mickulty

I know I'm sorta double posting here but I want to make a separate post for the on-topic stuff rather than the discussion that needs cleaning. Some community-oriented reasons to stick with 1-core valids; OC is sold to people as "drag racing for computers" - doing everything possible in hardware to get the score, including disabling, makes sense The people who say "yeah but it's only on 1 core" will just say something else like "yeah but it's not stable" instead (a little over 30 tech site comments about giga's score were sifted through on discord and the only one that complained about disabled cores also complained about low cache clock) It means there's a little more refinement/effort/skill to valids Some technical reasons to stick with 1-core valids; AMD and Intel are both pushing high preferred core clocks as a way to maximise gaming performance, so 1-core valids are relevant to the public Future big.little designs may not even be able to run all cores synced, the concept of all cores being at the same clock is on the way out All-core requirements for valids potentially add more ways to bend rules or cheat, like finding a way to keep some cores asleep or move all load off weak cores

They said clearly how it looks, not what it is. You attacked them as if they said that was what it is. EDIT: I wanna add that like, I get it. This has generated a reaction from a lot of people, and that adds up to a very strong reaction. That can be difficult to deal with. Posts start feeling like more of an attack than they are. I think this thread might just need cleaning of a lot of the responses to pro. It doesn't do any good to talk about the conspiracy idea anyway IMO because I don't think it's that relevant anyway.

This is really the only sensible way to approach it IMO, I'd go further and say that you might as well include some stability test as well. @der8auer mentioned on the discord that part of the motive is making the value clear to non-overclockers; The problem is that if you enforce all-core and everything that just becomes; On the other hand, a separate category for measured frequency across a short stability test - not a 'full' test obviously, that would be horrendous for LN2, but maybe 1 minute of prime95 - would probably have much more value for PR. You could also do the same for memory frequency. It's still not 'real' stability because no-one wants to have one error after 5 hours of prime95 on LN2, but I think it's a good compromise where it's relatively meaningful without being horrific to run.

That's one way to win an argument!

Half rate UMC? Could you drop down and go sync, or push higher?

The promised 0C winter air score?

Result is hidden on 3dmark site, can you fix it?

Result is hidden on 3dmark site, can you get it unhidden?

M8FB1? Is this D9TBH or similar Rev.B micron??

DDR3L isn't relevant here, that's just DDR3 at a different voltage. LPDDR3 is different. I cannot stress enough that DDR3L and LPDDR3 are not interchangeable terms! Fundamentally LPDDR3 is not a Low Power version of DDR3. Rather, it is the third version of LPDDR memory, like how we have GDDR memory. This applies to other generations as well, from LPDDR1 to LPDDR5. The biggest difference I'd point to when it comes to LPDDR3 specifically is that the command/address bus is double data rate, as well as the data bus. Regular DDR isn't getting a double data rate cad bus until DDR5. However there are a number of other details, as this excellent article covers; https://blogs.synopsys.com/committedtomemory/2014/01/10/when-is-lpddr3-not-lpddr3-when-its-ddr3l/. What yos means about data widths is an LPDDR chip can be 32, 64 or even 128 bits wide whereas a normal DDR device is 4, 8 or 16 bits. The cad bus width changes too. Related to this is the fact that LPDDR never appears on SODIMMs, it is always soldered (or stacked in the case of Intel Lakefield's LPDDR4X). As technology moves on we're seeing greater and greater divergence between LPDDR and DDR. We see for example that the Intel i7-10710U supports LPDDR3-2133 and not DDR3, and also supports LPDDR4-2933 but DDR4 only up to 2666, despite a DDR4-2933 standard being available. An older CPU like the i7-8665U supports DDR4 and not LPDDR4, but does support LPDDR3 (and not DDR3). We also now have LPDDR4X standards up to 4266 while DDR4 is stuck at 3200. Because of this I'd come down strongly on the side of saying LPDDRx should be distinguished from DDRx. Maybe LPDDR1 and DDR1 could stay together as their differences come down to more economical self-refresh operation, though I'm not sure LPDDR1 (or 2) are used in anything but phones anyway. LPDDR3, LPDDR4, and LPDDR5 should definitely be separate though, IMO. LPDDR4X is fundamentally the same as LPDDR4 so could be in the same category, although as a database it might be good to distinguish them (this would also prevent stock LPDDR4X frequency subs getting too many points because of being so far ahead of LPDDR4). CPU-Z not being able to tell the difference is a problem, and it's something the CPUID guys ought to look at. It's not the first time there's a problem with CPU-Z, it still calls the Athlon 3000G 12nm Picasso, it's 14nm and a 2-core die.

I'm surprised you got a xeon to OC properly in that thing. Also, try a different GPU/slot maybe?

"IMC"

holy shit

I guess now the people asking if it helps to remove memory slots have their answer.

Typo in the memory batch? Presumably should be -10B not -01B. Nice score BTW

"I'm required to list a price but just want offers" GLWS, I'd be interested if it was EU

Yeah, personally I don't think such a trivial thing should be a reason to remove a score that isn't claiming a record or getting a significant amount of globals. No-one would think for a minute the score is in any way cheated/fake. Also frankly it wouldn't surprise me if some of my past scores have the same mistake.

I assume he's looking at the fact that the score isn't visible in cinebench's comparison graph

Hahaha yes, this. I'm in favour of all ycruncher stages but this in particular.

RX 470 sold

^this would be brilliant, @keeph8n has a great voice

Protip: The Powercolor 5770 PCS++ with the memory heatsinks on the back has a Volterra VT1165MF controller (not the PCS+ without the heatsinks, that's not volterra, techspot are clowns), documented to have excellent software voltage control. Full datasheet at https://www.rom.by/files/vt1165m.pdf - check page 20 for SVID codes to over 2V and the SMbus registers, hex edited sapphire trixx might do the job though. Have fun with the modding comp guys.

Restrict it to single channel as well so i can be competitive with my half-broken Fatality F-I90HD rather than having to use an nvidia board ? I hate this suggestion but only on an emotional level, not a logical one, which I think means it's actually a good idea. I'm suspicious that it comes 2 hours after I posted a garbage refclk sub with a comment complaining about my new nvidia board though...

Yeah I think that's sensible. I'm a big fan of there being plenty of options, same as how AMD+DDR1+AGP implies you could run a Duron and that's fine. Simpler rules, more people can enter, people can make silly subs for fun, doesn't mess with the 'meta'. Probably a good idea to ban Xeons though because otherwise it'll turn into an all-Dempsey competition. So the stipulations would be: DDR2 only CPUs from the Netburst (Pentium 4, 65nm), Netburst (Pentium 4, 90nm), Netburst (Pentium 4, 130nm) and Netburst (Pentium 4, 180nm) families No Xeons

Apologies, i misread... we can blame @Noxinite instead