I.nfraR.ed

ryba RMA'ed his XP-M 2600+ and got a record-breaking one

No difference, mate. Setting first core to x4 multi, fsb goes to 953, second core to 18GHz, memory at 3813

Ok, uploaded some screenshot on imgur - http://imgur.com/a/KvRl0 Explaining one by one, although it's visible what i did. System info - Phenom II X2 555 unlocked to B55, running at 3.8, 2.8 cpu-nb and 1600 memory Crosshair IV Formula, Windows 7 x64 Ultimate 1. set multi on first core one notch up, resulting in 3.9GHz for the first core only, cpuz thinks I've reduced the fsb by 5-6MHz 2. multi set to lowest x4, cpuz thinks I've increased the fsb to 953Mhz, which leads to memory at 3813 (DDR3-7626) and uncore at 13.34GHz 3. fsb set to 205, nothing happens on cpu-z. TurboEVO crashed 4. multi on first core set to 1 notch down (0.5x), fsb goes 6MHz up according to cpuz 5. Correct 24/7 settings Opening cpuz after setting multi/fsb doesn't change a bit, still reads wrong clocks

Unfortunately, it's bugged for me again. Will report back with more details.

Very nice card. Can't beat that memory with my Gainward GS

Can see some matches here with my list Almost all besides first two and I already had the 5900XT.

He's not fair. I transferred my great core2 knowledge, so he had only one thing to do - push the button. So, basically all his scores are mine!

Sweet app, thanks. Here's my feedback: - Sometimes there is no space on the screen or I just want to overlap different cpuz windows to save space or to arrange them better. It would be nice if I can set z-index for every cpuz/gpuz screen if I want to. Any other way to achieve this? - It would be also nice if I have a control for the delay. Sometimes opening several instances of cpuz/gpuz too fast is causing the apps to crash. - +1 for the customizeable path for screenshots. I don't like saving them on the desktop, but in a separate folder on a usb stick or different partition. But if the goal is "keep it simple", which I admire, then it's ok to skip this. PS: As I see the app opens cpuz windows based on the selected tab index, i.e. starts from the highest index (e.g. 4 for Memory) and opens this first, when in fact I need it opened last and overlap with the other window (index = 3 for Mainboard). Edit: Uhm, no...maybe the order is bottom to top, right to left on the screen? Open order would be so much easier.

You can't beat me on DDR anyway, so...not a big deal

And I've just started with GeForce stages However can't produce the same amount of submissions like larger teams + I don't have any Core2 chips, except one in the office. Still not much behind Madshrimps.

I'm wondering if it happens when using TurboEvo + opened cpuz at the same time only or it happens with other tools like AMD Overdrive + opened cpuz, where you can change multi/htref as well. Seen this only with asus 990FX boards until now. All rejected "records" were done with Asus boards (Sabertooth and Crosshair V Formula). Haven't noticed that with my Giga 970A-UD3 where I'm using AMD Overdrive. PS: Hmm, ok...Mr.Scott is using Giga.

Any difference between x86 and x64 versions? I've been using the 32bit version for quite some time and haven't seen such strange behavior, but maybe I didn't made the "correct" steps.

Seems legit! So 1.60 is also borked?

Setting threads count is allowed as well, I think. It's like setting 4 threads in wprime, even if your cpu is dual core only. However the boost there is not the same, if you get any. In any case, everyone is running like this currently. It was discussed before, I think, but don't remember where and what was the exact outcome. If it's still allowed or forbidden, then rules should be actualized. Official rules state "default UCBench2011 settings" and that's why I was wondering as well if I'm allowed to do that, but seeing others do it and scores are not removed, lead me to the conclusion I can do it too. Plus leaving instructions out is already messing with the default settings. Yes, it doesn't change the score, but reduces the load on the cpu, sometimes allowing you get slightly higher clocks. Overall, I think rules should be updated.

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.