ground

There are significantly worse OEM kits then the one you have

Yes please! On 1366 there are no core count benefits or similar, only price...

@ClockCruncher is looking for at least one of those, not sure if he minds the lack of heatsink. @Rhadamanthis is also looking for one. I guess it would be nice to wait for them to reply?

Its a kit as bad as they come, planning on getting a new one asap. For most of my benching I’ll keep them below 1.95 most likely. Haven’t confirmed, but I’m almost sure they can’t do spec. ...they do spec, and now that they have taken 2.1V for maybe an hour of testing they suddenly work much better then before, currently running 1050 7-7-6 at 1.775V, 1000 7-7-6 seems to be good for 32m at 1.68V and 1100 7-7-6 at 1.85V...

did a quick test on my kit at 2.1V, they keep on scaling, 6-6-5 at 976 is doable at that. Might manage 6-6-5 at 986 (it did manage half a run before I got too greedy and went to 1000, but it doesn't scale anymore with voltage from here (sticks might be getting too hot too, though I have plenty of airflow right now) Next steps are -optimising subtimings (still using the same as at 1107) -trying if it goes any further at 6-7-5/6-7-6/6-6-6

RAM temps are not specified. Might be a good idea to specify that too? Sadly don't have the hardware for this yet

Its the XTU score I suspect. first ref. score: https://hwbot.org/submission/4055609_ XTU score by same guy: https://hwbot.org/submission/4055029_

On 1366 you can get around it by upping the multi using Throttlestop. I've seen this issue on 775 (P5Q Deluxe and EP45-DS3) as well as on various 1366 boards (at least Rampage II Extreme, x58a-oc and x58a-UD7) and also on 1156 (H55m-UD2h and P55-USB3)

Congrats! Glad your second chip worked even better :D

Free push for a great deal for an x58a-oc (if its still available - has been over a month since the last push)

I think he is more about trcd 10 being not possible on ambient PSC above ~1150 or so. 1366 can do high clock ram for sure if needed...

hm? There is no board with that name

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?

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!