Leeghoofd

No clue, only installed OS at stock speeds. But we have memory issues with the chipset, 2133 is no go and triple channel is tough even at 1866

nice one

The line is your own selfrespect and principles sir... impossible to lay down... and verify

yep it is done, thx for adding the screenshot

Lol the Bot ended up this way due to the acts of many of your fellow overclockers, who couldn't play nice and keep it fair. Because they all thought they would end up on the payrole of some big vendor and greed took over. The verification screenshots are like they are and will be imposed as is. Sorry but the 1280x 1024 resolution is a mute call, I have done most of my 2D subs on that resolution. Secondly we are 2018 already aren't we ? For another of you arguments: If you think we have the time to ask to 20-30 people daily to redo their screenshot or to ask for other verification , how on earth can we keep track ? The rules have been laid down by our predecessors, again in a reaction to the aforementioned reasons. Also if we don't maintain a strict handling of subs and allow the score for person A , but not for person B... how big of a mess will that be after a few months... I keep on repeating this but OC is a selfdestructive something... if everybody played fair we would not be here... if you have a score that is out of proportion, you know something is wrong, yet many take the chance and hope it will slip through... one day somebody will spot it and it will get removed...

Have you tried the above workaround from TAGG ? this worked for me. And that attitude won't get you anywhere fyi, elite or not Edit: you got PM who to contact

depends on the benchmark and CPU used

great score bro

Competition Background must be visible

mobo tab Ozzie man :(

Don,'t forget the mobo tab for your final score!!!!

Yellow tezm power :)

great score bro

That result was done on 3.2... Again why would AMD destroy the advantage they have/had over the Intel counterparts so dramatically, that's the million dollar question... a coders error ?

I just made a quick apples to oranges comparison as in the previous post Johannes... but honestly you feel the 52 sec score is right for this CPU generation? Take another old 4 core, the 3570K at 4500Mhz beaing beaten by an APU with 500Mhz less on the cores and lower memory speed... Llano is far from that good... 1 min 40 seems reasonable to me... Yes Intels OpenCL is inferior, hence why we mostly run the AMD SDK drivers :p Yes it is the Agesa code, but million dollar question is why did AMD hamper its performance in newer AGESA codes?. Did some other users run into issues when using software based on similar instruction sets... normally we can expect a few percentages loss in efficieny for added compatibility but not this... this is out of the world...

No it is not doing the work, that just the thing, it is somehow bugging the output of the GPUPI benchmark, Comon imagine a Llano at 5Ghz doing a WR beating Intel's superiority running at 7ghz, but sucks at any other app like Superpi or other simple 2D stuff... not gonna happen on my watch... Your 2001 comparison is a benchmark where CPU speed has taken over from the GPU... nothing to do with a bios version that would double the output on identical hardware.... Also it proves the FX was all about sick clockspeeds and crap at anything else. Now we had special 2D biosses before ( eg rampage extreme) but effie was a few percentages not like this.... This one goes from 2 min 40 to under a minute for the same clockspeeds... now that's an unexpected boost :p Putting these APUs amongst more powerful at anything processors :p I'll try the initial release bios on the asus tonite and check back... However no matter the outcome I think the most logic to do is to remove the current super fast scores in this benchmark to maintain the validity, moderability and credibility of the benchmark.

I will verify tonite, but I thought it was on one of the early biosses. However like I mentioned before, these runs with the old Agesa are in the neighbourhood of the improved 3.3 (looking at the eficiency) and in the league of 4500Mhz Ivy CPUs, that can't be right. imagine running 3.3 on the old Agesa you would be in Kaby lake vicinity :p

It is listed at HWBOT as integrated GPU... so hence why it is allowed for this stage... but again Team Cup is not won in one stage For the below, disabling cores has never been allowed, in contradiction to unlocking cores

Are you using the SDK 2.9.1 too Mickulty or the one from the VGA, which version is that? Johannes did some testing too and said it is 99.9% related to the AGESA code of the initial GB bios, I tried his OS, SDK drivers and can't replicate it on it the Asus nor the cheap ass MSI board... Looking at both your testing it seems to be related to the bios, which has a play with the GPUPI benchmark... sadly if this is the case I can not approve the scores as the efficiency is way off versus other available hardware.

go go go

nice Michel

as long as it is dual channel all platforms are allowed sir

yep 5% but mobo tab is a requirement...

well he runs a short 3.3, almost same loops ? a team mate has an X4 soon, will crosscheck , but I hardly believe it is in the cpu... For me on a moderation level this is a no go, video or not, unless we can figure out asap what is happening... you guys know this is a score for a higher clocked Ivy cpu... released one year later

Yes no problem... Can't run 3.3 though