Hyperhorn

Hi MAFRI, sorry for the late answer. The tool I used for this result is MSI Afterburner, but it's not the only one you can use.

Congrats for establishing a WR in Super Pi 16K/980X@1 Core/2:6 divider/Win 7/uploaded on Wednesday category! Did you prepare backup scores of your backups scores for my backup scores of my backup scores done with LHe aleady? In this case let me tell you: Nice score, but I might have sth. up on my sleeve. btw whatever you will put up next - it´s NOT FAIR, because my grandma can´t be #1 anymore then - dirty cherry-picker.

I would like to agree, but actually I like tweaks, magic or not. So you started 12 years ago to bench 3DMark 2001 (released 2001) and Aquamark 3 (released 2003)? Maybe you overclocked your daily routine or it is connected to a so you can´t remember exactly? j/k

Interesting BIOS version Awesome result, CPU, UCLK, RAM on the edge - perfect match!

Do me a favor George and push it as hard as you can! I know you can do it better!

Perfect result, congrats! :ws:

Nice RAM! I like the mounting of the 2nd container.

All in all I´m fine with the sharing rules atm. If >I< had to decide about the CPU sharing in 3D benchmarks and could ensure no CPU will be ever shared again (= supposition only) I think I would not allow sharing. But it is allowed right now and I can´t see a stunning domination of a team caused by this rule. Even if there would be THE uber-chip out there (7 GHz @ 3D i7-980X or so ) it will degrade or die after 5, 10 or even 50 LN2-sessions and out-performed by a new chip generation. So excessive sharing might boost a team/group of users in the rankings, but in the long-term they would need an almost infinite source for golden cherries. But if that happens, I see no reason why you shouldn´t be able to get 5,10 oer 20 of these kind of CPUs as you will need powerful insider-contacts or a truckload of money and at this stage just a sharing rule will not bring brack "the balance". btw 1Day, long time no see

I shouldn´t just look at the top scores for max freq. results, thx for the link. Kudos to Blind! I remember his Celeron D 352 results now. It´s really ironic that these CPUs are FSB-limited at > 8 GHz. Certainly it´s an interesting find about the PSU factor - I will keep my faithful OP1000 for sure.

Wow, excellent result! At first it peeved me that I´ve lost a place in the 32M ranking, but now I noticed it´s because of this result and I have a smile on my face. What are the highest frequencies 32M finished at you know about? At Hwbot it seems to be 7,501 MHz for Pentium 4 Cedar Mill and 7,680 MHz for Celeron Cedar Mill achieved by a lunatic guy.

Sick FSB/RAM combination CR 1T? (Memset shows 2T)

It`s retail, baby! Thanks for showing this one and Congrats.

The most ridiculous thing is, that so many of the members here perform illegitimate RMAs for Intel-CPUs but pretend to care about the legal status of an ES-CPU - sanctimoniousness at its best. And FYI if Intel sends you or me an ES-CPU for testing purposes, they want to get the CPU tested. "Owning" on a lawful basis does not have anything to do with Hwbot, otherwise we would upload attachements of bills and notarially certified deeds of ownership. What Hwbot wants, is, that your whole team doesn`t benefit from a single CPU by distributing it to every member. So "Owning" is not "Having access to" is not "Using for Hwbot scores" ... btw 6.6 GHz @ AM3 + 6.55 GHz @ Pifast done with retail i7-980X: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=253332 Some further thoughts about ES CPUs I placed here already: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3927200&postcount=116 --> Idealism and being able to hold a competition are two total different things. Same goes for many, many (cheap OEM) CPUs, which were never released officially. *cough* E8700 *cough* @hipro/hiwa: Sure you`re still on topic?

Ticket ID: 882 Priority: Low I want to ask you to create a category for the Athlon II X2 260u with 1.8 GHz (locked/max. multi = 9) and 25 Watt TDP.\r\n\r\nI`ve made a validation, but it was - as annoying as usual - rejected: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1179163\r\nSo I also made a picture to proove, I´ve benched this CPU - that`s how it looks like: http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=img_1373_hyperhorn_9009zxd.jpg\r\nMore specs, e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Phenom_microprocessors

CPU-Z validator doesn`t want to reconize my validations these days. I`ve uploaded several cvf-files done with different AMD CPUs and setups and they were all rejected without a single exception. Another example: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1145535 As long Hwbot doesn`t decide to delete ALL rejected results, I ask for fair dos based on the fact it`s not even close to a Top 20 score, too...

Thanks buddy, always appreciated! I´ll try again if I find some free time.

Happy Birthday Mr. Hwbot! :celebration: Initially I wanted to wait until 0 am, but I`m sooo tired.

...perfect for lame backup games.

I know you can do it. Edit: Thank you so much!

While I see your basic problem about missing/false details regarding the used cooling method, I think you have to differ which component was cooled. Massman`s entry is correct - it`s the graphics card`s stock cooler and liquid nitrogen only for the CPU as seen on the setup picture. "Cooling" in the main view of the 3D categories belongs to the graphics card, not the CPU.

Happy birthday! :celebration: One year closer to the old-age pension...

Benchmarks at hwbot are about competition, reliability and scalability regarding overclocking and do not necessarily represent real world/gaming/folding/whatever performance. The reason why I mentioned these programs is, that we are on the way to a new era of how to use graphics cards. Once there`s a solid, uniform programmability given, I would like to see graphics cards benchmarks which don`t focus on the speed of image representation, but the pure speed of calculation. To create decent 3D benchmarks with top-notch technique is very expensive and time consuming. While the origins of the 2D benchmarks used by hwbot are totally different, 3D is dominated by Futuremark. Without critizing Futuremark I think hwbot should try to stay as much independent as possible. Just imagine Futuremark go bankrupt - no new benchmarks, no patches, no driver approval, no Hall of Fame, no validation, just nothing. It would heavily affect hwbot even if hwbot would have done everything right regarding their own obligations. To use the programmability of (up-coming) graphics cards might bring back a certain independence to hwbot and the whole overclocking community, might reduce the importance of superior CPUs as parts of a 3D setup and helps hwbot to stay diversified. The best example at the moment is MaxxPi in my opinion - done by a single, hard-working guy. I`ve never seen anything close to this at the classic 3D section from a private individual. I hope this will change soon.

I wonder why people always try to highlight their favorite company/products and then hwbot should change something to fix the imbalance. Should I complain about 3dfx, Matrox, Cyrix or Via? I guess not, but in case Intel is better for benching nowadays, it doesn`t mean this will never change. It`s the same lame idea about splitting the ranking into AMD and Intel. Do I get a Cyrix CPU ranking then? What about Transmeta, IDT and so on? Splitting is not the right way to go, rather sub-categories which affect the final score (e.g. extra points for the fastest Phenom II and so on) without splitting. So it`s basically not the question which CPU manufacturer is ahead speed-wise, but the problem, that 3D depends on your - let`s say - 2D-unit AND your graphics cards obviously, while for 2D benchmarks you don`t have to care about your graphics card overclocking abilities. So you have some 2D benchmarks, some 2.5D benchmarks and sometimes 3D benchmarks. What happened to "Super Pi for GPUs", which was mentioned @ XS long time ago? Cuda-Z sounds good, too. I think within the next 6-12 months we will see some progress when it comes to raw GPU calculation benchmarks. Fermi will help here for sure, but we need something which is suitable for graphics cards, which fulfill certain key data to be able to run the benchmark (like DX 10 for Vantage) instead of the right manufacturer logo.

Oh, nice chip! Quite accidentally I did my first i5-661 tests @ air today and tested the Trinergy at some weeks ago @ air, too. So it`s good to see what the hardware is capable of under subzero conditions. ...but 03 screen resolution sucks.

Great work, congrats dinos!