500
    Gigabyte P35 DS4 rev 1.1 (F4 and F8 BIOS)
    2x 1GB Corsair XMS2 PC2-6400 CAS4 rev 2.1
    Sapphire HD 2600 XT
    WD Caviar SE 80GB SATA II 16MB cache
    Seasonic S12 550W
    Two extra fans
    Idle @ 2.67GHz 1.2V DDR2-800 1.8V : 123W VAC
    Load (orthos) @ same : 253W VAC
    Idle in BIOS draw: http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007196.jpg

    Board suffers from vdrops everywhere.

    A quick few stock 1M runs, completely no tweaks at all, new Windows fully loaded, auto "high" volts/latencies, just frequencies are higher up to compare with later. All set in BIOS.
    CPU MHz / FSB / Divider / DDR MHz / tCL-tRCD-tRP-tRAS: 1M Time

    2667 / 333 / 5:6 / 800 / 4-4-4-12: 19.281s http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/8...0044412rc9.png
    3290 / 470 / 5:6 / 1128 / 5-7-7-25: 15.875s http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/374...4701128sj5.png
    *3600 / 450 / 4:5 / 1125 / 5-5-5-18: 14.406s http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9113/3600465uu8.png
    3720 / 465 / 1:1 / 930 / 5-4-4-12: 14.188s http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5274/37465gn4.png
    3720 / 465 / 1:1 / 930 / 5-5-5-18 (): 14.157s http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/624...6555518mh0.png
    3720 / 465 / 5:6 / 1116 / 5-7-7-26: 14.141s http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/6...5857728gr7.png

    As you can see by the 3.6GHz run, RAM can do 1125 5-5-5-18 (can do 15 but not stable, 16 is stable) at 2.05V. I was about to try for some real runs before trying CDT with better clocks and so never really saved anything but out of the blue the system does not boot anymore. If the motherboard wasn't dead, at least the fans would spin up. Nope, the chip and everything else should be fine, it's the board that stopped booting completely. I had 5 hours off and on, 2 hours spent on Windows/programs, 1 hour spent on overclock, and the last 2 hours just to get it to boot, even froze components to subzero in a -28C freezer but no go. The DS4 is not booting up at all. I can't figure out what or why since the VDIMM/VCore were left untouched around 2.35V/1.472V at the last higher clocks and all temps were very low.

    Some random cell phone pics when setting up yesterday night taken with a Nokia N95-2 (the phone pics are not digital standard anyway but it really messed up far worse later because of JPEG conversion and decreasing resolution and size from many megabytes to a few kilobytes to upload):
    http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007188.jpg
    http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007179.jpg
    http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007169.jpg
    http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007170.jpg
    http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007195.jpg
    http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007194.jpg
    http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007189.jpg
    http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...3112007191.jpg

    Below is my blog for today for any that's interested -> to expand a little...
    As promised, I did get the setup yesterday morning, but the problem was space in my flat. There is no room free anywhere at all. The E6750 SLA9V L726 1.350VID and from the choice of motherboards I chose a Gigabyte P35 DS4 rev1.1 F4/F8 BIOS for its known consistent high FSB and an Abit IP35-E Offlimits that was lying around unused I picked up too. Everything 'aint mine so I have to return working to my uncle who it belongs to. Two other systems I picked were older P4s and an AMD that Ill test soon. All standard air. One of the P4s died near the start and I don't know how or why since it was fully stock. I'm still thinking...
    My god I hate long journeys for nothing. The CRT monitor I picked up was so bloody heavy walking up 6 flights of stairs to my flat I have a crazy back ache that made me want to throw everything back out again!!

    Anyway, I ran into hundreds of problems, the first of which was the monitor and its weird colors. I don't like the DS4 BIOS at all. Its too simple and lacking in a lot. I have no way of finding out what the NB/FSB voltages actually are, only what is being added on to them, nor any PLL voltage control. The setup wasted so much of my time because for 3 hours it wouldn't boot since the board set the VDIMM at 1.8V stock which I couldn't tell until I got into windows one lucky time. 1.85V was good for ~464MHz 4-4-4-12 and the RAM I wanted was taken by someone else so I'll have to go back this weekend or so to get it (Crucial Ballistix Tracer 8500). I picked up some PC2-Corsair XMS2 6400 CAS4 that was lying around v2.1 which are ProMos ICs I believe. Not supposed to be any decent but mine ran 2.05V DDR2-1160 5-5-5-16 500% (1600MB) Memset clear without error. They booted in Windows at 1262 at 2.3V which is +0.55V in BIOS for us to set, I've still not tweaked them at all, just raised the voltages pretty high on most components to see where the limit on each is, the temps and the ability. Left timings to "auto" mostly.

    This DS4 cannot do 500FSB. It can ONLY do 475 tops from BIOS at max FSB/NB voltages or even if lowered down many notches. No voltage added would change that situation and nothing is even warm to the touch so I don't know what the hindrance is or if I just got a dud board. It 'aint the CPU because I tested with x6 multi and with x8 I got 475x8 into Windows at 1.40V BIOS volts (never tried lower). It's unstable because the board is unstable at such high FSBs.

    So I can't do runs of 600FSB 1:1 or 500FSB or even 475FSB 32M like many guys are doing, nor can I do 3600/1200. Max I can do at 3600 is 1125 (all in BIOS staying below DDR2-1200) and latencies are high. tCAS I can't even change to below 5 (not an option) nor change Command Rate and that doesn't matter on the temps or volts. I even tried +0.66V which is 2.46V real VDIMM at 1262 which was running at 2.3V before but no go. Not tried raising clocks within Windows using Clockgen/SetFSB yet.

    First thing I did is run stock TAT/Orthos/OCCT testing. TAT was hardest on my system, topping out at 253W VAC stock 2.67GHz volts was 1.2V, ambient was 10C, and the setup ran very cool with a Zalman CNPS9500, a 40mm 6000RPM fan on the NB, open bench and a 12 inch powerful fan cooling the DIMMS/heatpipes all the way from Asia EVEREST and Speedfan report the real temps and voltages accurately (I tested without a heatsink just to make sure) but Core Temp and TAT read 15C lower than the real temp at any time. Here's is TAT after 1 minute 100% load at stock. LOL its just so you get a rough idea of stock temps, I aint keeping it for use: http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/5472/tempsww8.png

    Stock temps, volts and EVEREST mem/cache: http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7...pustockkk2.png

  8. #183
    Turkey Man
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Jakarta (ex-Australia)
    Posts
    2,560
    Did you check your video card mount?
    In the photos its not in the socket correctly, but i presume that you would have setup the system properly, just that it was like that in the photo.

  9. #184
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,792
    Ye, I packed it in yesterday and put in back in box thinking its dead and threw the board in the freezer while I went to sleep. Talk about condensation, but when I came back and thought "let's give it a try" as I did with one of my overclocked phones which stopped booting, it worked right out first time.

    Have been messing a little more but the OS got corrupt and won't pick up IDE DVDRW anymore from which I need drivers urgently. RAM is bad, as in I took it to 2.85V and 2.90V for 2 hours and it did exactly the same latencies/MHz as it did at 2.35V. Nothing more. I just wanted it to get up to 3600MHz/450/1350 or be able to drop some latencies lower clock as they were v.high.

    My testing showed me this:
    tRFC 25-50 made no difference in 1M
    tRAS also did not make too much difference lower than 5.
    Performance Level also did nothing below 5 apart from increase instability.
    Don't recall the rest as I don't have access to the drive here.

    Will post some new testing scores soon. Need to find the limit before I can apply to test a tweak or I might just say the tweak worked whereas it hadn't and was just the hardware capability I hadn't raked.

  10. #185
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,792
    Just came back and started up again. Starting to tweak a little now from stock to see a 1M pattern on this board/CPU... no extra tweaks applied, just the timings you see. These ProMos chips absolutely gain nothing from voltage. 2.35V was tops that made a difference. I tried up to 2.90V, they were cool, but it gained zilch. CAS only changeable from BIOS and can't change Command Rate anywhere.


    Stock:
    2667/400/4-4-4-12: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268244 [screenshot + 1M = 19.047s]
    (the CAS5 is because I couldn't be bothered to reboot and manually change it since BIOS sets higher than SPD)

    Bit tweaked:
    3200/400/3-2-2-5: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268231 [screenshot]
    3200/400/3-2-2-2: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268249 [screenshot + 1M]
    3200/400/3-2-2-1: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268235 [screenshot + 1M]

    3200/500/4-4-4-9:
    http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268228
    3600/540/4-4-4-8: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268257

    DDR MHz limit @ 2.35V:
    650/5-5-5-15: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268262 [screenshot]
    656/5-5-5-15: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268232
    658/5-7-7-25: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268233
    660/5-7-7-25: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=268240
    Not tried lower latencies. The latter should do 5-5-5-17 at same volts.

    EVEREST showing VDIMM @ 649 5-5-5-18: Screenshot 2.35V

    Various clock/latency 1M tests. Timings kept loose, VDIMM 2.1-2.35V 1M.

    3483/653/5-5-5-18 1M = 14.609s:
    5-5-5-15 made no difference.

    3594.7/561.6/5-6-6-25 1M = 14.187s
    3600/450/4-5-5-13 1M = 14.172s
    3600/450/4-4-4-15 1M = 14.156s
    3594.7/561.6/5-5-5-15 1M = 14.141s
    3600/450/4-4-4-12 1M = 14.125s
    3600/562.5/5-5-5-18 1M = 14.016s:

    [3600 Idle TAT & Core Temp] [3600 14min loaded TAT and Core Temp]

    Talk about a strange bench. More coming soon...
    Last edited by KTE; 11-14-2007 at 09:37 PM.

  11. #186
    Xtreme Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    17,242
    what settings are you selecting in bios

    make sure you use Turbo memory setting at least
    Team.AU
    Got tube?
    GIGABYTE Australia
    Need a GIGABYTE bios or support?



  12. #187
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,792
    Quote Originally Posted by dinos22 View Post
    what settings are you selecting in bios

    make sure you use Turbo memory setting at least
    Chose 'Extreme' for all runs I posted and the 4-5 other values beneath that I left pretty much stock which was quite low. Can't access the drive here to check what they were but there were more runs. Was missing too many tools yesterday but I've got them today and will try some benches at night or tomorrow morn.

  13. #188
    Xtreme Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    17,242
    fine
    also look at memset as well and tighten it up

    your times are pretty slow
    Team.AU
    Got tube?
    GIGABYTE Australia
    Need a GIGABYTE bios or support?



  14. #189
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Baltics
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by dinos22 View Post
    your times are pretty slow
    Well, a 515x7 1:1 4-4-4-4 run on Asus P5K-E at PL=7 does ~13.92 secs 1M and with a clean OS around 13m20s to 13m24s 32M:

    Taskmanager before the run:
    http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/8994/5stockoj0.jpg

    32M:
    http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/3...2mstockub9.jpg

    Edit: should have mentioned, those timings I used aren't the tightest either

    Anyway, KTE, can't wait your 32M CDT C2D testing
    Last edited by mrlobber; 11-15-2007 at 06:20 AM.
    away & gone

  15. #190
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,792
    Quote Originally Posted by dinos22 View Post
    fine
    also look at memset as well and tighten it up

    your times are pretty slow
    Yeah there is a lot to be tightened up as I left them loose, just as I mentioned. But even though the times weren't supposed to be quick when I tested dropping EACH timing one and two notches at the same clock, the difference was negligible. I'm talking 0.02s-0.001s. I didn't even have Maxmem on those though and a 2GB pagefile and no LargeSystemCache. Still its a good base to test a tweak for me.

    Looking around if I compare my 3483/653/5-5-5-18 14.609s rough run to a tweaked 3520/660/5-5-5-15 14.265s I don't see much efficiency difference. But I'm stuck with these timings until I go back to get some Crucial.

  16. #191
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Far East
    Posts
    297
    here's my fastest run @ 2.4ghz 2x512mb @ ddr2 1200 cas5
    tweaks :
    LSC=1
    Pagefile=512/512
    CopyWazza=744MB
    Realtime Priority
    Processor Affinity=1 core
    Maxmem=600
    ERAM=412000



    will try the CDT & Hipro5 tweaks as soon as i get a new drive
    Last edited by DJSUB; 11-15-2007 at 08:33 AM.

  17. #192
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,792
    Nope. I just tried lower timngs at 3600/562.5 5-5-5-5 Perf.Level 6, it booted and the 1M time was 14.078s but I've lost my OS again for the 2nd time and it deleted the latest programs installed and files saved. C:\WINDOWS\system32\config\system gets corrupt each time and I have to reinstall and setup everything back again which is a PITA!!

    It's obvious that there is a hardware limitation here (RAM) so the only way I can compare properly is if people all run their best without CDT at the same fixed MHz/timings/sub-timings and make it quite doable. Or I have nothing to compare against simply put.
    But before I can move on, I had a feeling timings are not doing anything more than 0.1s to 1M here so I tested the supposed gain I can expect with RAM timings on P35/C2D, low stable MHz...

    LSC/Maxmem=600/PF=384=384/RealTime/SATA II 16MB

    Stock: 2667/400/4-4-4-12 19.047s: http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5060/stockallrd0.png
    2667/400/5-7-7-25 19.094s: http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6...board04pn7.png
    2667/400/5-6-6-20 19.063s: http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/3...board03ls7.png
    2667/400/5-5-5-18 19.047s: http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/2...board02ku2.png
    2667/400/5-4-4-4 19.094s w/ CDT (look at cache/mem): http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5...board01kw4.png
    2667/400/5-2-2-2 19.015s: http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8...board05as9.png

    Is this what everyone is getting?

    Someone please explain to me why there is hardly any gain (0.079s) from 5-7-7-25 to 5-2-2-2 in 1M especially considering people posting 0.1s lower time at the same clocks/latencies. Somethings wrong here. Also look at that CDT run, its the slowest, yet it has lowest tRFC and WTP.

  18. #193
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,714
    Because 5-7-7-25 is way to slow and 5-2-2-2 ain't faster.

    Try 5-3-3-11/13
    Where courage, motivation and ignorance meet, a persistent idiot awakens.

  19. #194
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Baltics
    Posts
    1,120
    Hmm, what's the exact problem here?

    KTE, it seems you can't run 3600mhz 514x7 1:1, can you?

    If not, what about 450x8 1:1? Both your board as well as RAM should be up to this task, and it's not that much slower than higher fsb runs which we have plenty to compare with. Moreover, you need to do the stock/copywaza/cdt comparison inside your system first, and only then we could start doing a comparison with runs other people have made.
    away & gone

  20. #195
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,792
    Quote Originally Posted by massman View Post
    Because 5-7-7-25 is way to slow and 5-2-2-2 ain't faster.
    I don't understand what you're saying massman.
    They weren't runs to show fastest time possible but to see effect of tRCD-tRP-tRAS on 1M. Let me explain how clear this is:

    I only changed major timings (tRCD-tRP-tRAS) that have a large supposed effect, no subtimings changed. That shows what effect each timing is having on 1M clearly. CAS had a bigger effect than all so I left it to 5 for all. Findings: Change in timings from 5-7-7-25 to 5-2-2-2 made not even 0.08s difference in 1M. Look at my results before at higher clocks, they are showing a very similar trend.
    So take for example my 3600/562/5-5-5-18 14.016s run... if I ran same MHz/subtimings but 5-5-5-5 according to this trend on my hardware I'm spotting the difference would be ~ -0.03s to 14.013s, but not much more. Either something is wrong, it's board difference or I'm missing something.

    Try 5-3-3-11/13
    Already did it. It was slower than 5-2-2-2, which is fastest (all things kept constant).

  21. #196
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,792
    Quote Originally Posted by mrlobber View Post
    KTE, it seems you can't run 3600mhz 514x7 1:1, can you?
    Nope, 475 is max FSB.

    If not, what about 450x8 1:1? Both your board as well as RAM should be up to this task, and it's not that much slower than higher fsb runs which we have plenty to compare with.
    Yep they can do that, but post the timings and sub-timings to try please. So I a can begin a comparison.

  22. #197
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Baltics
    Posts
    1,120
    They're not that important, the relative tweak comparison on your system is.

    But you can try these, just for example (Memset 3.3): http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/3...2mstockub9.jpg
    away & gone

  23. #198
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,792
    Quote Originally Posted by mrlobber View Post
    They're not that important, the relative tweak comparison on your system is.

    But you can try these, just for example (Memset 3.3): http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/3...2mstockub9.jpg
    I "think" the RAM maybe doable at high volts but not FSB/divider, no way. Closest this setup can do to that is 450x8/900 4-4-4-4 or 540 5-5-5-5 which I don't think is even 4M stable. Plus the hard drive is getting corrupt very quickly now, fitness already dropped to 92% and had over 3000 fragments. I'll try maybe tomorrow after reinstalling an OS. No OS yet.

  24. #199
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,714
    Quote Originally Posted by KTE View Post
    I only changed major timings (tRCD-tRP-tRAS) that have a large supposed effect, no subtimings changed. That shows what effect each timing is having on 1M clearly. CAS had a bigger effect than all so I left it to 5 for all. Findings: Change in timings from 5-7-7-25 to 5-2-2-2 made not even 0.08s difference in 1M. Look at my results before at higher clocks, they are showing a very similar trend.
    So take for example my 3600/562/5-5-5-18 14.016s run... if I ran same MHz/subtimings but 5-5-5-5 according to this trend on my hardware I'm spotting the difference would be ~ -0.03s to 14.013s, but not much more. Either something is wrong, it's board difference or I'm missing something.


    Already did it. It was slower than 5-2-2-2, which is fastest (all things kept constant).
    You're doing something wrong I think. All times tested on effects in 1M bench, keeping every other setting than the variable constant.



    Where courage, motivation and ignorance meet, a persistent idiot awakens.

  25. #200
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,792
    Yeah, that's why I posted the initial results so someone can notice that the timing/sub-timing change is not giving me any difference in results. Negligble difference which is not what I expected and not what others I saw were getting, incl yourself. There's nothing wrong I'm doing other than what everyone does, it's a standard simple procedure, all things are constant, but I think it's hardware related...

    Massman what CPU MHz/DDR MHz/latencies did you run those tests at? (so I can try them) I don't get those differences at all, no where near.

Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 567891011 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •