Massman

Sorry, moved my last post to here: http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13635

As brought up in this thread: http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13456 -- Heh, I have a bit better tools being able to go through the database . It's getting more of an experiment to figure out how to set up the 'find similar results'-feature. I imagine we'd need different level of searches depending on how similar you want the results to be. Eg: if you are running SPI32M on a DDR2 platform, DDR3 scores are perhaps not interesting. Or maybe they are. I don't know. We can grab the type of application from the database, so we can make GPU type unimportant for CPU app searches. Apart from that, I would define levels as: CPU - level 1: cpu_core, cpu_oc (range of 500MHz?), limit to 20 results (10 better and 10 worse) - level 2: + mb_chipset, memType - level 3: + mb_model GPU Any suggestions? Differences between GPU products within one core or family are often huge (GTS450 and GTX480). A lot more variables go into 3D benching as well - level 1: gpu (="GTX480"), gpucooling - level 2: + mb_chipset, cpucooling - level 3: + cpu_core Ideas?

Expanding the search field for more challenges: - SuperPI 32M - Clarkdale - 5200 < Frequency < 5700 - No cooling limitations - 419.219 by Ross with Core i5 655k @ 5628.40 and GA-H55N-USB3 - 424.594 by uncle fester with Core i5 655k @ 5600.00 and GA-H55N-USB3 - 427.625 by jabski with Core i3 530 @ 5696.00 and GA-P55-UD5 - 427.937 by Moonman with Core i5 655k @ 5608.00 and GA-P55A-UD7 - 430.531 by GraduS with Core i5 670 @ 5670.00 and GA-P55A-UD4 - 431.672 by pro with Core i5 655k @ 5388.00 and GA-H55N-USB3 - 432.047 by splmann with Core i5 670 @ 5664.00 and GA-H55N-USB3 - 436.859 by Hicookie with Core i3 530 @ 5500.00 and GA-H55M-USB3 - 437.406 by gbglassen with Core i5 670 @ 5659.00 and GA-P55-UD6-C - 437.453 by trans am with Core i5 655k @ 5670.40 and GA-H55N-USB3 - 439.047 by 0Ro! with Core i5 661 @ 5589.60 and GA-P55-UD3 - 441.453 by 1Day with Core i3 530 @ 5588.80 and GA-H55N-USB3 - 442.547 by Massman with Core i5 655k @ 5276.00 and Maximus III Formula - 442.719 by KkWong with Core i3 530 @ 5478.70 and GA-H55-UD3H - 443.000 by Ross with Core i5 670 @ 5315.00 and GA-P55-UD6 - 443.516 by Moonman with Pentium G6950 @ 5481.30 and GA-H55M-UD2H - 443.656 by chew* with Core i5 655k @ 5357.00 and Sabertooth 55i - 443.891 by Massman with Core i5 655k @ 5317.00 and P55-GD80 - 444.343 by momoto with Core i5 670 @ 5586.50 and P55 FTW - 445.766 by Toolius with Core i5 650 @ 5525.00 and GA-P55A-UD4P - 446.078 by Massman with Core i5 655k @ 5221.80 and GA-H55M-UD2H - 446.800 by 1Day with Core i3 530 @ 5632.60 and GA-H55N-USB3 - 446.800 by 1Day with Core i3 530 @ 5632.60 and GA-H55N-USB3 - 447.484 by 69_Goat with Core i5 670 @ 5587.30 and P55 Classified 200 - 447.781 by over@locker886 with Pentium G6950 @ 5646.00 and GA-P55A-UD7 - 448.640 by Massman with Core i5 655k @ 5217.00 and GA-H55M-UD2H - 450.390 by 69_Goat with Core i5 670 @ 5405.00 and P55 Classified 200 - 450.422 by eagle58 with Core i3 560 @ 5648.00 and GA-P55-UD3R - 450.547 by RULE with Core i5 670 @ 5670.00 and GA-H55M-UD2H - 450.640 by tiborrr with Core i3 540 @ 5683.00 and Sabertooth 55i

Best 25 scores: - 8.032 by kuup with Core i7 920 @ 5027.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.187 by poparamiro with Core i7 920 @ 4877.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.190 by .fx with Core i7 920 @ 4787.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.219 by Mad222 with Core i7 920 @ 4901.80 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.250 by poparamiro with Core i7 920 @ 4869.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.258 by ~LL~ with Core i7 920 @ 4936.20 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.258 by ~LL~ with Core i7 920 @ 4936.20 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.266 by Jurky with Core i7 920 @ 4859.60 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.267 by dejo with Core i7 920 @ 4893.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.282 by cheapseats with Core i7 920 @ 4818.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.297 by OverClockers with Core i7 920 @ 4860.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.300 by nordicjedi with Core i7 920 @ 4922.70 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.300 by thebanik with Core i7 920 @ 4859.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.313 by Neuromancer with Core i7 920 @ 4838.80 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.343 by Brolloks with Core i7 920 @ 4834.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.375 by DopeLex with Core i7 920 @ 4814.40 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.391 by ZerooCool with Core i7 920 @ 4800.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.409 by ]siNNer[ with Core i7 920 @ 4830.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.422 by ARandomOWl with Core i7 920 @ 4720.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.437 by akoska07 with Core i7 920 @ 4763.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.442 by ~LL~ with Core i7 920 @ 4636.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.450 by SAMBA with Core i7 920 @ 4755.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.469 by DopeLex with Core i7 920 @ 4782.50 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.484 by CROSSHIGHAIR with Core i7 920 @ 4770.00 MHz on Air Cooling - 8.500 by maX with Core i7 920 @ 4761.00 MHz on Air Cooling

Based on the following data: - Application = SuperPI 1M - Cooling = air cooling - CPU = Core i7 920 There are: - 73 submissions with a higher clock frequency - 145 submissions with a better score

Have you tested all cards separately? In 3-Way SLI, the maximum stable frequency is determined by the worst of all three cards. It's possible that one card just doesn't want to do 900MHz.

Really ... no one will be running dual channel :-P

Really ... no one will be running dual channel :-P

So, we could just launch this benchmark if we add a small guide on how to set up the HDD and CDR subtests? I wouldn't mind this at all ... it's something 'new' (previously labeled 'illegal' haha). The good thing about this benchmark is that it has subtest scores as well. If we can build a wrapper around it that automatically sends through all the subtest detail results ...

The SS bios was a joke. Chew* didn't even get any help from me. He did, however, send me this SPD dump of his Corsair Dominator GTs (Hyper), so maybe that might help: link

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=84490

DDR3-2100! Too bad I had to ruin it with a shit copy-waza. Won't nail the M3F run, but low 23 is possible.

Done!

And another board on the table. This time the old-skool GD80 that I've had since, what, a year now? Obviously I cannot expect this board to pwn the new PCB designs out there, but it turned out to be quite a handful. Unlike the two previous boards, this one will not clock memory that nicely. DDR3-2045 seems to be the limit for now and that already requires a 10-minute workaround to get it ready to run 32M . Will post the work-around if someone's interested. Anyways, it does seem I can nail a bit higher clocks than on the other boards: 5.32G is consistently stable. Also had a nice 'competitive' (not really efficient) run going, but it crashed after loop 24 (:shakes:) and the run after that rebooted at loop 21. FML. I'm sure tomorrow-night I'll produce a more competitive run in terms of end result. Efficiency-wise, unless I find the magic key to unlock DDR3-2100, it will be a no-go.

Looks like the SS bios helped nicely :-)

As I mentioned already, I switched to a different mainboard to give this thing another spin. The M3F is giving me an extra 50 to 80MHz on the core most likely due to the tolerance for a bit more Vcore. In the end, CPU MHz does make the biggest difference. In terms of memory overclocking, the M3F doesn't do as well as the little H55 board, maxing out at DDR3-2110 so far. But, with the extra MHz on the core, I was able to push out semi-decent 'no-compromise' runs. Here's my run with CW (3,5s gain over no CW)

One score was holding up the rest. Should be getting points in a while.

The GTX2 kit is not mine, so I have to follow the voltage guidelines of the owner.

Didn't have to install anything other than the application. As for the HDD and CDR subtest, I enquired the developper of the application and he said this: It's actually an interesting point of view, I must say

Have you disabled V-sync?

I don't really like efficiency rankings, because that makes it too competitive. What I am thinking of (~ concept/implementation) is having a button 'find similar scores' which would link you to a page with similar results so you can see how good you're doing. For instance, when you are running Pi1M on water with 955 deneb, this link would bring you to a page of all Deneb results on water cooling for Pi1M.

Sometimes a man needs a break from all the high-end top-notch hardware overclocking and go back to basics. For me, basics means Super PI 32M with some challenges; in this case: Clarkdale and single stage cooling. First, I looked up all the Clarkdale SuperPI 32M Single Stage scores in the HWBOT database, which rather surpringly resulted in a list of a mere 30 results. Then I ordered that list according to PI time and give it some nice Vbulletin tags. 431.672 seconds - pro with Core i5 655k @ 5388.00 MHz ( 898 CL6.0 6-5-17 ) 439.047 seconds - 0Ro! with Core i5 661 @ 5589.60 MHz ( 972 CL8.0 9-8-24 1T ) 443.000 seconds - Ross with Core i5 670 @ 5315.00 MHz ( 924 \N ) 444.343 seconds - momoto with Core i5 670 @ 5586.50 MHz ( 798 CL6.0 6-6-19 1T ) 450.547 seconds - RULE with Core i5 670 @ 5670.00 MHz ( 840 CL7.0 7-7-20 ) 450.812 seconds - rambo R&B Team with Core i5 661 @ 5400.00 MHz ( 0 \N ) 454.422 seconds - Chuchnit with Core i5 670 @ 5336.00 MHz ( 928 CL7.0 8-7-21 1T ) 456.781 seconds - Brolloks with Core i5 670 @ 5400.00 MHz ( 0 \N ) 458.906 seconds - RULE with Core i5 670 @ 5593.10 MHz ( 932 CL7.0 7-7-20 ) 462.141 seconds - Vanz with Pentium G6950 @ 5272.00 MHz ( 0 \N ) 467.437 seconds - Unseen with Core i3 530 @ 5192.00 MHz ( 0 \N ) 472.703 seconds - majkel with Core i3 550 @ 5184.50 MHz ( 864 CL6.0 7-6-18 1T ) 475.062 seconds - Brolloks with Core i5 661 @ 5200.00 MHz ( 0 \N ) 477.250 seconds - kaidtor with Core i3 540 @ 5221.00 MHz ( 908 CL8.0 8-8-24 ) 477.563 seconds - NAMEGT with Core i3 530 @ 5280.60 MHz ( 720.1 CL7.0 7-6-20 1T ) 479.156 seconds - ScunnyUK with Core i3 530 @ 5170.00 MHz ( 705 \N ) 479.438 seconds - isulk with Core i5 661 @ 5225.00 MHz ( 836 \N ) 482.344 seconds - NAMEGT with Core i3 530 @ 5280.20 MHz ( 720.1 CL7.0 7-6-20 1T ) 486.678 seconds - [GF]Duke with Core i5 670 @ 5359.80 MHz ( 794 CL7.0 7-7-20 ) 490.792 seconds - Massman with Core i5 661 @ 5040.00 MHz ( 0 \N ) 492.134 seconds - kaidtor with Core i5 660 @ 5304.00 MHz ( 816 CL8.0 8-8-24 ) 494.125 seconds - muzwa kai with Core i5 670 @ 5400.00 MHz ( 900 \N ) 494.271 seconds - kaidtor with Core i3 530 @ 5170.00 MHz ( 705 CL8.0 8-8-24 ) 497.078 seconds - muzwa kai with Core i5 650 @ 5216.00 MHz ( 1043 \N ) 499.092 seconds - systemviper with Core i3 560 @ 5012.60 MHz ( 1002.5 CL7.0 8-7-20 ) 503.656 seconds - majkel with Core i3 540 @ 5014.50 MHz ( 872 CL6.0 6-6-18 1T ) 503.828 seconds - koziro with Core i5 655k @ 5208.10 MHz ( 840 CL8.0 8-8-21 1T ) 505.453 seconds - Rocx with Core i3 530 @ 5126.60 MHz ( 932.1 CL10.0 10-10-30 ) 517.250 seconds - ocgmj with Core i5 661 @ 5005.30 MHz ( 770 CL9.0 9-9-24 ) 534.282 seconds - johnksss with Core i5 661 @ 4920.00 MHz ( 600 CL7.0 7-7-16 ) What was I thinking?! Of course, when I need to find the most efficient (time vs cooling) Pi32M scores I need to check out Youngpro's profile first! That being said, I'm also impressed by Ross' run. I'm sure he would get really close to Youngpro with a bit higher CPU frequency. So, after playing around a bit with this H55 board focussing on the Intel IGP overclockability, I went for a round of PI. Of course I don't want to use the 2:8 divider (which is totally shit on Clarkdale), so I needed to use the 2:10. It's also known that Clarkdale is pretty bad in memory overclocking, so anything south of DDR3-2100 I would be extremely pleased with. So, without touching the subtimings or doing a copy-waza I reached this score: (clickable) [hwbot=1078597]submission[/hwbot] Now, I need to go back to my lab and try to beat the other scores

Added!