TaPaKaH

give it a year, and people will be hitting same type of clocks on air/watercooling

random retail

technically, merging some categories makes sense .. but I think it's all down to how hwbot Gods want to manage their DB

Then there's no argument that Expander is old-gen and therefore is not a Pro League attribute anymore. But what about the Untouchables ?

The only rule I heard was "current-gen ES = Pro". ES? I doubt people with Untouchables, at least, are using the retail version ... because there just isn't any. Current-gen? IIRC, Expander is usable on X79 and there's no newer version of either Expander or Untouchables.

isn't the situation same for Expander and Untouchables ?

why are the rules not consistent?you can have a current-gen ES without any manufacturer contacts and you're 'forced' to Pro

following same logic, ES CPUs are also available in retail - in Dell-built PCs, for example

evbots might have been retail available for a couple of seconds, but xpanders weren't, so I think your argument is valid

expect a $3.5k standard offer from somebody from Taiwan

so if you have a Bloomfield, but run dual channel and have a proper board, you can run DDR3-2400 at only 3.6GHz uncore? what the hell have we bought/binned Lynnfields for then ?

you got a lucky card that runs -100c .. most of them crap out ar -40 or so

Yes, it doesn't seem to misreport the uncore since 1566*4 would just not be possible on a Bloomfield. I'd like someone with a Gigabyte board to measure perf (32M, Everest) with various memory dividers using constant BCLK and uncore multiplier. If, with mem going above uncore/3 or uncore/4, the performance doesn't get better - it's either limited by the uncore (running single channel should focus on memory performance a bit more) or the frequency is just being misreported.

non-Sergio spanish guys always get forgotten ... I think FoX360 belongs to that rare group of people

OBR is too afraid to break the NDA, obviously

yes, we will all be having problems with antivirus on our benching OS

regarding slow bootup - I think it's due to some framework scheduler sitting in the background, you can disable it if you have the patience to google

same chip or a new one ?

what kind of Tridents are these - BBSE, PSC or Hyper ?

yes, just noticed that all the "interesting" results are made using the X58A-OC At least on ASUS, when you went from, say x18 to x17 uncore multi on a Gulftown, the board would automatically switch mems from x6 to x5 and there was no way you could get x17/x6 to work.

same sticks of RAM were allowed

I always thought that with s1366 there's a minimum uncore frequency required to achieve certain memory frequency. More precisely, 3*memclock for 32nm CPUs and 4*memclock for 45nm CPUs. But some scores from recent Country Cup have got me confused. some submissions just for reference, no particular stress http://hwbot.org/submission/2236164 (32nm, mem multi 9, uncore multi 18, should be 27) http://hwbot.org/submission/2235703 (32nm, mem multi 8, uncore multi 22, should be 24) http://hwbot.org/submission/2236313 (45nm, mem multi 6, uncore multi 20, should be 24) May be the new gen s1366 boards have special options and are able to break that "rule". Might as well be a readout error by CPUz (obviously on the memfreq side, 6GHz uncore on a Bloomfield would be ridicilous). What do others think ?

I thought that on Gulftown uncore must be memfreq*3 minimum ... or is it different with 2:16 mem multi ?

San Diego is not as slow clock-per-clock as many people think, only around 10% slower than Deneb in single-threaded benchmarks.

damn, it's so easy with BD back in the Lynnfield days you had to test shitloads of chips to find one that does 1500