3.06 @ 4.44 GHz ... could it be...?

[JCviggen]

Guys....


First off, I am not going to start another [H] thing .... but I wanted to show you something

here's an old thread from Gibbo at amdmb on the "speed cheat" and how to detect fake scores...

http://www.amdforums.com/showthread....ht=speed+cheat

here's a quote

Obviously there will always be a spot of 'experimental error' as no 2 runs give exactly the same result, but it can be used as a general guide.

So, the easy way to do this for someone's posted results is divide their score by the score for a 1.0 CPU (in this case TBird) given by Sandra...

To take his ALU Dhrystone score from the CPU bench:

4862/2805 = 1.733


So, ******* claim:

CPU Benchmark
ALU = 4862 Dhrystones ~1.733GHz
FPU = 2763 Whetstones ~2.009GHz

CPU Multimedia Benchmark
Integer MMX Enh = 9648 it/s ~1.766GHz
Floating Point 3DNow! = 11171 it/s ~1.633GHz


Gibbo's reality:
CPU Benchmark
ALU = 5092 Dhrystones ~1.815GHz
FPU = 2516 Whetstones ~1.829GHz


Hope this helps everyone

Now ...

Those who read [H]'s fantastic article by Steven Lynch, may have noticed the PCM score is only 9500 +/-
This puts his 4.44 GHz system right on par with ... a 3.7 GHz P4 ....
Kickass...
Of course no compare link to see the actual speed it was running

I forgot to mention that this beast is cooled by a Vapochill PE - no kidding!
4.44 GHz@1.85V .... poor vapochill.... must see 15-20C load temps on the core... but ok thats not the point.
Also the other benchmark has an error written in it but I dont know the significance of that...

Basically, the only thing which I consider real is the 4.44 GHz POST ... which is not that important since I could POST at more than 4.5 GHz with my 3.06 but it didnt run any higher than 3150 for 3D still.... so a POST isnt important

Then, what we have left is the SiSoft sandra screenshots. We know that the "speed cheat" will deform sandra scores slightly since it simply multiplies them linearly...

remember from Gibbo's earlier proof that in the CPU bench, the FPU will be too high compared to the Int ... and the other way around for the multimedia test.

look at this... the math here is...

we take the 2.80 SMT system as reference for the SMT score at 4.44 GHz. Since SiSoft counts pretty damn predictable, (you can try that on your own comp) it will always be right within some margin.... the CPU speed that is. The FPU and ALU should still come down to roughly the same clock speed



The CPU speed in the calculation came out too high, but not that high that its very obvious... the margin of error still acceptable here... but the difference between the ALU and FPU is definately a speed hack signature...



can it be more obvious..? 4.90 GHz is getting more than 4.44 by quite a margin now...


to sum things up.... the Sandra screenies clearly show the speed cheat being applied... without this program the values would never be so far apart....
The only thing which is more or less un-fakable is PCmark, and we see an amazingly LOW score there, on par with a 3.7 GHz Pentium 4... thats about 750 MHz short of 4.44 though.


I'll let everyone make up their own mind about this .... but using speed cheat when you have a CPU actually running 4.44 would seem unnecessary

THIS IS NOT A 100% SURE WAY to see if its actually been cheated .... just something to think about, nothing more. Its not like we care so lets not waste too much energy on it thats my suggestion...

[Cucumber]

That web-site seem pretty dodgy nowadays....check this



Why would they run the FX at a faster CPU clock speed than the 9700Pro in their review? Perhaps giving Nvidia an extra lead in that particular benchmark....

Very strange

Oh and im new round these parts, so hey people

[sysfailur]

JC...

When I saw this just now, I myself was like "WTF?" when I see it was cooled by a vapo. That was the first thing... then another that popped into my head was hand picked 3.06.....

I can just see a whole nother world of pain once the word on this gets out :P

[Gibbo]

Hi there

Been a long time since I was on here, so first of all hello to some old friends like ddtung, Oppainter, JCviggen and Macci and all the other top tweakers and clockers I used to speak to.

JCviggen and me have been speaking on MSN and I've too come to the conclusion that [H] results seem very high for their claimed CPU speed, so quite possibly fake maybe?

I also find it hard to believe that a VAPO PE can cool a P4 @ 4.5Ghz with 1.85v been shuffed thru it, let alone the CPU been stable.

Like has been said why no compare url for PC Mark and why did't they run 3D Mark, they got something to hide???

Here's a post on OcUK's forums of my 2.26@3.15Ghz!!
Not sure how good for comparison that is as maybe I have different version of software but that is what my system gets.

[JCviggen]

btw for good measure I compared their 4.44 GHz benches (sandra) with THEIR OWN of a 3.06 @ 3.11 GHz (a 50 MHz OC should be ok lol) and compared to this, the 4.44 bench would have been running at 4.48 and 4.62 alu/fpu ...

[Charles Wirth]

P4PE @ 3.9Ghz Max stable speed, mice does the same...

Shrug where they 4.44Ghz max stable, let alone claim no switcharoo because that PCMark does not belong in that set of pictures.

[JCviggen]

well in the original 3.06 review they had a sandra bench same version etc at 3.68 GHz ... the calculation came out to 3.672 and 3.70 ... note that one is a tad lower, the other a bit higher ... not both sky high above the speed its supposed to be running

[gobbo]

4.44Ghz @ 1.9v on a Vapochil PE and stable for benchmarks?? (i LOVE that one)

Do we REALLY look that stupid??

Edit: Vcore, thanx sysfailure

[sysfailur]

Just wanted to note, they said 1.9v @ 4.44ghz just for your information... I see 3 people saying 1.85v.

"4.44GHz ended up being the fastest stable speed we could run the system at, although it did require boosting the Vcore to 1.90v. "

[charlie]

Oh man!
Here we go again! Look at ahh the kiss-ass sycophants over at [H] forum worshipping this "feat" as the second coming...
Pathetic. If he's gonna' fake something, he should at least make it believable!
C

[Wolf]

Those newbs over at Hardocp now don't have a clue. Kyle really needs to quit letting Steve screw over what little credibility he has left.

[]JR[]

Erm well look at the mflops, and then the mips compared to the xp2200 and the supposed sandra pr rating.

And also in the real world i think we shold abolish sandra for benchies except for unbuffered mem bw's, although rambus scores always seem a lil optimistic.

gibbo's up late, must be open the window for performance aircooling time

edit : havent been to the [H] for a long while, it would make my comp cry even before the ht sketch show...

]JR[

[sysfailur]

Here's something x2sandman just did! he's much faster than hardocp....

[x2sandman]

they have nothing on my blazing rig.....stock P4 HS btw

[k1114]

I dont think the scores are fake, but I definately dont think that 4.44 is stable, only stable enough to run some benches. Notice that he didn't even run 3dmark? Would have been a nice score!

[charlie]

I don't believe the tests here's why>>

Even I can post my 2.66 @ 3760 at ddr501...I can only run Sandra at 3640 max...
If I had a digi-camera, I also could take a picture of a post screen.
The pcmark tests are obviously at <4gHz.
Here's why they didn't run 3dmark2k1...this data is electronically sent and verified to a third party. With this "heroic" attempt at OC'ing why can they only get 425R9700 core speeds? Because they didn't want to run a 3dmk2k1 benchie and show 20k ish scores. After all...all their sycophants would expect 23k...cuz JC got 22 with "only" 4.1gHz......
PhotoChop A-
OverClocking C-
Charlie

[OPPAINTER]

Gibbo, Long time no see

Hey, have you guys ever tryed a R404A VapoChill??
They can bench pretty high, you'd be surprized how much better R404A will do at removing heat

OPP

[Raptor]

Again Hardocp? Didn't they learned the lesson?

It's funny how can they match a Vapochill PE with Holicho's benchs with LN2!!! :P

[charlie]

Mines Better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:p

[JCviggen]

Originally posted by OPPAINTER
Gibbo, Long time no see

Hey, have you guys ever tryed a R404A VapoChill??
They can bench pretty high, you'd be surprized how much better R404A will do at removing heat

OPP

does a 404 prometeia count?

[Aaron]

I just don't know what to say. [/shaking fist at the heavens screaming Why god? Why?]

I am really sick of this garbage. I was so close to laying down a ton a green because of the bogus numbers in the 3.06 review, lucky I found this place and learned the truth. Now they are pimping out Vapos, wtf? You just know both of those are free review models. The best part is that ASETek was linking the article from there main page last night. This article is dated today. What it take them all of like 20 seconds to find it and link it up? Doubt it.

Now the highest official OC belongs to Asetek as far as Joe Blow is concerned. I gotta think that if they knew H was BSing the #'s they would distance themselves from this. I love the way Kyle came out with the GeforceFX IQ thing the other day too. He was all like "We just want to give you the straight poop, no BS" ummmm ok, liar. It seems like that's all that one can find at HardOCP these days. Way to blow a hole in a sinking ship Steve. Once these guys lose all credibility they're done. What a bunch of tool boxes

[OPPAINTER]

Originally posted by JCviggen
does a 404 prometeia count?

Why, do you have one??

OPP

[OPPAINTER]

Originally posted by MickeyMouse
doesn't/Didn't "MACCI" use 404 phase change for his cpu/gpu??

Yea he does

OPP

[JCviggen]

Originally posted by OPPAINTER
Why, do you have one??

OPP

tried one
you know how the temp sensor on the IT7 gives up at -25C? Well my reading on the core was n/a most of the time... only with a lot of voltage and high clocks I'd see some temps



[H] do seem to emphasize the Vapochill bit... although I wouldnt go into any Asetek/[H] conspiracies not this time.
If you go out and buy a Vapo PE and 3.06 P4, you are likely to reach between 3.8 and 4.0
fast enough, but with some room for dissapointment....

[Aaron]

Are the new ones that R134 crap?