Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

jpmboy

Members
  • Posts

    525
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jpmboy

  1. I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying it is good or bad. The rules this year are set. I too liked the setup last year simply because it reflects a best attempt to pair up gear.. eg, i5/970, i3/960 and so on. Allowing the 980 to drop from Div1 to Div 2 and 3 in the following year, then the same rational will have 1080s in Div3 next year I presume. And why exclude Titan Maxwell or Kepler this year in Div 2 or 3 since the performance would fit in also? Launch "tier" is not the reason to exclude them anymore. I'm posting not necessarily for mods to read... maybe other players will see the slippery slope. But probably not. ;-/
  2. Complain? What else is a discussion forum for? ;-)
  3. necro at this point, but allowing the 980 blew the Div III "concept" here. The current cost argument for an old part would then allow all sorts of old gen Halo and HEDT parts. At launch the 980 was the premier nvidia HEDT part, excluding the Titan Maxwell "halo" product. For maxwell generation cards the proper limitation is the 960 for Div III. What went wrong here?
  4. Thanks. Not that I'm thinking of getting one or anything. :-)
  5. Is hardware launched after the comp began permitted? eg, 1080Ti ??
  6. hey bro, your gpuZ windows looks like you don;t have the clocks locked in P0 boost. with AB open put the mouse in the chart window. Hit Cntrl-F, then hold the shift key and pick the 1050mV point, slide the line to the offset you want, leave the mouse on the graph point, hit cntrl-L then "apply". close the cntrl-F window and adjust other setting as normal. cor and memory freq will hold at P0 boost clocks until reset. this is "save-able". :thimb:
  7. okay - just trying to restate what you had in the PM Mar 5, 2017 at 7:55 am (EST). Eg, what you thought it should be, and what it is. I misunderstood. Anyway, my concern was not only about whether it is safe for benching or LN2 applications, but that there are a surprising number of users running 7700Ks at >5.2 with just water cooling. So, maybe this is a better question... is 1.6V ST not dangerous under normal use? (not benching only... yes, there are users out there running >5.2) :-) It's a great board Elmor, if this is a normal and necessary voltage when running a KBL at >5.2GHz benching or not, then we're good and I'll pass that on.
  8. Yeah, the Standby Voltage rule should only kick in when above 5.2 in LN2 mode... but will when not in LN2 mode. It's a bios issue that needs to be fixed. So far, with clocks as high as 5.6, ST at 1.3V has worked fine (ambient or chilled water cooling). AID64 reports this voltyage rail accurately as "VCC Sustain" 4133 21-11-11-28 is crazy! Thanks, I'll have to play with dmi a bit more.
  9. I know it's nothing big for the folks here, but I was finally able to get 4000c12 "bench stable" on my Apex. Took a bit more voltage tweaking than I thought it would on this sample. Fun to putz around with tho. :-) Edit: Anyone else notice that when you run higher Vcore multis above 53 (like 1.48 for 5.6) that CPU standby voltage goes thru the roof?? Bios reads it at ~ 1.6V and a DMM off the probit belt conforms. " Auto" Standby voltage is seriously overvolting as soon as I run 1.48V manual override for 5.6GHz. WTH?
  10. Thanks. Yeah, I noticed this on the MOCF in comp to the 2 M8I's here, especially regarding VSA and VCCIO. 1.35V in bios for VSA is well over 1.4V measured with a DMM... at least on my sample. Freaked me out initially. :-0
  11. I know it's old news for you guys.. but this shoulda been fixed. thanks. the 386 preset works fine... 4000 seem to require a lot more voltage adjs than would be expected. Thanks guys!
  12. Hey Strong... is there a ram tutorial for this board? Have you been able to get the presets to work? I have two kits that run 4000c12 at 1.85V on the MOCF and so far "no soup for me" (board arrived today).
×
×
  • Create New...