Massman

Actually, the standard deviation of the Dominator GTX2 is lower than the standard deviation of the Flare. Meaning, what you just sait about GTX2 happens 1,xx times more with Flare.

Supply and demand play no role in that last chart. I'm taking the overclocking results from all the SuperPI-32M results (so not just sandy bridge) to determine the real-life overclocking capabilities of each memory kit. Then I apply the platform scaling variables as determined by a Sandy Bridge in SuperPI-32M, meaning the actual scaling of memory tuning in SPI-32M on Sandy Bridge. The problems with Hyper on Sandy Bridge platform has no effect on that last chart. I've also filtered out all the bogus results. Seems like people can't handle the truth

No offensive, but that was unexpected

The new formula is much more accurate than the old one.

Okay, this has been an interesting afternoon. Turns out, the original formula had a logical problem: when going from absolute to relative performance by comparing the obtained performance estimate to the estimated performance for a DDR3-2000 CL6-6 configuration, the weight variable for the Frequency was no longer having any impact. This means: when using the formula to calculate relative performance (score(memory kit) / score(ddr3-2000CL6-6), changing the weight of the frequency had no effect on the relative performance. So, to overcome this problem, Elmor developped a new formula: Score = [(a * Fk / Fr) + (b * TCLr / TCLk) + (c * TRCDr / TRCDk)] / (a+b+c) where, a = weight of frequency b = weight of tCL timing c = weight of tRCD timing Fk, TCLk and TRCDk = average frequency, tcl and trcd of a specific memory kit Fr, TCLr and TRCDr = reference frequency, tcl and trcd (in this case: 1000, 6 and 6) As most of you are probably interested in the SuperPI-32M performance of each kit, I've also re-evaluated the platform-benchmark scaling parameters a, b and c. For SuperPI-32M on Sandy Bridge, the relative performance scaling parameters are: a = 3,28 b = 2,09 c = 1 To make a long story short ... I extracted all the SuperPI-32M memory overclocking results from the database, which would be the most objective data on the overclocking capabilities of every memory kit (as benchmark requires good memory subsystem). Using Elmor's formula and the new SB-SPI32M parameters, we can now give a rough estimation of the SuperPI-32M performance when overclocking a specific memory kit. Here's the chart.

Define 'best' result. Please understand the main principle of these charts: "The quality of a DRAM product is determined by how people configure the memory in a safe-clock situation. The easier it is to reach frequency X, the more likely people will use it as safe-clock. The more difficult it is to reach frequency X, the less likely people will use it as safe-clock". They are key for understanding.

Sorry to burst your bubble, guys. Here's the chart where overclocking capabilities of each kit is based on all SuperPI-32M results (where memory finetuning required). In a last attempt to give you your 'GTX2 is tha best'-chart, I'll re-evaluate the SB platform variables based on SuperPI-32M scaling.

Most of the 1350+ data is skewed because people enter the DDR rating, not the actual frequency. Also, I don't think anyone is running >1350 MHz besides for the memory validation shots, which is data I don't want in these charts. The motivation and methodology is all in the article

Just edited the size of the message, not the words

I don't think you get what the numbers represent . Read the article to understand the methedology.

Might be good to read through this: http://hwbot.org/article/news/hwbot_memory_index_v0_1_page_2. It explains the methodology. That's an explanation for the first chart (oc perf based on LGA1155 results only), but not for the second chart (where oc capabilities are estimated on all hwbot results, but performance scaling based on lga1155 platform variables). Ehr ... what?

Why does that logic apply to GTX2 and not to all other kits?

Hey all, As I was running some queries through the HWBOT database regarding the overclocking capabilities of the LGA1155 platform, I decided to re-run the query used for the HWBOT Memory Index v0.1 article posted a few months ago. To my big surprise, the GTX2 memory was no longer the best performing kit after overclocking, but was taken down by the PSC-based Flare kit. The methodology used for the charts are the same as described in the original article (page 2). The variables a, b and c were estimated using the performance results published by Leegfhoofd at Madshrimps (Intel Sandy Bridge CPU In-Depth Look at Overclocking, Memory Timings and More), where: - a = 25,49 - b = 4,69 - c = 1 SELECT manufacturer.name, memoryproductgroup.label, memClock, result.memTCas, result.memTRCD FROM result JOIN memoryproductgroup ON (memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id = result.mem_productgroup_id) JOIN cpu_model USING (cpu_id) JOIN manufacturer ON (memoryproductgroup.manufacturer_id = manufacturer.manufacturer_id) WHERE (result.mem_productgroup_id!=0 AND result.status_id<10 AND memClock>600 AND memClock<1350 AND memTcas>5 AND memTrcd>4 AND application_id!=11 AND application_id!=13 AND application_id!=18 AND application_id!=21); I also applied the same limitations to the query as described in the original article. There are two charts: one based on the LGA1155 overclocking results and one based on all results. As these results surprised me, I re-evaluated the LGA1366 chart posted in the original article. In other words, I applied the LGA1366 platform variables to the current dataset and this is what happened: Again, Flare is beating GTX2. It's a close call ... but still.

980X/990X stuff?

Updated (still unoptimized) query. Number of results: 13063 by 622 users using 61 different mainboards. Limiting to 2500K and 2600K. Excluding all results <4800 (worst max cpu so far) and >6000 (faulty submissions). Minimum unique users is 10. SELECT ROUND(AVG(cpu_oc)), "|" , COUNT(DISTINCT user_id), "|" , mb_model.name FROM result JOIN mb_model ON (result.mb_model_id = mb_model.model_id) JOIN manufacturer ON (mb_model.manufacturer_id = manufacturer.manufacturer_id) WHERE (cpu_oc>4800 AND cpu_oc<6000 AND (cpu_id=2277 OR cpu_id=2289)) GROUP BY result.mb_model_id HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT user_id)>9 ORDER BY ROUND(AVG(cpu_oc)) DESC; Current standing: Average MHz | # unique overclockers | mainboard 5433 | 41 | P8P67 Evo 5431 | 10 | Big Bang Marshal 5429 | 89 | Maximus IV Extreme 5399 | 97 | P67A-UD7 5389 | 12 | Sabertooth P67 5383 | 30 | P67A-UD5 5362 | 21 | TP67XE 5360 | 45 | P8P67 5357 | 13 | P67 Professional 5328 | 80 | P8P67 Pro 5327 | 11 | P67 Extreme4 5306 | 84 | P8P67 Deluxe 5301 | 54 | P67A-UD4 5295 | 14 | P67A-UD3P 5273 | 18 | P67A-GD55 5271 | 68 | P67A-GD65 Limiting to 2500K and 2600K. Excluding results with memory frequency <400MHz (DDR3-800 lowest supported multiplier) and >1200MHz (not obtainable with retail cpu). Minimum unique users is 5. SELECT ROUND(AVG(result.memClock)), "|" , COUNT(DISTINCT user_id), "|" , mb_model.name FROM result JOIN mb_model ON (result.mb_model_id = mb_model.model_id) JOIN manufacturer ON (mb_model.manufacturer_id = manufacturer.manufacturer_id) WHERE (memClock>400 AND memClock<1200 AND (cpu_id=2277 OR cpu_id=2289)) GROUP BY result.mb_model_id HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT user_id)>4 ORDER BY ROUND(AVG(memClock)) DESC; Current standing: Average MHz | # unique overclockers | mainboard 1042 | 20 | P8P67 Evo 1035 | 5 | P8P67 WS Revolution 1022 | 49 | Maximus IV Extreme 1010 | 62 | P67A-UD7 1004 | 18 | P67A-UD5 998 | 43 | P8P67 Pro 982 | 54 | P8P67 Deluxe 975 | 5 | DP67BG 972 | 11 | Sabertooth P67 967 | 11 | TP67XE 948 | 35 | P67A-UD4 946 | 31 | P8P67 939 | 40 | P67A-GD65 921 | 6 | P67 Extreme4 916 | 6 | P67A-UD3P 915 | 7 | P67 Professional 886 | 8 | P67A-GD55

Yes. That's a known issue for the UD9.

How??

Impressive stuff!

Oh, Beier, now that you're here

Sori, opdatet frist pots.

Updated frontpage

16 places - 8 handpicked - 4 online - 4 live

Depends on the baseline scores for the various benchmarks.

Yes ... for ... real.