I.nfraR.ed

There's no difference when running only fastest or all instructions in my testing. At least for all cpu's I've tested. Can you show us an example with such a difference? Maybe throttling, because of the increased time to have the score? It was allowed, because noone saw it affects the final score like e.g. changing resolution in 3dmark. CPU still cracks the password, it just uses the fastest method which it takes the score from, even if you run all tests. Ran it on my office machine, SSSE3 being the best here.

Very nice. 1.92V maybe could do it. What is the batch?

I believe ksin_reliable only...

With the right settings - no. Not that it matters, they does not scale much when going from -100 to -190.

Wow, what a tube Very nice.

Thanks. Was pouring in the pot every 40sec or so Performance is not very good, e.g. it's worse than in the 750 pi 1M I had last week. However couldn't remember the exact registers' values.

wazza/cdt gives me only 2sec here. Your time is not that bad, 30sec slower than my run on 2706MHz, but I have higher fsb/ram and maybe tighter subtimings. You can try 244x11 if your ram and board allows you.

Yes. Don't remember if I've tested all values between 11 and 24, but probably most of them and 15 was fastest for me. Since then, I always run trc=15. Even at 940 with the gtx2, doesn't hurt my clocks.

Look at my best Deneb runs. It's not because I can't run trc=11 Oh..and btw I still don't know how to master the final loop. Usually lose some time there when I'm far ahead after the 24th loop. Beep, if you compare our scores, you're only faster at the first 2 loops, due to pure speed. But..my final loop is bad. Looking at Calathea's score, I'm 1 sec faster than him until the last loop, but at the end our times are very close. That's why I was disappointed, because I had a proper run, but lost it - 10:29.xxx.

Wow, so close. The cpu is great, but c5f is inefficient board, you're loosing around 7-8sec I think. Maybe more.

I call it FX-55 tweak Thanks, guys. I expected more from this cpu, but the score is fine. Put the ihs on to prevent core cracks, which happened long time ago to my best s.A cpu ever. It fits perfectly . Don't know if it hurts the clocks, probably not.

That would be sick. Will wait and see

And it doesn't like higher voltage at all, makes it sick. I have one more coming (1209PGT).

They all look almost the same. I was able to get 4.5 at 1.675 or something. Try one core, it might allow the first one validate higher. I was not able to do anything good with more than 2 cores, although two of the others seemed better.

Yes, it was the same for me. Basically was able to go one notch up on the htt for like 30MHz higher and didn't bother trying again, probably 6.68 - 6.7 being the limit.

This one is great! What batch?

The weather is too hot, otherwise chip should do 2800+ on water. Testing efficiency mainly, but there are like 7sec I need to shave off. Know how to drop 2 more, but not 7.

Tried 1.7+, but was not stable ;p.

Very nice cpu. Can't beat these core and cpu-nb clocks

Kinda expected with the clocks I was running. Going to rerun next week, hopefully can save the screenshot.

Got 2h 52m and the system restarted when I tried to set the background picture before the screenshot.

Nice Much better than my old score on similar frequency.

Seriously...I wanted to kill it. 20l of LN2 and not a single 32M result. Not exact in round, not convergent in sqr, crashing of superpi... Most of the time couldn't pass 3rd loop. Finished one time at 6640 and bsoded on the screenshot, while it's perfectly fine on these speeds before superpi. I can freely mess with tools, change settings, etc. I even do cdt on these speeds. As I said before, it's a very weird cpu...

If all of them do that, it's most probably the board coldbugging. My Crosshair IV does the same and I think only works full pot with one dimm slot populated. Yes, but not sure if the board or the cpu is the problem, however this board has proven stable full pot with my 1090T and old 955 C3. Might be a bios problem, cause it flashed automatically from the backup bios after running full pot for a while. It worked 4 cores no problem with stock hsf afterwards, so I assumed it's the cpu.

Seems all 3 chips mentioned here have weak memory subsystem and odd behavior. But cores clock good after all and that's what matters most and can easily compensate for the low cpu-nb and mem.