the thing for me is that hwbot doesnt take into consideration CPU-Z which means that graph and monitoring of XTU is the only way to check the frequency. So IMO, rules should be strict regarding these two (graph & monitoring) for the above reason.
What Demac said/wrote.
XTU keeps reading cpu frequency in Real-Time which is (after bench) 4.5 GHz but based on the graph it should be lower (???)
EDIT: Seems like he paused the monitoring.
haha, I would if I had my degree to back me up (easier to find another job if something doesnt go well, etc.); so I will have to wait a couple of years for now.
I still believe that CPUz is the real way to measure the freq.
If I set 125 bclock I get 125.2 real (even tho xtu reads the bios aka 125.03 -> "4.00" GHz) and thats based on both cpuz and bios.
4509 Cache / 36 Multi = 125.25 MHz. Try lower than 125 MHz on bios to get real 125 MHz on cpuz.
That because, it seems that 99.9% of the time REAL bclock on GB mobos (X99) is > than XTU bclock read (bios setting read).
I dont want to offend you in anyway but why not buying a chip from oc.co.uk for almost half the money that does at least 6.4 G 01/05?
EDIT: Just saw that there is no stock @oc.co.uk