|ron

...and I thought it was a serious thread from a serious guy... Uhm... ok, this is necessary

Lol, rip bulldozer, it gave mafio a lolling afternoon, while I was yelling at a new (shitty)3930k+R4E, 5,2ghz max freq lol Mafio, next time you should bring with you at least 2 BDs, so you'll have about 8hrs each, before destroying everything :lol: Oh, and chapeau to Asus, at least the mobo is still alive

Good job mate

Well well well Roby, how about bench stable frequencies in 3dmark11/vantage?

great george Glad to have been of help. Did you try it@ln2?

Well Jarnis, so you confirm I'm not crazy Anyway, I propose to the staff to add the rule that, from now on, only 1.0.2 could be used. It's not a huge difference in points, ok, but if someone's fighting for the WR in a category, a few points could mean first or second place

Hi there guys, I need your help about a thing I ran through. I think that the upgrade between version 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 brought some problems at consistency of the scores in Physics test. I first found this in the Llano competition. CPU@3,45ghz, ram@1200 9-11-9-27, 5.065 in that test. After having 3dm11 patched to 1.0.2, with the same settings, the score went down to 4.833. Same "fall" in points can be seen with a SB system. If you pay attention to the fps rate during the test, you'll notice that with version 1.0.1, the fps are incresing througout the entire test. With patch 1.0.2 installed, in the last 3/4seconds, the fps are descreasing a little. So, the purpose of this thread is: can you guys please do comparative runs, using the same settings, first with 1.0.1 version, than patching it to 1.0.2 and having the second run. Then post here your findings. IF I'm right, there's a serious problem here, about the consistency of results with different patch levels Thanks!!

For what I can see, there are 4 holes, and the backplate passes through them. But, since on the upper side of the mobo there is the socket, maybe we can unmount the socket retention system by taking out those 4 Torx screws, pulling out even the backplate and voilà: we have 4 holes. Of course, we would have to be careful when installing a cpu because there will be no retention system, but hey I think that's a problem we could manage without destroying all the pins. Am I saying something wrong or that could be a way?

The prize arrived today! In the next few days I'll try it on ubuntu, hoping for a decent support for that hardware, maybe in the 11.10 release. Thank Giga and hwbot for hosting the comp!

A question: if Nvidia is going to implement the chance to modify the Tessellation level, a "2x" in the CCC will be equal to a "2x" for nvidia? To better explain what I mean, the Tessellation level is "brand/driver indipendent"?

How about modifying the benchmark making that it automatically takes a SS in a precise frame of the scene. Then making mandatory to attach this SS to the submission. Of course, it would also be necessary to hide some infos inside the jpg, to let you make a validation in the submitting process. That way, by looking at the SS, we could easly understand if tessellation was disabled. Maybe a bit too complicated?

Using the slider in the CCC and setting tessellation to 0x, wasn't resulting into this, to me! It was all there and visible! How did you manage to get this one pieter? by disabling tessellation in the benchmark itself?

Greaaat work there K!!

Mmhh the link is to the latest post by Chew, so you basically agree to say that tessellation is not THE feature, or at least you agree with chew about using a minimum amount of this effect (of course, given that nvidia will add this feature to their driver some day) because that doesn't hurt visual quality even being at 5%? Seems more or less what I said, if I'm not mistaken, no?

Hi Pieter, according to me the solution is a MINIMUM level of tessellation mandatory for both ati and nvidia... just like when you set drivers to high perf. Tessellation to 0x is like a sort of mipmap tweaking, so if mipmap is contrary to the rules, then tessellation totally disabled should be as well. Don't you agree pieter? what is your opinion about that issue? And jarnis also, what is your opinion (not futuremark one, I mean your thought)?

Gaming and overclocking are two different things, at least speaking about extreme overclocking, if we could call it so. My purpose in benching a vga is to squeeze out every fps: back in the days of the radeons 9700/9800/x850, the 3dmark03 was a COMPLETE purple, green and blue artifact... who cares about graphic quality, the important thing is the score and being able to let the vga close the bench without crashing. If Tessellation is still there a little, even with tessellation slider at minimum in the CCC, then for me it's ok. It's EXACTLY the same as putting drivers on "high perf." instead of the useless "high quality". That is what 3dmark is used for, not for benching with shining graphics, magix effects etc... at least, not in the overclocking environment Of course, a score must be obtained using the same rules, that is why I temporarily agree with the "blocking" of tessellation-off-scores from ati, at least until nvidia will decide what to do about their drivers. But Lods is a different thing.

Well, speaking about tessellation, you made the point clear... if nvidia isn't going to release a driver version in which you can control the tessellation, then this feature must be ON for both of them. But for the lods, I disagree even on detecting them... it's not a difficult thing to spot the right lods, but hey, it's time consuming and it's not correct that someone will benefit from my work, except if I want to share... and usually, I always give a hand to whom is asking my lods etc... Hope to have cleared out my point too

Ok, so no tessellation, no lods. What is overclocking a vga about, then? Pure frequency? Oh, interesting, so the skills will be the amount of binning needed to find the right vga, the right cpu etc... I strongly disagree. I can understand the decision behind prohibiting the mipmap tweaking: it was not a "tweak" it was a blank screen from the beginning to the end of the bench. But the lods... don't change the rules even on that please -.-

On air I topped out at 163/164mhz, on the Asus board, thanks to Stilt's bios in which he unlocked the "bank interleaving" option, which I put on disable and that gave me a boost in ram freqs and 2/3mhz in bclk scaling also...

Uhm... my best bclk was obtained while I was testing how far could the gpu go, with cpu and ram lowered in frequencies. I arrived@171 or 173, don't remember precisely, but couldn't use that freq togheter with high rams and cpu so it was, let's say, useless for the competition

Well, it would be helpful to say also that, if you're planning to go@ln2 with Llano, the UD4H isn't a good mobo... mosfets tend to burn after only 2 or 3h at ln2 according to my and gappo's experience in the A75 August comp. No issues with SS, but don't go ln2, unless you are aware you're putting at risk mosfets and chokes

It's a little OT, but when I read "iGPU" I thought "Oh shit, another app for the iPhone to let the wannabe ockers raise frequencies from their apple phone" :asd: :D

mmhhh I think too that sb-e on air is almost to the limit

No, it's not that isn't bitchy enough. It's that those cpus are completely random and you have to simply change and change and change them until you get something that can hit 5,7+ ghz. In the past there were baaad cpus and lucky cpus, but the range wasn't as wide as now. The worst 2600k can do 5/5,1ghz, the best can do 6ghz. With the i7-975 the worst I saw was 5,15 or 5,2, the max was 5,7 from Stummer if I'm not mistaken.

Dunno, it happened first on the asus f1a75-m pro and then on the ud4h. To better explain, it's not that the system freezes: actually, if you could see what's going on, you'll notice that it's going straight through windows as a normal boot. But you loose image output to the monitor. Maybe the video signal conversion from digital to analog has something to do with that... Remaining in digital does the trick. it's the only thing I could think of p.s: oh and for the record, there are reviews around the web where they say something like "fsb overclocking is limited to around 120/125mhz, so we did our test at these frequencies"... it's not quite true