TASOS

Very good score ... very good.

Doesnt really matter , because i believe all participants will use 6xxx series to compete. But for typical reasons , the rule for this round applies to all gen cards up to 6xxx series.

I can take a wild guess , that some people may have to work too many hours sometimes , to provide to their families ? No time for football.

Wallpaper for round 5 1280х1024 5 round 1920x1200 5 round By @alexmaj467

Get ready ROUND 5 - Socket 754 (2003) (No adapters allowed) Stage-1 SuperPI 1M Stage-2 HWBOT X265 1080P Stage-3 3DMark2003 - Nvidia series (Up to 6xxx series - single vga - single gpu only) Stage-4 FM Cloudgate - ATI AGP series

My answer is not specifically for you , just my personal thoughts and just happened to grab your quotes. After 25 years of having overclocking as a hobby , i can say in the most emphatic way , that "when benchmarking was discovered , it instantly killed the pure romance of overclocking" When mass overclocking started , it was all about having more speed (free speed) to our pc's. When Benchmarking started , it was all about making software produce higher numbers. When competitive benchmarking started , it was all about tricking software to produce higher scores ... scores without real life usage. That's my 2 or 5 or 10 cents , expressed very simplified.

I dont know if my writing is correct this way , but isnt that ? ... "The best things in life , are the simple ones"

When you remove a benchmark , like lets say UCBench or PcMark ... or whatever , you do it for a reason. Because the benchmark is vulnerable not bullet proof or for any other reason. Example Team A , benches legally with default settings and gets as top spot , rank 100 and team B benches with altered batch size and gets ranking 1 ... is that consided fair ? You wanna keep TPP for such cases ? When a benchmark is out of hwbot point system ... its out , period. Keep the position rankings for history purposes , but deleted all kind of points. I agree with you.

@ZFeSS Old heatsink nightmare !!! I've seen that happen before (it can be repaired though). I always heat as much as i can , before trying to remove old such type of heatsinks. Do you know if, that was an original manufacturer compound or an aftermarket one ? I ask cause back in the days we used to make our own compounds , using epoxy in the mix.

This fix should be given a higher priority Cause it affects Team Rankings a lot. Can you link here the other (besides UCBench) bench ranks , you spotted ?

@richba5tard Does UCBench 2011 , still contribute points to the Team total ? http://hwbot.org/benchmark/ucbench_2011/

You mean , there is no difference , becides the 150 Mhz GAP , between them (which is a huge speed for that cpu generation) ? Since you two both agree (three in fact , cause GRIFF "liked" your posts) , and of course you have valid proof to do so. I am sure that you have hard evidence and industry spec sheets to back up what you are writing. Do you ? Except if ... You think , that the silicon is the same , because AMD kept the same manufacturing process at 0.18 micron. Do you think , that the manufacturer doesnt change it's silicon when they proceed to produce different core revisions ? I assume you know , that in fact we had 3 core revisions , being A1 , A2 and A3 (that was never picked up correctly from software , cause of same cpuid of 622). Do you really believe that the silicon remains the same ? When A1 revision straggle to overcome the 850 limit (overclocked) When A2 revision gets a factory speed of 850 and overclocks an other 100Mhz more When A3 revision gets at factory speed of 1000 and overclocks an other 100Mhz After what i wrote you , do you still believe that the silicon is the same ? ... and all different marks are just marketing names ??? Please allow me to have very good knowledge of the era and cpu specs , cause i lived it. When i decided to put up this Round and pick the Argon and Pluto cores ... i knew exactly what to expect. No fooling around. Sad but true (once again written). While most people like to walk in a straight line , there are a very-very few , that prefer to find their way around things. Play dumb and by-pass. I feel good with my self and i can sleep calm at night. I did what i had to do. Scott is not the only one that tells me to end this , cause it's better for all. Others do so , also. So this is my last post in this thread. I wont "shut the door" to on going pm convertations , new or old ones though. Cheers to all , and lets move to the next Round ?️

I clearly made my point here in this thread. All old-timers know what i was talking about (no need to hide behind our finger). I have nothing more to add. I stand strong behind everything i wrote till now. Some people are fair all the way ... some are not. Sad but true ... honesty is something , you cant buy.

Oh , so there are Orion cores soldered into Pluto models , after all ??? Who asked you , to present us , an other cpu (than the original 800 pluto ... the initial one) ? You just confirmed yourself , in the most positive , the most emphatic way ... that you dont know the real meaning of PLUTO CORE. My initial strong feeling about you , using an Orion core , instead of a real Pluto , has proven more than true. I dont know how many cpu's you have and i dont care anymore. Still waiting for the original pictures and the plastic cover of the initial 800 pluto. You could have provided the pictures asked by me in just 5 minutes. But as you already wrote , you chose to ignored me. You chose not to do that , by trying to change the subject in this thread ... By answering by your own , that your Orion 950 was burnt , even though nobody asked you about it. All you wanted was , to buy some time. From now on , you are listed in my category of "grain of salt" people (Scotty is this written right ?) Also you have to know , that it was not actually me , asking the extra proof. It's the competition moderation team asking , they were informed from day 1 about it. In very few words. I will ask the moderation team , to request from you ... this 800 PLUTO , doing 1149 Mhz on Air (custom) http://hwbot.org/submission/3855542_ @Leeghoofd To be sent , to replicate the result to : @InfraRed (Bulgaria) or @Kotori (Japan) or @Strunkenbold (Germany) or @Stelaras (Greece). Ohh and find that original plastic cover of the initial 800 Pluto. When and if someone of the above trusted persons , verifies that your 800 Pluto , can run 1149 Mhz on Air (custom) , i will apologize to you in public. .-

I will write you my opinion and my personal knowledge , since you mentioned some facts about the Pluto cores. Yes , many of the low rated Athlon models , have other cores soldered inside them. I have personally seen with my eyes , cores marked us Pluto 700 and 750 , into 600 models (i have one of those). I also have a Pluto 650 with A2 revision core , which is not logical since the A2 revision was introduced with the higher binned Pluto of 800 & 850 (mostly) As a personal knowledge of that era (Athlon Slot A) , i know that the Pluto cores did have a top bench-able speed of 1000 to 1050. Their scaling in cold temperatures was poor. That max top speed at benches was extended further , with the introduce of the Orion cores , by an other 50 Mhz. Consider at this point , that in our case , we are talking about a sample of Pluto 800 at +50% speed 400Mhz is enormous for that cpu gen. When @GRIFF submitted his results with a Pluto 800 , my first thoughts were , that his pcb had a downgraded Orion core. ok , he got lucky (i thought). But right after he published his 2k1 result , i noticed the absence of certain resistors on specific places. Since he wrote by himself , that he doesnt own a GFD , i instantly got skeptical about it. So the most logical thing , was to ask about it. ... and that's exactly what i did. I asked him about the 10X multi issue from the screenshot ... never got a reply. That is why i asked him the front and rear photo's of the cpu-pcb he used.

I dont have to talk to any moderator. I am talking to you directly ... and i asked you a very simple thing. It's in your hands to do it or not.

You dont understand , and perhaps thats because of the English language we are using , and it's not our native language for both of us. I did not questioned your results and your actual cpu speed. Yes , you actually achieved that cpu speed and results. I asked you to provide some specific screenshot , to make sure for the cpu , you used. Your own screenshot , on 2k1 result is this , ok ? http://hwbot.org/submission/3855155_ Tell me how you managed 10x multi , without a resistor at R122 ? Now this is one of your spi 1M results (which was originally declared as other cpu type ... and then edited to Pluto 800). http://hwbot.org/submission/3854708_ As a pure coincidence that result had a 9.5x multi , which by pure luck matches your 950 Orion (but thats only a coincidence). http://hwbot.org/submission/3550471_griff_superpi___1m_athlon_950_(orion_slot_a)_2min_19sec_941ms Now , for your 800 pluto to get a 9.5X multi , means that you have moved for this result the following R121 R122 R123 R124 R156 R157 R158 R3 R5 R6 Am i right ? Lets sum up with some portion of humor. You have overcome the cpu speed (using a Pluto Core) , of every known entry in various historic databases and my personal memories also. You have overcome the well known minimal cold scaling of Pluto cores and you achieved a +50% @1200 You have reached the top binned Orion Core , overclocked speed area. And i ask. When you see a VW Beetle reaching a 200 mile top speed , and the owner says "it's on stock motor" .... then the first thing to ask ? "pop up the hood" That is exactly what i did in your case. I am being skeptical with your results , and i asked to see the actual pcb of this 8th wonder of the world , Pluto 800. Just two good res pictures , would do (front and back pcb) That simple. Your video is no good to me. Gives me nothing of the clues i seek.

Thanks We are ready to go. In fact , Scott is already there

Stage 3 , with Aida64 Memory Read , we'll open soon. There is a minnor system bug. Be patient.

@GRIFF Can you please verify the exact settings used , with your cpu , in this round ? Write down please , voltage , cache divider , multi. Also for verification purposes (to complete as soon as possible) you can post the cpu pcb photographs now , and post later the photo of your plastic cover , when you find it. Thanks

@alexmaj467 Wallpaper for round 4 , my friend

Get ready !!! ROUND 4 - Socket 423 (2000) (No adapters allowed) Stage-1 SuperPI 1M Stage-2 Wprime 32M Stage-3 Aida64 Memory Read Stage-4 3DMark 2001 - GeForce3 series

Very fast run !!! Many congrats kotori-san.

GRIFF With all due respect , i would like to ask you (regarding your latest submissions) , to provide in this thread , clear photo's of both sides of your cpu pcb. Along with the sticker on board the pcb and the prints from the black plastic cover of the cpu.

Something is wrong with Osibs. There are 20 minutes left ... but the results dont take part to the competition ? ... and team page shows the end of round , approx. 37min ago.