Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

coolhand411

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    393

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by coolhand411

    Lets talk about 32m Low Clock Challenges

    in Benchmark software

    Posted · Edited by coolhand411

    ^^ don't know where this "vendor war " comes from ,just because you have to name particular vendor to make your point doesn't mean you want to start some "war" ...no one is defending or accusing any vendors just stating facts ,bottom line is there is nothing wrong with SPI or XTU but the HW you using....062 bclk increment in comparison to say .01 will make a big difference

    Lets talk about 32m Low Clock Challenges

    in Benchmark software

    Posted · Edited by coolhand411

    just to clarify "step" ,I end up booting Gene just to make sure ,on ASUS there is more bclk options ,you can bump it in .01 increments in comparison to the the other vendor where you have 100/100.062/100.125 ...100.062 reaches just over the 5003 limit where on Asus last one would be 100.06

    Lets talk about 32m Low Clock Challenges

    in Benchmark software

    Posted · Edited by coolhand411

    Come on, drop the accusations... This is of course not any fault in either of the two MB's. You can run at correct speed with both and you can run with incorrect speed with both. The key aspect is that there is no way to verify CPU-speed. But you can't verify 70% of the benchmarks here anyway. So why is this more of a problem here than anywhere else? I consider running at max bclk to be able to take a legit screenshot to be an optimization. Especially if you look at the rules for the low clock competition:

    "CPU Frequency in CPUZ must be lower than 5003 MHz"

     

    Consider the alternative. If the rules were: "max fluctuating CPU-freq is 5003 or less", how can you verify that? Should the users wait to catch the highest fluctuating bclk?

     

    exactly this ,if we stick to the rules we wouldn't have this problem in the first place ,the moment they allowed higher cache was when you/me start doing it wrong

     

    @Splave this screenshots don't prove much ,some a lazy screens :) (first screen shows both CPU/mem over the limit,second is just lazy-if he waited long enough he would prolly be able to get them both under 5003 or drop one step and still within efficiency,this is one of the quirks of Skylake and I don't thing it could be corrected (clamped on fluctuation )

    Lets talk about 32m Low Clock Challenges

    in Benchmark software

    Posted · Edited by coolhand411

    It never has been the only brand that doesn't fluctuate. How about any asus result over 100.0 is cheat since they dont have 100.0625 step? Do you wonder why asrock and giga can do 742+ because the bclk is so stable at 102.9** makes you wonder doesnt it?

     

    71664268.jpg

     

    was just trying to fix it so it can be fun again, not pointing fingers at vendors, then called a cheat which is lol worthy.

     

    Guess I will just be like everyone else and stop trying have fun. /thread

     

    no ..Asus don't have a "100.0625 step" that's why you never see anyone going over 5003 on Asus , next step is 100.125=way over the limit and since ASRock does have it almost all ASRock subs come 5004.9 or higher cache since it's so difficult to control/cheat/print screen with the fluctuation on both (CPU/Memory), higher bclk (102.xx) is more manageable on both boards that's why all subs with higher bclk are on equal playing field,you see the advantage/willing to take a chance on Mocf by going near max with that stupid 100.062/different step (bios shows 5003 or 5004 -depends from bios) and you hope you can take that winning screene right bro ? ..as you can see it's not SPI you need to change or blame but BIOS

    P.S. maybe instead of blame game you should talk to Nick ..like two ASRock reps and get this fixed

    Lets talk about 32m Low Clock Challenges

    in Benchmark software

    Posted · Edited by coolhand411

    hahah...why you want to kill it now bro ?..why didn't you bring this to attention few months back when we all knew that the bclk fluctuates that much ? mater of a fact is I think you were the first one to submit with cache at 104.9,this was well known fact ,you didn't had the problem while sitting on ES modules and leading 5.0 challenge ,yes I agree that changes could be made if we all agree but lets start with the next chip-set...or remove all subs with cache above 103 :),no one is cheating man ,you just haven't found the golden setting yet that's all

     

    "xtu a well know bugged benchmark"..I don't thinks so ,just because you can't match something it doesn't mean it's bugged,as of now I hit 5x742 on two different boards and 2x743 on Mocf with the same timings ,it doesn't look "bugged" in my opinion and what about all the boards with 102.7 bclk limit ..maybe they should remove all the subs above that limit ?

    Is the GIGABYTE Z170-SOC Force LN2 Retail or ES?

    in Benchmark Rules

    Posted

    in order for this board to be considered retail it needs to be available/sold via online store (dirct buy includeed) to anyone no matter how many will be produced- sold ,it would also have to be covered by warranty,otherwise it's ES ,I'm not trying to crap on you parade Peter but lets be honest HWBOT is bending the rules any time it gets the chance

    P.S. if you want to remove my post like you did in other "ES" thread go ahead..I know who you are

×
×
  • Create New...