A little birdie told me...

[Ace123]

Well it kind of seems this go around you are questioning the record just to do so. Im not saying thats what you ARE doing, just how you come off ATM.

[chew*]

Well it kind of seems this go around you are questioning the record just to do so. Im not saying thats what you ARE doing, just how you come off ATM.

Exactly. To do so against individuals with some of the highest credibility in the game is rather insulting. My 2 cents.

Afaik all 8 were @ 8.7. Fwiw they have bench scores all cores

[ShrimpBrime]

Congratulations Mr. The Stilt! Very impressive indeed!

#1

EDIT: Now can I de-lid it for you??

[BeepBeep2]

Exactly. To do so against individuals with some of the highest credibility in the game is rather insulting. My 2 cents.

Afaik all 8 were @ 8.7. Fwiw they have bench scores all cores

But I wasn't, so don't say I was? Though I'm sorry if it looked that way to you?
If you knew me, you know I wouldn't question any of those guys about legitimacy of results. It's just that the way the ASUS article was written, it was centered around a CPU-Z valid and we all know how CPU-Z works.

The number of cores enabled do not matter for this argument as far as CPU-Z goes. 8 cores could be enabled, but for the valid, hell, 6 of them could have been running 1800 MHz. The ASUS article made it seem like all were 8.7 which goes against normal procedure when highest frequency is only necessary on 1(2) cores...It's not rocket science, the valid is taken on whatever core you choose to take it on regardless of how many cores are actually running...Having bench scores on all cores is one thing. Pushing for max CPU-Z (and I'm sure there are backups?) usually all cores obviously wouldn't be "pushed" like the article said...

What I really meant was that the article seemed to make it look like all the cores were at 8.7 (or close), which makes zero sense for a CPU-Z valid. That's why I called the article misleading. When I asked for "proof", it was a lighthearted question, not really to make anyone butthurt or claim the 8.7 was bull. There wasn't even anything to claim against, a CPU-Z valid is a CPU-Z valid... and I know quite well what The Stilt and Macci are capable of, obviously. I'm not stupid.

There was never any intent to cause so much drama and if you thought I was calling them out, you should know I would never do such a thing. And if the CPU is capable of 8.7 on all cores, I hope it lives forever and spawns many nice results.

I have active all cores, but they are at lower P-state (exmaple I leave it at around 3-5 GHz with LN2). The others two are at validation frequency.

This.
This is usually what occurs, no?
The ASUS article seemed to claim this wasn't happening (ie. All cores "pushed") where there was nothing to base the info off of due to the nature of CPU-Z's validation process.

If it wasn't, that's cool! 8.7 on 8 cores is really cool! What a freak CPU... I just wanted to see that, or maybe ASUS should re-word their article to be less confusing or misleading.

All of which has nothing to do with calling out the actual result.

Well it kind of seems this go around you are questioning the record just to do so. Im not saying thats what you ARE doing, just how you come off ATM.

I think if you look at the article I was questioning and the wording of said article combined with the fact that the article is centered around a CPU-Z validation you'll see that I'm not questioning the record at all. 8 cores enabled with 2 cores pushed and 8 cores pushed to validated frequency are two different things. Normal benching logic would say the first case occurred hence why I called the article misleading. If the second case occurred, then it's a monster of a CPU and the guys should be really happy and proud, but I wasn't questioning any record, that's silly.

Context matters.