mickulty

If the GPUPI poll has proved anything it's that you shouldn't worry too much about the complaints of a couple of individuals. I'm all for cheap and cheerful OC of course, but let me tell you everyone in /r/oc is loving the team cup as you've done it. Look at it this way, 32 stages and not a single complaint about the vast majority of them, that's pretty impressive.

Fair point, wouldn't want to risk hardware. We should just run at stock.

Awesome work mat, brilliant how fast you nailed this as well!

Sorry if this is an annoying question but I just want to be 100% clear before I burn LN2 - so the 280X is fine since it's listed as tahiti?

To be fair to yos, if Zosma isn't Thuban it's fair to wanna be sure that Grenada is Hawaii before buying a card.

You're in the EU right? Shipping shouldn't be too painful and I have 3 other team members working on the stage so no issue for the comp, PM me your address and I can send you my UD4H.

Firstly, I think you should defer to mat's opinion as to whether it's bugging the output. I'll send my UD4H to austria for him to check over it with a fine-tooth comb and replicate himself if I have to. I do however hope this means you agree that if it is for sure doing the work that's different and it's fine. Secondly, it's not 2m40 to under a minute. It's 2m15 to 1m17. Point of information. Slowest 3570K score, at the stock 4GHz, is 1m05 on the much slower GPUPI 2.3.4. I agree that it may be worth temporarily removing the good scores, but only on the understanding that it's fully looked into and when - in my opinion it is a when - it's agreed even by the developer that it's not bugging anything, the work is being done and the timing is correct, the scores should 100% be allowed. Regarding the Intel comparison, Intel CPUs just suck as OpenCL targets. Intel's OpenCL runtime is bad, anyone who benches GPUPI knows this, and AMD's is obviously targeted to AMD chips. You can see this in ryzen's relative gpupi efficiency and fx vs lga2011.

The bios is the whole thing man, need to be crystal clear about that. BTW I put up 3.3 results as well: https://imgur.com/a/lUQee6G If mat says the work is really being done and the timing is really correct, ivy doesn't matter, you can't say this cpu isn't allowed to be faster than that other cpu if it is actually doing the work. To me this is like calling 3dmark01 on a 1080ti cheated because a score with an LN2 7700K is so much higher than a score with an FX-8350.

It's not an exploit. Stop trolling.

I'd love to hear what mat thinks of that.

Using the one from the 6450 drivers. 2.9.1 would make sense but the best info is probably from the GPUPI detection. Which exact boards and which exact bios versions are you using? OS and drivers *shouldn't* make a difference if the theory is correct. Looks to me like the slower runs are real too. Which brings us to... Regarding the comparison to other available hardware: an early GB FM1 board should be easier to find than three venice A64s or two Vega Ms or three different 9800 variants or three different PCIe 6800 variants or three different HD 2900 variants etc etc - once the scores are externally (to /r/oc) confirmed as well it's hardly unfair to allow them. And besides it's not as if we're keeping this supertweak quiet, anyone can use it and I'm more than happy for my results to be spread far and wide. Also it's really easy to flash bios backwards with Q-flash, no worries about trying to get the right bios on the board unlike with stages that need non-k skylake oc to score well.

I made this argument to leeg before the competition started - it is on the same package as the CPU, but is connected with PCIe 3.0 x8 (over EMIB rather than the motherboard but still) and exclusively uses its own HBM rather than system memory. The only IGP-like thing about it is the shared power management. Apparently it's allowed, and we get a lot of people with different hardware on /r/overclocking so we easily found a user willing to bench it competitively. As a result, however hard you OC no-one without Vega M will be able to touch our score for that stage. I think Skull Canyon NUCs start at $700 for the OC locked Vega M GL version (DDR4 SODIMMs sold separately), have fun. Alternatively since afaik no-one has gone out and bought one for the comp I'd still totally support them being retroactively banned. We have to take advantage, if we don't someone else will, but it's not how I wanna win stages.

Replicated the efficiency, this is a full stock 3870K with minimal OS tuning kicking the crap out of every other 3870K score on the board GPUPI_for CPU_100M_01m-18.433s-NOSS.result System is using an A75-UD4H, 4x1GB SS D9JN sticks, Intel X25-M SSD and HD 6450. Steps taken to reproduce: Place motherboard on OBT Install CPU, RAM and GPU Connect all cables and peripherals Install Windows 7 SP1 (in my case from a disc image that includes .net 4.5) Set visual elements to max performance, power plan to max performance, disable UAC (this really shouldn't matter much...) Install HD 6450 series GPU drivers (15.7.1 WHQL) Download GPUPI 3.2 (NOT legacy version) from https://www.overclockers.at/news/gpupi-international-support-thread Run benchmark There are slower scores out there with a UD4H so I seriously doubt it's related to the board but I have an asrock A55 board I can try if people want, more likely it's the openCL version though. This is my first time running GPUPI on this platform and I didn't do anything I wouldn't have done anyway so from this first test I'm not sure how other people are so slow. EDIT: For my own satisfaction I threw the asrock board on the bench with the X4 631 and random ram it happened to have in it, hooked up the same OS and... 2m42s. Probably shouldn't have opened that can of worms at nearly 1am, I'll have to look into it tomorrow. EDIT2: Speedup is on bios versions F2-F4 on the A75-UD4H. F5, which updates AGESA to 1.1.0.3, loses the speedup (1m20s to 2m16s full stock 3870K). I'm not sure what the mechanism behind it is but it's not timer, and I'd hope the work is getting done because if it's not then GPUPI 3.2 is badly broken. EDIT3: Similar speedups happen on GPUPI 3.0.1 and 3.3.2 legacy. Screenshots in an imgur album because this post is long enough already: https://imgur.com/a/lUQee6G (by the by, what's with the hwinfo regression?)

Some people are gonna want the VOD; EDIT: Starts at 1h14m40s roughly. I know some people are wondering if there's a timer bug, check for yourself with a stopwatch.

From an ebay listing for old CPUs described by the seller as "UNTESTED FOUND IN A BOX", I believe the seller honestly had no idea what they were selling nor how they would test it. I'm unlikely to ever have a Socket 4 board to try this with, and I'd rather sell it to someone who will at least try it than just sell it to someone who will scrap it for the gold. With that said, I have absolutely no idea if it works and 100% of the value should be considered to be either for scrap or as an art piece. Chip arrived with pins bent, no attempt has been made to repair but for its onward journey it'll be well packaged to avoid any further damage. Asking price: £5.00 GBP Postage to UK: £2.85 GBP Postage to Europe (inc turkey, russia): £4.40 GBP Postage to most of the rest of the world: £5.50 GBP Postage to AU and NZ: £6.00 GBP Postage with tracking/signature can be arranged at extra cost. Pictures; I'll leave this up for a week or so, then if there's no interest at all probably dump it on ebay for scrap and likely end up making more money. EDIT: no longer available (gone to ebay)

Mods and admins are people too. Maybe it was because acting like a giant dick towards them is as bad as acting like a giant dick towards anyone.

100% agree with the principle that if you're specifying a socket and core count then the 1p Xeons should be allowed, they're a surprisingly popular retail alternative for gamers so it lets people get into proper competitive benching. Not sure about stuff like higher core count LGA2011, not a fan of situations where the strongest hardware is either locked or rare lol

Good to have you man

Brilliant, thanks - needed this to show SPD for DDR1 frequency on the 4CoreDual-SATA2

For the reasons I gave in my message I think it is a dedicated GPU But alright. The important thing is we're clear, and that it's out in the open now rather than having to deal with an outcry halfway through after spending £720 on locked hardware.

Just to confirm, does "Only use build in GPU of the processor. No dedicated GPUs allowed." for stage 7 mean Vega M isn't allowed? Sorry if it should be obvious, I just like to be sure (and some team members like to convince themselves it's still unclear...)

I don't think that means what you think it means, full disclosure would be immediately making everything public including a guide to using the exploit. Responsible disclosure is the practice of reporting vulnerabilities to those who would fix them first, giving them everything they would need to fix it, and then setting a clear deadline for when you go public. By setting a clear deadline you encourage action rather than people just hoping the vulnerability isn't found by bad guys, this is the way that for example google project zero do it and is standard practice in infosec. Obviously it's not suitable where the benchmark isn't actively maintained, but for XTU it seems appropriate.

What responsible disclosure deadline did you give them? Did you share steps to reproduce with Intel, and any other active benchmark developers?

why

Is this the same as previous years where all submissions need different hardware? If so, how does this work for the dual DIMM DDR1 frequency stage?