ground

Its not just the timings that appear that odd to me, but the BCLK doesn't line up with the memory divider (2:8 in this case), would need 307 BCLK for that. http://valid.x86.fr/d44eck

Hm, actually not sure anymore, that memory frequency doesn't work out with the multiplier. Trying to get in contact...

I've talked to the owner of that chip before, currently trying to get in contact with him for more information. Would be surprised if it wasn't legit, he has been working on this for a while as far as I'm aware. Not sure if its not actually slow mode - CPU-z doesn't seem to show QPI clock correctly in slow mode anyways...

Nice one! Knew I couldn't be the only one chasing this score!

I was mostly looking at the top scores for the i3s, where the QPI is usually quite slow from what I've seen... (are there no spoilers? ) https://hwbot.org/submission/2572691_der8auer_superpi___32m_core_i3_530_7min_8sec_937ms 3.2 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/969132_jabski_superpi___32m_core_i3_530_7min_7sec_625ms 4.66 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/979342_sacha35_superpi___32m_core_i3_530_6min_59sec_656ms 4.3 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/4053113_bullant_superpi___32m_core_i3_540_6min_59sec_375ms 5.3 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/969146_hicookie_superpi___32m_core_i3_540_7min_1sec_735ms 3.6 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/969762_lodewijk1978_superpi___32m_core_i3_540_7min_3sec_156ms 3.7 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/2503366_strunkenbold_superpi___32m_core_i3_550_7min_28sec_531ms 4.81 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/2776005_wanted_superpi___32m_core_i3_550_7min_25sec_812ms 4.5 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/2776005_wanted_superpi___32m_core_i3_550_7min_25sec_812ms 5.1 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/971207_hicookie_superpi___32m_core_i5_650_6min_37sec_78ms 3.9 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/968980_ekky_jengkol_superpi___32m_core_i5_650_6min_43sec_219ms 4.3 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/968980_ekky_jengkol_superpi___32m_core_i5_650_6min_43sec_219ms 4.4 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/2226249_cl3p20_superpi___32m_core_i5_660_7min_14sec_625ms 4.3 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/959023_topalof_superpi___32m_core_i5_660_7min_1sec_140ms 3.2 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/962339_3oh6_superpi___32m_core_i5_660_6min_11sec_438ms 5.34 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/964253_hiwa_superpi___32m_core_i5_670_6min_8sec_859ms 4.6 QPI https://hwbot.org/submission/968355_nickshih_superpi___32m_core_i5_670_6min_2sec_625ms 4.9 QPI From 17 top 3 results, a whopping 3 are above 5GHz QPI, not even half above 4.5 which appears a little odd from the above mentioned. Just found it weird when my random-ish chip (best out of a dozen chips) manages 5.1 easy on dice...

Any idea how QPI scales from Dice temps to LN2? I have an 540 here that does 5.13 QPI easy on Dice at 1.4V VTT. Chip is pretty solid too, 4.8 with HT at 1.4V on air easy, though I've seen better on air too.

Been checking through some scores on the 32nm chips and I've observed something vaguely related to memory - few people are running high QPI, but it actually makes a massive impact. My own example is R15, but looking at @Bullants 32m Score on his 540 confirms this. link cb score cb % core core % dram Timings dram % QPI clock QPI % https://hwbot.org/submission/4039667_ground1556_cinebench___r15_core_i3_540_410_cb 410 100.00% 5379 100.00% 1024 7-9-7 100.00% 5123 100.00% https://hwbot.org/submission/2509986_joe90br_cinebench___r15_core_i5_670_408_cb 408 99.51% 5687 105.73% 842 9-9-9 82.23% 4213 82.24% https://hwbot.org/submission/2493991_der8auer_cinebench___r15_core_i3_560_436_cb 436 106.34% 6075 112.94% 971 7-7-7 94.82% 2916 56.92% https://hwbot.org/submission/2476431_michel90_cinebench___r15_core_i3_550_413_cb 413 100.73% 5711 106.17% 952 8-11-8 92.97% 2855 55.73% https://hwbot.org/submission/3377198_kintaro_cinebench___r15_core_i3_550_417_cb 417 101.71% 5757 107.03% 720 6-6-6 70.31% 3838 74.92% https://hwbot.org/submission/2474297_topdog_cinebench___r15_core_i3_550_406_cb 406 99.02% 5649 105.02% 706 6-7-6 68.95% 2624 51.22% https://hwbot.org/submission/2665450_ue50_cinebench___r15_core_i3_540_405_cb 405 98.78% 5451 101.34% 948 8-11-8 92.58% 4740 92.52% Of all these scores only the bottom one is somewhat close in efficiency, but its also the only one with fairly high QPI clocks. The same applies to 32m, that can be easily seen by just looking at the 32m rankings for the i3 540

Chip might not be that amazing for core clocks, but that efficiency and QPI make up for it! Great score! How is scaling with QPI clock btw?

And please include odd stuff like BCLK in that

Yeah, my 750 kept scaling and I expected it to take similar voltages to 1366 (where I've even seen 32nm batches that took and scaled to 1.7V VTT without caring/degrading at ambient) which it obviously didn't like... And gotta agree, that setup looks amazing

Sadly this CPU died from too much VTT (hint: these CPUs die instantly at 1.6V VTT on air, at least mine did) before I could finish my testing (and perhaps get a tuned OS up etc), but I've ran 2000 5-8-5-18 at 1.84V on dual Channel BBSE on air in the early stage of testing a, at the time, new to me BBSE kit (which does 2000 6-8-6-18 at 1.64V) . I've recently tried replicating the run with a new CPU (and better efficiency/subtimings), but couldn't get the board to boot cas 5 whatsoever, testing multiple kits even at super low frequency (even 800 5-5-5 refused working on Hypers). I suspect my board is the issue as it has many of those. May retry with older BIOS versions, I think the run was on one of those... Setup: H55M-UD2H, i5 750, GSkill ReaperX 2200 9-9-9-27

I'll call that a challenge :D Nice platform 4c record!

okay, at slightly less comfortable voltage I can at least manage decent timings at good clocks. Probably gonna use those if possible... 2000 6-7-6/6-6-6/6-7-5/6-6-5 refuses to work even at 2.0V, so it remains pretty terrible... (yes efficiency is absolute garbage, I know, thats just my test OS which is filled with all kinds of crap nor an optimised 32m run)

Okay, good luck with sale then, sorry!

can you test #8 for 2000 5-8-5 at 1.84V?

Hm, I just sorta killed my last non-1366 DDR3 board last weekend(lets say it refuses working on cold completely and on ambient it can only boot a single stick of ram at really loose timings), so that testing will have to wait for a while now. Gonna try finding a second kit to compare against, but others appear to get far better results with the 2000 C8 Dom GT kits on x58 from what I've seen. Will probably just see how far they go at 2.05V and if they don't last I'll find another kit I guess... Whats the typical tRCD limits I can test for? Sorry for derailing the OP a bit with my own kit

I've heard others say the exact same thing about my kit But at least on my x58a-oc and Rampage II Extreme I could get none of the sticks to finish 32m above 1020 7-7-7 at 1.84V. Might as well push them to 2 V when required then... Only positive thing about this kit is that its not weak in tRCD, no difference in required voltage between 7-8-7 and 7-7-7...

Talking about hypers - what voltages do you usually run/what is the safe limit at ambient? I usually tend to chicken out around 1.84V with my kit (which appears to barely manage 2040 7-7-7 at that voltage), but I heard a couple people are running their kits at >2V for benching? And one last question - is it worth running them on Dice or even LN2?

I don't know if its the same with the original Rampage Extreme, but at least my Rampage II Extreme refuses booting with that kind of postcode

Damn, blue ripjaws already gone GL with sale!

What if my system is too unstable to relaunch explorer?

I was mainly thinking about the input filtering Caps for vcore and other rails and possibly even 12V. Check the caps before the NB VRM, those could be an issue too I guess? Had a Rampage IV Formula that had been baked and pretty much all the caps were toast due to that. It could very well be something else, but that's all I can think off right now.

Are the Capacitors raised? Might be that those are messed from the repeated oven sessions... If so recapping the board (at least the relevant ones) could be a potential solution. I would wait for more ideas what could be wrong though.

Yeah 4.7 at 1.4-ish is nice. If you wanna try max bclk you need to up pcie (118 should be the max bootable on the RIIE in my experience). Without touching that anything beyond 222 is odd. If that still limits BCLK at 260-ish (note that everything above that is pretty good - under 10% of my tested CPUs managed it at ambient) Setfsb with the ICS9LPRS916JGLF is your friend. Bottom slider is for pcie, top for bclk.

Nice one!