Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

nnimrod

Members
  • Posts

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nnimrod

  1. The AHFD has a clear polycarbonate window, so you can see the platter and head. Your drive is functionally the same, but without the window. I want the window because it's to be used in a showy retro computer I'm piecing together.
  2. not really, looking for that model specifically.
  3. $50 + shipping for a good condition used example, more if you have the original packaging/box.
  4. Is there a performance/efficiency hit for using one of these? The traces are now much longer...
  5. Rivatuner shows me a range of +/- 3.0, does the program you're using have a different range for LOD values? I've been using older drivers, at latest 169.21. I thought perhaps the 101.09 driver that I was using might be the reason why LOD adjustments weren't doing anything, so I tried 169.21. The LOD adjustments are immediately obvious, because the picture is blurry, including loading screens. However the score is no different. In 101.09 the LOD adjustments didn't visibly change the picture at all. 169.21 Control raw sorted 0 1300 1294 Best half average Best half range 1 1297 1295 1298.0 3.0 2 1295 1295 3 1297 1296 4 1297 1296 5 1299 1296 6 1297 1296 7 1296 1297 8 1296 1297 9 1299 1297 10 1295 1297 11 1297 1297 12 1294 1298 13 1298 1299 14 1296 1299 15 1296 1300 Clamp negative LOD bias, and +1.5 0 1297 1295 Best half average Best half range 1 1299 1296 1298.6 1.0 2 1296 1296 3 1297 1296 4 1296 1297 5 1299 1297 6 1299 1297 7 1295 1297 8 1296 1298 9 1298 1298 10 1298 1298 11 1297 1299 12 1299 1299 13 1297 1299 14 1298 1299 15 1299 1299 Then I tried checking the "Color mipmaps" option in 3DMar05 settings, as well as setting LOD bias to +2.5 in Rivatuner, and that resulted in a significant improvement in score, but the benchmark is rendered not sampling the color textures, but solid colors representing the LOD mipmaps or something. Is that tweak allowed?
  6. I have no idea re. the first thing. I tried it in 05, and if there's an effect, it's within margin of error. stock clocks 3D05 0 1261 1258 Best half average Best half range 1 1261 1258 1262.4 4.0 2 1263 1259 3 1261 1259 4 1259 1260 5 1258 1261 6 1265 1261 7 1261 1261 8 1261 1261 9 1260 1261 10 1263 1261 11 1258 1261 12 1261 1263 13 1261 1263 14 1264 1264 15 1259 1265 First run with LOD +1.5 was 1259, inside margin of error. Not sure if you need it to be a small amount, or almost the whole slider, and whether the effect is going to be very small, or multiple percentage points. Is this the right way to set LOD bias? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1enyxWK1r0gXmStYlHrZHxG31DqIPODSp/view?usp=share_linkusp=share_link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ev8hNfM8vhhVbziuidMrrqNRhPM412JE/view?usp=share_link
  7. I'm starting with nvidia 7 series, and 3DMark06, currently on XP x64. Changing LOD/mipmap bias in rivatuner doesn't seem to do anything... Kinda getting the feeling that efficiency doesn't matter as much in 3d as it does in, say, 32m, because you can just use a current gen CPU. I still need to get at least the basics for efficiency tho. Any good forum threads? I wasn't able to turn hardly anything up via google. thx
  8. nnimrod

    AMD TL-68 cpu

    Turion 64 x2 TL-68, 2400mhz. Let me know if you've got one, thanks.
  9. That's a pretty nice system. What heat load will it hold at -110C? Does everything plug into normal 15a receptacles?
  10. I fear you might be correct. But surely I'm not alone in my reluctance to run 32m 200 times to know for sure if one secondary timing is faster... Confidence in results would be better if I could reduce variance. And I had much better variance until I tightened to cas 5. Previously at cas 6 I was down to about .2 or less variance between the best half of 12 runs. Cas 5 brought better best runs, and worse worst runs. I hope that I can get the variance down again by going back over seconds/terts. One of the important terts was skewing tRDRD_dr/_dd to 5/6. tWR 9 was also very important.
  11. Thanks for making an account to reply! I'm not sure I understand correctly yet tho. Why do we have to wait tCAS clocks to start the burst if the memory is already in the buffer 4 clocks after the read command was processed? And why does this motherboard allow me to set tRTP to 3? Setting it to 3 isn't a meaningless change, it changes performance, and it shows up in the gigabyte software that shows memory timings in OS. Is it setting tRTP to 3 only in cases where the burst has been chopped to 4 bits? Do you happen to work in the field?
  12. Context is Z97, giga SOC Force motherboard. Micron D9KPT memories. If I understand correctly, a value for tRTP of less than (tCAS+tBurst) - tRP should be meaningless, right? Since the page can't be closed until it's finished with tBurst, even if it's finished precharging. In my example case, I have tCAS 5 tRP 5 tRTP 3 and 4 tBurst is always 4 (Since a 4 bit burst still takes 4 clock cycles) Some SuperPi and AIDA64 results: (666mhz memory is why it's 7 minutes ~46 seconds) tRTP 3 1 465.828 2 466.015 3 466.110 best half avg 466.091 4 466.140 best half range 0.422 5 466.203 best half stdev 0.152 6 466.250 read write copy 7 466.343 20849 22328 19590 8 466.344 20841 22336 19433 9 466.344 20837 22328 19413 10 466.375 20856 22324 19425 11 466.453 20875 22335 19435 12 467.891 NEIR 17 20852 22330 19459 average tRTP 4 1 465.594 2 465.797 3 465.890 best half avg. 465.966 4 466.141 best half range 0.625 5 466.156 best half stdev 0.246 6 466.219 7 466.265 20785 22343 19428 8 466.328 NEIR 19, 14, NCIS 7 20822 22316 19452 9 466.453 20838 22310 19431 10 466.484 20851 22331 19452 11 466.860 20789 22336 19442 12 467.015 NEIR 3 20817 22327 19441 average In 32m, tRTP 4 is generally better, although less stable (4 fails vs 1 fail for tRTP 3). In AIDA tRTP 3 has unambiguosly better read performance, and by extension, a little better copy. I don't know why tighter tRTP is slower in 32m I don't know why tighter tRTP is more stable in 32m I don't know why tighter tRTP has better performance in AIDA Tighter tRTP shouldn't matter at all because page closure is waiting on data transfer (tBurst), not tRP, right? Is this just random error throwing me for a loop? Do you think increasing sample size will make this inconsistency go away?
  13. How about this one? SODIMM is such a weird format, never could get used to it.
  14. Thoughts on these? Maybe Samsung 2 Gb Rev. D? Shame they're single sided >.> I found another OCZ kit with the same specs, but that listing didn't have photos of the reverse side, so I don't know if they're also single sided.
  15. haha yes, they might scale into being as good as the worst set of PSC on a hot summer day, with peanut butter on some of the gold contacts
  16. Oh, I guess that should have been obvious
  17. These are CFR? For whatever reason I never really got interested in CFR. Or single sided MFR.
  18. What are your thoughts on the PCBs? Is 8155/8117 a good sign or does it not mean anything? It seems like this issue never really was decided fully. Not great. Haven't gotten it stable 1000 9-9-8 yet, but I feel like I just don't have the right IOA/IOD combo yet. All timings scale with vDIMM, but scaling ends at 1.82v. Not exact loop 10-20 @ 1.81v, passes 32m at 1.82v, fails initial at 1.83v. And the vDIMM scaling is the same regardless of the IMC volts. Also tWCL 6 doesn't even work at 666mhz. Easy to see why this IC received no attention. I will still freeze them tho, if nothing else because I doubt anyone else has.
  19. Has anyone other than kingpin binned individual ICs and assembled them? IIRC I saw that set for sale on here awhile ago.
  20. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "Collector" since it implies not using what you collect. I do use them. I'm working on dialing in a set of D9KPT right now, some patriot 1333 6-6-6 rated sector 5s. Useless unless you just want to see what D9KPT can do. The whole "Collector vs user" tension is present in many areas, and in all of them I'm on the user's side. In my case that includes 60s/70s SLRs (film cameras), 19th century woodworking tools, and classic cars. That said, you do with your money as you wish. EDIT: Also, shouldn't the vaporware bins be called vaporbins? sorry, I had to.
×
×
  • Create New...