Massman

RECORD DEL MUNDO!!

You should play with the PWM settings - I'm not getting OCP shutdowns on the CPU side when pushing the frequency. Not sure if the IGP OCP is working correctly, though, as even with tuned settings I was still getting shutdowns past +250mV and 1750MHz IGP

Did you experience any OCP-like shutdown behavior on the GBT board too?

Gigabyte is limited to +350mV (which is too little), the Gene has a higher voltage range. Not sure about the MSI board.

Dammit, Zeneffect! Your comment makes me think you've got something way better up your sleeve

Andre, I think it's time for you to grow up . No, I don't hate Asus for not sponsoring HWBOT. In fact, I always tell everyone that every vendor has the right to do anything they want. Do I think Asus is living up to their reputation? Perhaps not. Do I dislike the arrogant way Asus has contacted me over the past years? Perhaps yes. Do I think some Asus representative could treat HWBOT with a bit more respect? Perhaps I do. Do I think Asus has some nice products? Perhaps yes. Do I think Asus has some shit products? Perhaps yes too. As far as sponsorship goes, I'm really really happy to work with the companies that do believe in supporting this project. I don't feel HWBOT's missing out at all; in fact, I'm pretty pleased about the people I work closely with ... smart and bright folks! Fact of the matter is that I do not hate Asus, the company. I also don't hate 99,99% of the people working for Asus (some are actually really nice people!). I guess what I'm trying to say here is ... you are the only one at Asus I dislike really and that actually has nothing to do with the company you work for .

Wow where did 3D-Info come from ?

ACPI? Don't use VGA connector, use DVI for >120FSB.

Me too, actually. Loving it more than Ivy Bridge 32M

Moved all the silly "it's because he hates asus" posts to this thread dedicated to Asus-loving. Just fyi, this is me on an event from a couple of months ago. Look at the t-shirt! .

No, I don't ...

Oh, I see Andre also gave you the "Massman/HWBOT hates Asus"-speech while you were out in Taiwan .

Banned.

I'm really amused by how hardmods are considered 'the alternative' nowadays

What about hardmods?

Essentially the theorem says that the larger the CPU binning sample size, the closer you get to the average overclocking capability of that one specific batch. If there's such a thing as better/worse batches, that average would be different. I think we can all assume there are better and worse batches. As you point out, though, most of us are working with small sample size. For that case, the theorem basically points out that there's no guarantee for the sample to come close to the expected (="average") overclocking capability. Essentially ... luck. The fact that you use the word 'chances' indicates it's still about luck .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers It is all about luck. Even within good batches there are super crappy samples. Buy one sample and you'll need luck to get a great one!

I see many people testing a shitload of CPUs, but so very little binning data is being shared in the forums. To me, it's a bit funny that someone who can test over 100 samples in a very methodological way would not share the information with the rest of the community ... but I guess that's how things go nowadays. Anyway ... So, alright, a second thread with results from the SF3D OC Gathering binning event. Why? Well, it's a different type of OC test and the sample size is a little higher. Also, the testing methodology was a bit less accurate than the IMC test, so ... well these are two different tests. So, as you should already know by now, we had 50 retail 3770K CPUs at the event. The batches were: - L202B763 x2 (Malay) - 3217B605 x18 (Costa Rica) - L223B630 x10 (Malay) - L220B232 x20 (Malay) The following mainboards were used for testing: - MSI Z77-GD65 - GIGABYTE Z77X-UD3H - Maximus V Gene - Maximus V Extreme (not actually used - one sample died, the other failed to boot) - Maximus V Formula - One AMD Llano setup :banana: The binning part was split up into two parts: - Lowest possible voltage for 5G 2C2T 32M - LN2 testing Disclaimer: Please note that the even though the testing procedure was roughly the same for all event participants, given that the testing has been done on different platforms (board/cooler) and by different people, the results should be taken with a grain of salt. Due to time restrictions, we did not thoroughly test and re-test all the CPUs to verify that the initial reported lowest voltage is indeed the lowest possible or that the reported LN2 frequency is indeed the highest. Overall, we did see a correlation between the lowest voltage needed to run 32M at 5G on air and the maximum frequency on LN2, but it's not an exact science. In fact, we also learned that unlike with Sandy Bridge, every Ivy Bridge needs to be tested under LN2 to know for sure that it's capable of a certain frequency. One of our most promising CPUs had spectacular cold issues and did not surpass 6.4G stable where we expected it to pass 6.7G easily. You can use the air binning method to filter out those that are probably really bad, so you can save LN2. One last thing. I didn't see any correlation between my IMC test and CPU quality. So, a bad CPU can have a good IMC and a good CPU can have a bad IMC. Anyway, I really hope that in the future it will be possible to repeat this kind of event and focus on more accurate testing methodology and reporting in order to extract more reliable information. We only had 2 days to bench and obviously most people were focused on getting good benchmark results rather than spend time to document the behavior of the shit CPUs . I think I was the only one brave enough to test one of the 10 really shit air CPUs Intel send us, only to find out it's also really shit on LN2! The chart: One more picture:

Wouldn't it be your task, as reviewer, to point out to this 'normal enthusiast user' that it's not a problem to run at a certain memory frequency as long as they change this one subtiming? Isn't it the task of a reviewer to make sure the reader is informed about this? I agree that boards should work out-of-the box, with 'work' defined both in terms of overclocking capability ("Can it reach this frequency?") as well as performance ("Is it performing well?"). It's easy to reach a high frequency if you cripple the subtimings by default, but does that make the board an outstanding memory overclocker for the normal enthusiast user? Imho, a reviewer should at least point out there is a workaround for a certain issue. If not, the reader is not informed correctly.

You sure you modded the right FB, Infrared?

Yup, I can agree with that as well. No way Intel is shipping "pre-binned" CPUs. In fact, from the 50 chips we tested at the SF3D OC Gathering 10 (retail) came straight from Intel. They were the most shit ones we had! So either Intel's not doing any screening whatsoever or they are doing it completely wrong

I did do random tests with some CPUs booting at 2800 to see if they run 32M. Never had a situation where a booting 2800 wouldn't run 32M stable.

I used the new UP5 TH board, not the UD5H . What BIOS setting are you looking for specifically? Already flashed the BIOS of the board, so the profile I used has been overwritten.

New or old batch? Boot up only, didn't have time to go in OS and check stability.

Just proves you don't have to be pretty to be lucky!