I.nfraR.ed

Yes, PSC@1100 and tight timings should be faster than Hyper@970C6. Can't get Hypers much above 1000 with this platform. Meanwhile, I got the "new" 890FXA-UD5, but it is rev2.1 and it's not different than the rev2.0 I have, apart from the slightly different layout (alternating mem slots). Still can't boot 2200 RAM with Thuban, still can't do high HTRef (for Sempron benching). Installed the beta bios for FX CPUs and HTRef is stuck at 209MHz no matter what I set above that. Core control also does not work. Have to find a 3.x revision to try. Should have the 990FXA-UD5 rev 1.1 this week, though. Hopefully works much better. Also noticed these 890FX Gigabyte boards can't clock NB (uncore) as high as the Crosshair IV and V. Maybe some problem with straps or too tight/wrong max read latency. If it's a bios problem, then it's valid for both 2.0 and 2.1 since they use the same bios versions.

Few more tweaks or raw frequency and sub 6 will be broken. Great job.

Report says he submitted the stage 6 result and probably in every other stage. So when his account was suspended all scores disappear. I don't really remember what was the case with him (or never knew), but at that time Greece was a winner. Anyway, congrats to winners. You were lucky I didn't bench AMD ?

True: http://oc-esports.io/#!/article/4179/greece_win_hwbot_country_cup_2016

Free bump for the "trup"

I've benched every single stage myself. Currently distributing the scores and will drop the bomb in the morning.

Nice! Wish I knew what are these adjustments ? I have tuned timings as well as I could (bios + software) and don't know what else to do to get some seconds off. Still no "new" boards, hopefully will get at least one in the next couple of days.

I'll get the PIs and the F3-17000CL8 blue ripjaws.

Killing it! Great job!

Yes, there's a significant difference when I tested on ambient. Cinebench shouldn't be affected though. Score should have been ~3500 at that frequency if I could run Unganged.

CPU-wise not, but memory - yes. I had a Crosshair III that didn't like or couldn't clock my GTX2 as well as the current one. It was long time ago and I didn't have a lot of hardware, so can't be sure if something else was the cause, but at that time I tried the same cpu and the hypers on another CH3 of a friend and booted 1800+ straight.

The board is slow, have to find a better one that could clock the FSB high. Many seconds lost on 32M, it is slower than Crosshair. Will probably try Geekbench and Cinebench this evening, Win 7 installation broke yesterday.

I've reached 3850 C12 with 1800X and early bioses without additional dividers. It's either IMC or your timings, however I haven't played with newer bioses, since my board died long time ago. I think 11-11-11 was also possible, can't find screens.

Hmm, you are right. I could probably improve my time at these clocks on the 970A-UD3, but maybe have to try CH5 with different set of timings. He's running lower mem, core and nb clocks, yet just 10sec slower time. I have tried older bioses without significant improvement, but havent tried 1102 - the one he's using.

Tried the CH5 with Deneb at same settings as CH3 and 970A-UD3. Confirmed it's 10sec slower. Still waiting for the newer 890FXA-UD5 and 990FXA-UD3.

Yes. didn't work well, waiting for the newer one. Meanwhile, something interesting. Didn't expect Crosshair V would work so well with Thuban. There's room for improvement. 890FXA-UD5 could not run 1100 at all, only booting sometimes. 1140 boots on CHV, but can't get it past initial loop, maybe cold on the CPU would help, might try with the chiller in full throttle. Hypers... 1000 6-7-5 looks fast, but couldn't finish a run, needs more work. 1067 to 1100 7-8-7 in theory should be easy with my GTX2, but on this platform was a no go. On socket 775 they work well at 1000 6-7-5 http://hwbot.org/submission/3991700_ or 1085 7-7-6 on s.1155: http://hwbot.org/submission/2280242_i.nfrar.ed_superpi___32m_core_i5_2500k_5min_51sec_609ms Even 2200 8-8-8 doesn't work, while GTX2 are rated 2250 8-8-8 1.65V. Will wait for both boards to arrive, test them and then decide which one would be the best to use for Thuban. Not gonna bother with LN2 yet.

That's not a solution. I would still want to access some of my older scores for comparison purposes, e.g. a 5G, 4G, competition score which all got bested by e.g. a 6.8GHz score. It had worked this way before. What if a certain score is linked in a thread? You delete it to "fix" a flaw in the code and it's gone - link doesn't work anymore. What happens if it is a past competition score?

970A-UD3 seems a little faster. The CH3 with that bios is much slower at 235MHz FSB and 1:4 divider. Waiting for newer revision 890FXA-UD5 and rev1.1 990FXA-UD3. Meanwhile I might play with 1090T + PSC/BBSE.

OS is the same, but new installation, maybe not set up correctly. Managed to kind of match the old result with CH3, but only on higher HTRef, not sure what's up. 890FXA-UD5 with the same 555 doesn't want to boot mem higher than 1664 (overclocking failed, FSB back to 200), no matter timings, dividers and voltages. Tried all bioses, have to try with another CPU where it was working before. If I drop the mem divider at say 235 FSB, thus lowering the mem freq it boots. This CPU can do 966 6-6-6-18.

With the SuperTalent kit I can run same settings as on the 970A-UD3 and Crosshair III. 890FXA-UD5 is a little faster than the 970A, but nothing dramatic in terms of eff. Mem overclock is a little harder on both CH3 and UD5. No way I can drop off 10 seconds with just a board/bios change. Plus I can't even beat my old 4G score, where I didn't even tried hard: http://hwbot.org/submission/2990939_i.nfrar.ed_superpi___32m_phenom_ii_x4_965_be_16min_16sec_641ms

I think that chip is a 6.9GHz 32M material, unless it doesn't scale with more volts.

A whopping 14 seconds faster than my 5G run. I didn't spend much time on that, perhaps a single run, but still a big difference which don't think I can come up close at all. Wonder what I'm missing. Also interesting that at loop #13 you're already half a second faster compared to the failed run, although frequencies are exactly the same. What bugs me is the real memory vs available real memory and no way to figure out how you get that efficiency. Obviously still a lot to learn PS: Waiting for 2 more boards, the 890FXA-UD5 rev 2.0 only likes one set of SuperT Hypers I have. The first board that didn't like the GTX2... I always thought my eff is decent enough, especially compared to most of the guys at the top of the AM3 rankings. You can destroy the K10 32M if you find a good enough CPU.

Doh, didn't pay attention there's an additional rule in the stage. Not that I care much, but don't see the reasoning either. Maybe for the ES rule, but I've never seen and ES board in AMD submissions or a board that never went retail like some of the GB LN2 boards for Intel. Anyway...

I can't even touch my old scores, something must be wrong with the OS. Crosshair III is faster than 970A-UD3, but not much. Found 890FXA-UD5, hopefully not DOA, will see tomorrow. Does anybody know what is the difference between board revisions? rev2.x is rated for 1866+ DDR3, while 3.x is 2000+, some color difference and white vs black socket. Apart from that I can't see a difference.

Mine are still fine, but they've rarely seen 2+ V. For AM3 it's not really needed - can handle tight timings at much lower voltage. One of the sticks have "died" 3 times. Solved it by re-flashing the SPD, but originally I thought it's dead. One day a gigabyte board booted with both modules installed (only 2GB detected), but the "dead" stick was visible in windows with no SPD shown in cpuz and flashing tools. Re-flashed it from the good stick and it worked. Now I know how to resurrect it. Wonder if there are people who experienced the same and trashed the supposedly dead sticks... PS: Mind you most boards refused to boot with the broken SPD. But the 970A-UD3 didn't care :D. Must restist . I still have your 4x2GB ST 2200C8. Then another 2200C8, 3x2GB OCZ Blade 2000C7, some mediocre HyperX 2000C8.