Massman

@ Christian: Off the record, triple thumbs up for using the latin expression 'quod erat demonstrandum

... it's possible you missed these. Do note that this was not the final code, but rendered images. More coming soon

I don't understand the last part. This thread is now an example of how we do not stand behind our rules? Is it either 'stick to the rules and deal with it' or 'no need for rules if you do not stick to them'. The issue with written rules is that they never cover the entire package. Once in a while you come across a situation where the rulebook doesn't give you an exact answer on what to do. In that case, you just have to figure out what's best. This situation is a good example: it's not prohibited to have a father and daughter account. Some solutions feature maximum gain in terms of points, other solutions bring something more positive towards the community. For a number of reasons, I'm convinced the negative of going for the maximum points gain does not outweight the positive of taking both the other members of the community and the staff into consideration. It's just a matter of realising "hey, this might upset/annoy others, so I'll do something else". Nothing more, nothing less.

It's actually 9-11-9. Or else I'd have the first 16GB CL6-6-6 kit

MAX: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1647444

The flickering '_' in the upper-left corner is not a sign of IMC being stressed . What can I say ... I like the extra challenge?

I didn't say any of those alternatives was the perfect solution. Just saying there's a difference between 'punishment' and 'act that benefits the community'. It's not like we said she couldn't overclock or disallow her to bond with her father over overclocking . I really hope this doesn't come across as 'HWBOT is being retarded again' as this is with all the best intentions.

Like I said, there were alternative paths. The daughter not generating points for the OCForums team does not mean that she was forced to stop overclocking. Surely there's a middle ground in between "not overclocking" and "generating points for the same team".

(I am now also posting my sub-par OC results ) As I mentioned in the HWBOT batch thread earlier: tested a new L046B632 2600K from Tones.be. I was hoping to stumble upon one of those magical 5.8G chips, but unfortunatelly this particular sample isn't overclocking so very well. So far, it's the only OC result I've seen with this FPO, so you might go for it anyway and hope you have more than I . Max of the CPU is ~ 5150MHz (no OS at 52x100). BCLK ~ 106MHz. Here are some pictures: And a SuperPI-32M result: Hopefully more luck in the future .

Ok now?

You shouldn't be looking at this as being a punishment, but rather as giving up something for the better cause of the community. We all know the anonymity of the internet brought along a bunch of trust issues. This meaning, it's not unlikely that actions of complete strangers can come across as hostile; where hostile in this case stands for 'cheating'. In the years I've been on the admin side of the bot, more than once I met people who accuse others of cheating/foul play/wrong even if there's no evidence or even counter-evidence. Not always online, but sometimes just in conversations when meeting in real-life. In this particular case, Dejo had the opportunity to contribute to a more pleasant community by choosing to not have two separate accounts, both generating points and both for the same team. There are a couple of other possible ways to go, any of which would prevent others (perhaps non-English speakers) for even considering foul play. Being in two different teams would be one option, not enabling points on one of the accounts is one, having a joined account is another one, etc. In other words, this situation gives Dejo the opportunity to say: "Oh, I see this might be causing grief to people who are not entirely up-to-date on my situation. So, to save others that grief, I'll adjust my own situation a bit". As a side-note: this situation is actually a side-effect of the inevitable hardware sharing rules (oh no, not again). If team points would not be based on the sum of all member points, but on a system like the one suggested in the original Rev4 thread, I don't think this would have even brought up.

Damn ... should not have said the above ... :-/ Quickly tested this new 2600K: 5150MHz seems to be the max L046B632 #0368

Impressive!

- P67A-UD7 (F8x): http://91.121.148.119/downloads/BIOS/p67aud7.f8x - P67A-UD3P (F7a): http://91.121.148.119/downloads/BIOS/p67aud3p.f7a

Updated! List is starting to grow nicely Where can you find that serial number on a tray CPU? Heh, you must have the worst luck imaginable.

00:00 Cet

Gah! Lost track of this. Prepping the packages as we speak, should go out this week!

Nice!

Insane!

Tested 1.8B11 a while ago as well. Could get 2133 running with 16GB, but no room for BCLK clocking.

Added: - P67A-C43 (1.8b7): http://91.121.148.119/downloads/BIOS/E7673IMS.187'>http://91.121.148.119/downloads/BIOS/E7673IMS.187 - P67A-C45 (1.8b7): http://91.121.148.119/downloads/BIOS/E7673IMS.187

Still awaiting the GO! from GBT .

Got a CPU that is stuck at '30'. Anyone else had this issue?

Why?

Don't you dare show x59