S_A_V

I don't have FX-4100 anymore. May be I'll do some testings with FX-8120 in 2-4-6-8 core mode, when I have time for that.

I don't have direct comparison with more than 4 cores with exact the same settings. Just found PCMark04 results with FX-4100 @ 6918 MHz and FX-8120 @ 6782 MHz: 4-core: 49.3 web page rendering, 317 fps WMV - http://hwbot.org/submission/2231053_ 8-core: 55.2 web page rendering, 362 fps WMV - http://hwbot.org/submission/2240067_ Don't look at Overall score, FX-4100 result was done with wrong Grammar Check. Windows was updated with AMD Bulldozer Performance Updates: Windows6.1-KB2592546-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB2645594-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB2646060-v3-x64.msu Do you use WMV settings suggested in PCMark05 Tweaking Thread? I mean this: "Force NumThreads"=dword:00000002 Try playing with other values

Both PCMark04 and PCMark05 uses some OS components that scales from number of cores - web browser, audio-video codecs, etc. Don't look at "whitepapers", just open process manager, run benchmark and see real processor usage per cores. The same with 3DMarks03/05: they don't need multicore CPU, but video drivers support multicore CPU, so we have better scores with more cores. PCMark04 - Web Page Rendering - Phenom II 560: 2-core - 60.6 - 6346mhz 3-core - 64.8 - 6300mhz 4-core - 70.9 - 6346mhz PCMark04 WMV Video Compression subtest also scales from number of cores on Windows 8 with right settings.

Very nice BCLK for 32M with hypers!

Why not if it scales? 1.95 is ok if you use good heatsinks and high airflow. Not for daily usage of couse. After 3 years of benching with this ram at 1.93-1.95 it have no any signs of degradation and problems with stability.

1.93-1.95V, like in 99% of my submissions with this RAM

Two sticks from F3-16000CL7T-6GBPS triple-channel kit

Thanks all! 2500K not so good as 2600K, especially in Lobby Hi. With 2600K at ~6 GHz it could be closer to 141K, but not with 2500K. Already spent 40L only for this bench. May be I will do one more attempt, if I find settings for 107 BCLK on this CPU.

62 web page rendering with 4800 CPU !

Can't get working Transparent Windows Bob's Tweak on two different setups Tried many times both ways - by Stelaras and by bob80. 11k is the best run on air so far: On the video bob says do log off and then log in. After "login" I see PCMark05 already (still) running. But while logging off windows close all running tasks, including PCMark05. Ok, I tried lock / unlock windows and change user / back to logged used, it's not works for me too.

Congrats, nice work on TW subtest

What is final decision about caching software for PCMark Vantage scores - allowed or not? I see "no ramcache software" already added to the PCMark05 submission rules, but not to PCMark Vantage submission rules, that is why I ask before I will try to update my score with new CPU.

Damn 34K transparent windows... I only know how to run transparent windows without mouse moving and default mouse settings (all my pcmark05 runs done without mouse tweaks), but it gives me only the same scores that others can do with mouse tweaks. Unfortunately my way to tweak transparent windows, when combined with mouse tweaks, gives not better scores than when both method used separately.

Both me and NoGuru can do it with LN2, so it is only matter of time when really good scores will be shown. My 2 GHz wprime runs was on Thermalright Archon without mounting, just for quick testing 5th core. Today I raised the bar little higher http://hwbot.org/submission/2254499_ http://hwbot.org/submission/2254498_

Yes it was done without any caching software. I don't even install AMD RAIDExpert! Just used "Read Adead + Write Back" in RAID option ROM, nothing more. Best virus scan was 1800+ on "virgin" RAID (first run after trim and rebuild), 1770 is second run.

Now I understand your point: CPU configured to 3 cores by manufacturer - exist. CPU configured to 5 (7,9,11,13) cores by manufacturer - not exist. Yes, that is the difference. But if some CPU's not exist by now it not mean they will not released later. Anyway, ability to posting 5x-core scores already exist in this revision of hwbot engine, I just use it

I Just did quick test for 4 GHz on air. Hope it will do 6.0-6.5 like other thubans. Those 960T are not all unlockable. First one unlocks to 6x but failed to load windows even down-clocked to 2GHz. Second one unlocks to 5x and working, but last 6-th core completely dead.

We already have 3-core ranking filled with results with Phemon II / Athlon II 2-cores by default (4-cores physically) unlocked to 3-core, so why do you think Zosma (4-core by default) unlocked to 5-core is something different? I understand it is easiest global points ever made and not competitive for now, but anyone can buy 960T for 100$ on ebay and join me in 5-core ranking (both wprime, pcmark, unrar bench, etc). Sure, I will make some backups with LN2, so it will be not so easy anymore

Write-back cache is standard functionality of many software, comes with both on-board and discrete RAID-controllers. Intel RST, AMD RAIDExpert, Promise WebPAM, etc. It is already used for ages for PCMark scores, way before someone discovered third-party caching software like Fancy Cache or Super Cache. There is a big difference between that two types of software with caching ability. Third-party software can use so much RAM for cache that you want, and it gives you performance very close to RAM Disk driver (if have enough RAM installed). "Bundled" software that comes with hardware not allow you to specify amount of ram for cache and don't have "mirroring partition" feature. You can only enable or disable that option. And if enabled it gives the same boost no matter how much system RAM you use - 4 Gb or 64 Gb.

Firmware optimization and type of flash make the difference too, not only controller. Another example: Crucial C300 based on the same controller as m4, but it can't touch m4 speeds.

I still need to improve my page rendering and transparent windows. As for general usage on SSD there is no special tweaks. Use latest firmware for SSD. Use latest Intel RST - not from official Intel site, look at station-drivers for example. See driver build date in .inf-file, not version number. Use small stripe size (try 4, 8 or may be 16) and enable write-back cache. Run TRIM manually every time before you make RAID with SSD. First run after you make RAID always better, because there is still no TRIM support for RAID. Every next run without rebuilding and trimming RAID will be worse than previous. Don't use RAID partition for XP Startup, if possible, use some other storage (single SSD, RevoDrive, etc). Don't write anything on RAID partition. Disable creating all temp/system files/folder for RAID partition ($RECYCLE.BIN, System Volume Information, etc.). This is only for SSD in RAID, you don't need it for iRAM/Acard. And the most important part - don't use slow SSD: no SATA2, no Intel, no SandForce, and no less than 120 Gb. For now, I can only recommend Crucial m4, Corsair Performance Pro and Plextor M3.

Yes, 2x SSD onboard SATA3-ports. I tried 3x and 4x SSD in SATA2 mode - it gives worst scores than only two in SATA3 mode. Also compared 2x Crucial m4 and 2x SandForce2-based (Vertex3 and HyperX) - scores with Crucial m4 are much better, especially with new firmware that gives nice boost in general usage. You used gigabyte board when CPU died?

My old M4E was able to run up to 104 BCLK with 2500K and hypers. New M4EZ can't do more than 101 BCLK and 1:8. http://kingpincooling.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19518&postcount=46 Of course, score can be improved little bit more, but I don't think I can do 5:35:7xx with this ram.

M4E sold, "upgrading" to M4EZ was my big mistake You kidding, right? Your 5:35 at 5950 is very efficient, like it should This 5996*336.672=2018k is not, because of high tRCD. 5:33 should be possible with 6 GHz CPU and 8 Gb hypers. No problems with copywaza on this ram. Not all subs tightened - I just set tRFC 72 and some others at random.

First over 40k AMD PCMark05 and still under 6GHz CPU Great score!