yosarianilives

Did you try to sub through hwbot then select the comp from the drop down menu you get immediately after subbing?

My point is that there is absolutely no way to tell a cheated sub from a non cheated sub if the person doing the cheat has any idea what they're doing. It's quite easy for someone to do like they did with cinebench and remove only part of the workload so that their score doesn't boost too much. Except we don't even have a finished render to show that they cheated. There is zero way to detect this cheat if done correctly. Absolutely zero.

Memory is set by a divider based on core multiplier on k8 chips. Certain dividers require even cpu multiplier and certain dividers require odd cpu multi. Also if you have option for half multiplier don't use it. All my testing found that it completely destroys scores, likely due to whatever screwy mem divider it has to run. Not sure if this is what Mr. Scott is referring to as I've only done AM2, but I know that 939 is similar as far as how the memory divider works.

My comment to Griff on insecure benches was in English, why did it too get censored? Every time I call for removal of points on two very insecure benches on this forum it gets censored every time, whether or not I share how to actually do it. It's not like people don't know the cheat already, it's unbelievably simple to do. The fact that aquamark and 3dmark03 still have points is an absolute joke and makes a mockery of the "integrity" of the database.

Export a datafile then just upload the datafile through hwbot.

If we're talking about pulling the benches, we can pull all points from both aqua and 3dmark03 because they have wide open security holes? Especially 3dmark03 as you can literally decide what your score will be with very little effort, anywhere from 1-1000% improvement if you want. I wonder if it's because of the large amount of points for the two bench. I hope mods are not worried about the outrage of pulling pts from insecure benches. Aqua I can understand not pulling as the cheat is small enough percentage that some "tweaks" may outweigh it. However, 3dm03 is completely insecure and should be pulled immiedately.

If we allowed the same members that cause mods to leave to run the site there would be no site.

Some people avoid asus. I've yet to see an asus board that wasn't a chip murderer. Of course I'd still use Asus any day of the week over gigabyte as asus boards actually function. I don't have much of any experience with asrock but I can see why people would prefer it over asus. Also for those slightly less precious than previously locked XTU golds you need the MOCF for that extra 0.03% bclk

Too much more of this and we'll run out of mods. How do the members not see that this self destructive trend cannot continue for long?

My experience for finding rare boards like this and others is the best way is to watch ebay every day for a few months and also watch the sell forum here. Sometimes you will find people asking way too much for boards and you have to decide if you'll give them their asking or walk away and sometimes you'll see instabuy deals and hope your PM beats out someone else's. Craigslist can also be a surprising source sometimes too. That's how I got 2x sr-2's for $80 a piece. As for dewars typically buying used is best, but it has it's downsides. I found a decent deal at $280 shipped for a 35l dewar on ebay for example, what I didn't expect was that it'd smell like rotting bull semen and be full of old test tubes. So if you ever decide to get a second dewar used, do be wary of cattle farmers ?

That sounds correct. I got a lot of 6 ST pcb sticks off ebay once and none of them could do 2600 tightish (CWL 7 and tighter Tertiarys with random tight secondaries) yet my very best stick that does 2750 mhz at same timings is ST pcb.

It is the only way. If a rule is applied you can't selectively choose the ones you "feel" are cheating. That would be a can of worms that nobody wants to open. Much better to just make a blanket statement and say that all results of a certain cpu with a certain version of cpuz could be bugged.

How about the mods? Anyways, bitching about something that does not follow the rules being taken down when the rules are established ahead of time is silly. If you have to use a larger monitor or a gpu that supports higher resolution how is this any different than requirement to use windows 7 on certain benches? People bitch about scores being taken down when they knew the rules prior to subbing. If you fail to properly validate your submission then who's fault is it? It's not the mods fault, they don't run the bench for you. When you get pulled over for driving 65 in a 45 do you complain to the judge that the law is stupid or do you recognize your own mistake and pay the ticket? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I think we have only ourselves to blame for this. If people didn't cheat then we could trust every result. This end up meaning we have to enforce the letter of the law instead of only intent.

Tonight when I get home from work I can do some testing if I find my watt meter

Finally got it uploaded, this is with bios f4, it should clear up any confusion of if this is a timekeeping bug or something else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5JgJpcPoek

This got me thinking and so I tested 2.3.4, it's even faster than 3.1 or 3.2. Got 1m 18s in both 3.1 and 3.2, got 1m 13s in 2.3.4. Finally found a stopwatch so should have a video up shortly. Edit: So just tested on bios f5 (newer, slower, agesa) and both 3.2 and 3.1 are about a second faster than 2.3.4, need to test on r8a (even newer agesa) on f7 (new cpu microcode, not agesa) 2.3.4 is once again about 5-6 seconds faster and 3.1/3.2 score identically as they did in f5. in f8a 2.3.4 is only about 2 seconds faster than 3.2/3.1 so the new agesa once again changes the balance.

I don't think it's sse4, it's probably ssse3 which is also the reason that you can't run timespy cpu test on k10 cpus and also why 775 destroys k10 for a lot of benches.

So one annoyance I've found with f4 on the ud4h is that it apparently doesn't have unlocked multiplier on my 3870k, not that it matters 3 ghz on f4 obliterates 4 ghz on f8a which does have multiplier control in bios. Will upload a video as soon as I can find a stopwatch that isn't my phone.

The sr2 bug was a timekeeping bug. It is completely different from that bug as the work is getting done exactly as fast as it says it is. So the only way that it could be a bug is if the amount of work getting done was different. I will upload a video with stopwatch soon, currently doing my own testing and seeing the exact same thing. It might be a bug, however it would be absolutely stupid to call it a time keeping bug as it's clearly not. Comparing it to a timekeeping bug is comparing apples to oranges. So since the only way it could be a bug is if it's affecting the workload I ask again, how do you propose that the agesa is altering the workload?

They can be way slower, you forget the tlb bug that was patched on 1st gen k10 which took easily 30% performance because it just disabled the tlb. You guys keep asking "why would amd lower their opencl performance" well if something raises performance in one very specific scenario that can't be seen anywhere else but causes system lock ups in some specific enterprise scenario wouldn't you disable it? This could just as well be a patch of some obscure tlb or predictive cache algorithm that fixed an obscure system lockup scenario but absolutely murders performance for a different edge case. How would you propose that this agesa is altering the workload as it clearly hasn't affected timekeeping?

I'm sorry, but wut!? You're comparing 1st gen k10 to 3rd gen k10. They're not remotely the same, like at all. Huge difference in amount of cache and cache layout to start as well as actual slight improvements to the arch even over k10.5 (deneb/thuban) with things like a better hw prefetcher. A much better comparison if you want to compare to another k10 based chip would be a phenom II. Anyways not sure why you're all so confused that a certain agesa is faster even if it's older, look at 1st gen ryzen where past a certain agesa wprime scores suck. That's a modern platform where newer agesa totally messed up latency for certain operations. Hell it could be just like the agesa that launched with 1st gen k10 that disabled the tlb. Just because it's worse at opencl loads doesn't mean there was a bug related to opencl.

I don't know any ambient numbers, I only have a phase change to test on. Spreadsheet should show r11.5 speed on 6 cores

B-die isn't gonna care that it's been at 1.9v, doesn't degrade it in the slightest. What it damages is the semi-fragile IMC on the cpu.

Not on the mocf, but I did get 32gb to 4000 mhz on z270 soc, so the IMC is capable of it. http://hwbot.org/submission/3779670_yosarianilives_3dmark2001_se_hd_graphics_630_63783_marks