sofos1990

Thank you guys. Yeap, Hynix mems.

Nice one Ian!

Thank you

Very nice.

Nice!

Very nice!

Thanks for the report Holger

Check again !

Didn't know it I thought that after Andre told this bug someone fixed it on the newer version of XTU. Hmm too bad it's Sunday here and my LN2 supplier is closed. Maybe tomorrow I will give it a try.

It's pci 3 Dinos. When the card is idle is pci 1 and when it loads goes to pci 3.

Nice George. Mine has bclk wall at 106.6. Maybe 4340s better than 4570Ts in terms of bclk.

Great score for 5700!

Thank you guys. Goddy I never had a problem with M6E. To be honest I've never heard for a dead cpu due to motherboard except you're talking about high voltages.

Also physics test of 3dmark 11 is good for stability.

You should test every single chip on ln2. Air is just to check the chip. If one of those had -120 - -130 cb maybe it was a 6.3 3d chip.

Maybe you guys are running with a different order, I don't know. Only Strategos has a very high Nature.

I'm not 100% but after a quick test at 6200 seems that 6.6 ivy is faster.

Wish they were that fast on am3 as well!!

Indeed, very efficient run Maxim. Well done!

Nice chip there Bullant. Does it scale with voltage?

James I don't put the blame on you for this situation with pcmark. You are not responsible for this. I just say that if this benchmark can't be controlled there is no reason to exist. As for publishing what you told me. Sorry, I just realized my mistake and I deleted this part of my post. Anyway for me it's over. I won't bench again pcmark so I don't have to worry about it.

http://hwbot.org/submission/2335279_moose83_pcmark_2005_core_i7_extreme_975_56182_marks Knut, even if I had reported some scores that don't seem ok to me the truth (and prove me wrong if it's different) is that noone would had done something more than see the report. Roman and pro has been told about some results months ago and you see that nothing happened until now. So how this benchmark can still exist with 0 moderation? Moose, that's what I'm talking about. The scaling on this benchmark is strange and to be honest noone knows it. It's not like 3dmark that from score to score the difference is 2-3-4-5 fps. On some tests here we are talking about thousands and hundreds of points as you mentioned Mike's TW which I've been very close and my VS on 555. You can't say that are true but you can't also say that they are not. I strongly believe that they are OK but will you report them? Are you 100% sure that these scores are illegal?

Of course noone will report it as long as I heard that dual arecas can be combined even if I don't know how. That's why supposed that pro is pcmark moderator. He should had asked Moose how is that possible and test it. I can't report a score that is right. As you see Moose never asked about it and noone removed his score. I say again that his score is OK but once he doesn't want to give further info then it should be removed. I could use ramdisk and get 1200 GU and never been asked about it but I didn't...

Valid FM links is the last thing Mike lol. There are more serious problems here. Sometime FM links are like cpuz validations. You think that they are OK but they aren't. As for the first part of your post I agree. My motivation is the global points if pcmark will stop getting points then I will stop bench it and I think most of the guys will do the same. Maybe I would bench pcmark when I wouldn't have something else to spend my weekend.

Excuse me Knut but there is no active thread for anything around pcmark as it seems. Moose's score with dual arecas is up from 12/12/12. Don't tell me that almost one year you're trying to contact Moose for this. You see on your own that noone from the staff cares about it and to go one step further, noone will care.