-
Posts
3673 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Everything posted by TaPaKaH
-
The official MSI MOA 2014 Grand final thread.
TaPaKaH replied to Massman's topic in HWBOT Competitions
I thought you're Swiss? -
You're completely missing the point of the argument. What I am trying to say is that noone on hwbot can come even close to your efficiency, this is why I find it suspicious and ask for a proof. Please stop dragging the argument towards my Q9550 result - unlike your scores on E8400, it is perfectly in line with what is known to be possible.
-
I see that you run slightly different RAM settings on your air run. What happens when you run single channel in 1:1 with PL15 like you did on LN2? Speaking of my 37139 pp on Q9550, as promised, here is a run with 37073-37200 (depending on CPU speed wprime was actually ran at), here is another run with 37003, here is 37091 and here is 37196.
-
Why should I be kidding? Don't you think it's natural to ask questions whenever someone claims a 1.3% (71852 vs 72808) improvement in efficiency over best cumulative effort of thousands of people over six years, especially in a very popular 2D benchmark? I am not asking you to reveal what this "secret" actually is, I just want to see confirmation that these runs are legit. So far there is none. I think you will agree that LN2 does not make things faster on its own. So whenever you decrease the frequency from ~6GHz to ~4GHz while maintaining the same relation betwen CPU/FSB/RAM clocks and RAM timings, efficiency will remain the same. That is, if you were to run 445x9 with exact same RAM ratio, timings and performance level, you should get 12.078*661/445=17.941s (or a close time) if things are to make sense. Also, let's keep personal offense out of this discussion.
-
Your comparison with my Pi runs is not really valid. I'm quite sure that for any "example" you can come up with, I can find at least two or three other guys with similar efficiency at lower clocks. And this is exactly my point - your efficiency is far ahead of everyone else's. I'm in no way trying to say that this is impossible, but it's very unexpected to see from someone whose previous success came primarily from raw clockspeeds. You don't need to put things on LN2 to demonstrate efficiency - in wPrime it stays pretty much the same as the benchmark doesn't react to lower RAM dividers and/or higher timings that change from air to LN2. If you can show that a time of 17.963s or lower is possible at 4000MHz (17.963 * 4000 = 71852 performance product) then you're going to get a lot less complaints from me and the other guys
-
All I see so far is that all teams uniformly lose points hour after hour. Shouldn't the recalculation assign "greater or equal" number of points to every score than it was previously?
-
T.Rex - Core 2 E8400 (3.0Ghz) @ 6075MHz - 15.16 sec PiFast
TaPaKaH replied to noxon's topic in Result Discussions
not a bad efficiency, more cpu freq and you're there -
pending
-
Part number: F3-2666C10D-8GTXD Spec: DDR3-2666 / 10-12-12-31 / 1.65V Chips: Samsung 2Gbit D-rev (xxK0 modification) Here are 1400 CL9 and CL10 results by websmile: and here are 1400 CL9 results of my own, using Z77, Z87 and Z97: Asking 150 euros including worldwide shipping.
-
Chi-Kui Lam - Core i7 4770K @ 6295.2MHz - 1601 marks XTU
TaPaKaH replied to Dancop's topic in Result Discussions
Now that's a big lead! -
How does this board work with PSC or Samsung?
-
zzolio - Pentium G3258 @ 5700MHz - 4663.84 pps HWBOT Prime
TaPaKaH replied to ObscureParadox's topic in Result Discussions
I think you can put s775 to rest now for this category. -
The official G.SKILL OC World Cup 2014 Qualifier thread.
TaPaKaH replied to Massman's topic in HWBOT Competitions
bump -
BarboneNet - Xeon L3014 @ 5648MHz - 3155.37 pps HWBOT Prime
TaPaKaH replied to delly's topic in Result Discussions
This FSB is ridicilous for an R0 chip -
Yes, you set BCLK to 95-96 and then increase it to 100 in two or three steps/reboots, ~2MHz at a time. Example:
-
because manual RTL settings don't really work if you want tight RTLs you have to boot at lower BCLK and then raise it via (a series of) reboot(s)
-
Is this RAM set actually retail? Never heard or seen of any 1600C9 with PSC/BBSE, let alone of such quality.