unityofsaints

I am interested in the OCF if you choose to unbundle

Impressive!

Payment received. Thread can be closed

Nice!

Where was the CB/CBB on this chip?

Only letting this one go because my board refuses to post Sky-X chips now Fine with Kaby-X for some reason. You can find all my subs with this chip here, this was from my first ever cold session on Sky-X and also my first session on CBed chip so there is for sure some room to squeeze out more MHz. 400 euro + shipping from Australia

Any CB/CBB issues on this board?

Active cooling on the NB for this one?

I thought the conventional wisdom was closest slot = shortest traces = highest MHz but your explanation also makes sense, thx.

Why pick this slot? I'm just asking, I have no idea about memory binning lol

By the way OVP = NIB. OVP is German, some ppl here may not speak it

Verrry nice

There's life left in the old lady

Maybe not idea testing conditions as I am only on air at the moment but the slow AGESA fluctuated 104 - 105W at the wall throughout the run while the faster one was 108 - 109W. For reference, idle power draw is 43W.

Epic

Ok, this discussion has gone on for quite some time now. Although I appreciate @_mat_'s techinical discussion and @mickulty's help in getting him a board, finding the exact root cause of these speed differences will only help for future versions of GPUpi, not for this competition. Therefore the more urgent need in my mind is a for a final moderation decision for this stage. There are 3 possibilities, some more realistic than others: Allow only slow AGESA versions in the competition Allow all AGESA versions in the competition scrap the stage Since people have already bought hardware specifically for this stage, I don't think 3) is a good option. That leaves 1) and 2). 1) has a higher moderation overhead, since mod(s) will have to look at the motherboard tab of every submission in this stage. 2) has a lower moderation overhead and the added benefit of making in-competition submissions competitive with submissions outside the competition. If 1) is picked, we could have a submission on air 1 day after the competition that is faster than an LN2 submission inside the competition. Having someone with a F1A75-V PRO or F1A75-M LE flash back to the oldest BIOS and test it would help here as it would give us enough confidence that this is not a Gigabyte-specific thing (however unlikely that may be). TBH after that I'd suggest moving this whole discussion into the GPUpi development thread.. there are 7 more stages to talk about in the DDR3 subcategory! ?

Yes. My FM1 result is also 3.2, I am comparing apples to apples. It is only OpenCL, not many benches use OpenCL on the CPU. E.g. CB15 and x265 run at the same speed on both BIOSes.

You have to be careful comparing to Ivy because most of those results are on GPUpi 2.3.4 or earlier, which is much slower than 3.2. Also many results use Intel OpenCL instead of the much faster AMD one. A 3570K @ 5.25 GHz scores 32sec 510ms in GPUpi 3.2, my 651K result scaled up to 53 secs would be around 39 seconds or approx. 20% slower. This looks completely reasonable to me.

It's not the BIOS, it's the AGESA.

7350K WR is 22sec 917ms at 6.65 GHz My submission is 52sec 979ms, at 3.9 GHz so that would scale to 41s at 5 GHz or 26s at 8 GHz. In what universe is that unrealistic?! We are even talking about 2c/4t vs. 4c/4t here.

Nobody complains about Intel being much faster than x265 than AMD, this is just the same thing in reverse.

Can we please stop repeating this over and over? It's not the bench, it's the hardware! Jeeze. Whatever the moderation outcome - please, please don't have this turn into GPUpi becoming a tainted benchmark.I'd rather have FM1 disallowed completely.

Did you flash an older BIOS on the Asus bord Leeg? 1102 for example would be old enough.

Who needs memory for frequency validations? :)

Wrong decimals, should be 1,190 MHz not 1.19 MHz