Massman

I tested the board with phase-change yesterday and it did just fine! At first I was having issues with BCLK, but that was quickly solved by changing a couple of minor settings ... in the end, I was booting at 240MHz BCLK! Temperature was around -25°C load http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=947177 Memory frequency was not a problem, but sadly enough I don't have the right memory to show the high clocks. I was able to run 230MHz BCLK with 2:10 divider no problem, but was not stable enough in 32M. I'll run again once I've been able to get my hands on some decent clocking memory. Some more results: Still some bugs left to squash: - IGP frequency scaling doesn't go that well. Even with cold, I didn't get higher stable frequency + there's some weirdness going on with manually setting the IGP frequency (is being debugged as we speak) - Memory timings are still messed up. Either CPU-Z or the bios is doing something wrong Pretty nice to see a budget board perform so well

My secret weapon has arrived!

It was you who explicitly gave us the time we needed to get to this. Don't give us time and then complain it's taking too long. Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if you kept all the negative comments to yourself. Things like ... I don't really care for. Anyway, I'll unblock the score. The problem is most likely increasing the clock frequency on one core, but not the other three resulting in a too big delta between them.

FYI: if it wasn't for Intel's hyperthreading technology, AMD would be owning them clock-per-clock ...

Ok, Techtrancer, thanks for sharing your opinion.

Your arguments are merely an expression of your love for AMD. Pointing out that a benchmark performs better on Intel because it scores higher on Intel is not a valid argument, because you start with the assumption that AMD is either better or equally performant as Intel. Pointing out that Intel optimised the drivers for the benchmark is quite irrelevant as both Nvidia and Ati are guilty of the same crime. And so on.

The CPU was unstable and the benchmark didn't finish the calculation.

Check PM

Seems like getting blackscreen bugs on this GMA HD is also pretty darn easy:

I received this board a week ago, but only had the time today to first start testing it. First task of the day was to see how the IGP of my 661 scales in 3D. Since this particular bios (F4 - latest) doesn't offer any IGP clock frequency changes just yet, the only way to increase the GPU frequency was by increasing the BCLK. Now, that was not so easy on air cooling with the GMA HD enabled: I only got it up to 160MHz stable through 3D. Sadly enough, none of the current applications offer the possibility to see the real frequency just yet (W1zzard is working on it - due next week), so I have to settle with the easy calculation of: "GPU = BCLK * Multiplier/4" For the 661, the multiplier is 27x, so 133x27/4 = 900MHz. Increasing the BCLK to 160MHz, the GPU is now clocked at 160x27/4 = 1114MHz. Not bad ... but the performance still is pretty crap: * 3DMark01 = 15972 - http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=942920 * 3DMark03 = 7116 - http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=942921 * 3DMark05 = 4957 - http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=942922 * 3DMark06 = 2594 - http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=943034 * 3DMark V = 772 - http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=943036 Two notes on this: 1) I am ashamed to have run 3DM01 using Windows 7 as operating system, but since no one posted in this category so far ... I just wanted a number up. I challenge anyone to beat me! 2) I changed the Intel driver setting from quality to performance and it looks like Vantage was affected by some sort of LOD. I'll try to get a screenshot of this soon. Second part of the testing was to learn the board and how it can OC without the IGP, so I put in the 8800GT and tested for 2D. Max BCLK for CPU-Z was 215MHz ... 220MHz was not stable anymore ... I'm sure switching the OS will help this a bit. Because my CPU cooler isn't thát super, I had quite a lot of problems keeping the temperature within working range ... I saw 80°C regularly at which point the CPU crashed. Still, 5GHz on air was pretty darn easy! Next up, the SuperPI 32M test to see if it's indeed that difficult to reach high memory clock frequency with high BCLK frequency. In my case, it was not that difficult, again, to do 200/2000 ... although it looks like either the memory timings are screwed up due to the bios, or CPU-Z doesn't read it correctly. I think it's a bios issue, as I have no problems when running in 2:6 mode + the performance is terrible, even for Windows 7. Last but not least, the CPU seemed perfectly stable at 4.5G through Wprime. Fair enough for me. Somewhere next week, I'll mount the single stage to this board and see how far the GMA HD can be taken :-)

The scores of Splave make sense: 1) i5 670 gets 30 global points 2) i7 920 gets 10 global points 3) i5 670 contributes to personal ranking (=dark color), while the i7 920 only contributes to the team (=light color). For your scores, there seems to be a bug that doesn't give a ranking to your 670 score (2xCPU category).

Ti4200 vs Ti4600

Someone with an E5200 can't match an E8600 ... lower priced hardware not being capable of beating higher priced harware is not a valid argument.

I mentioned this: "These challenges will not feature big money prizes, but the winner does get a special achievement award" in the newspost . Not top-5 of course, only the winner gets an achievement

The 2D and 3D landscape will be totally different with Gulftown. Here are the three main reasons why we have made the rule that unreleased hardware cannot be used in HWBOT for points untill the release. http://hwbot.org/article/news/unreleased_technology_not_applicable_for_hwboints

The result has been submit to HWBOT in ... 2007!

There are so much things wrong with what you're trying to prove here: 1) Splitting up in Intel/AMD leaves us with ++ other CPU manufacturing companies, where to fit those in? 2) Splitting up in Nvidia/ati leaves us with ... 3) Why would it be Intel-optimised when Intel could just be ... more performant? There's a lot more involved in this whole debate, to be honest. There's driver optimisations for specific benchmark scenario's, library optimisations, and so on.

I wanted more 3dmark points

I'm bored and closing the thread.

I guess not by wasting time in forums?

Deleted all posts ... didn't understand what was said, so assumed it was bad

IT'S BACK! I've added the Clarkdale and Gulftown stage ... have fun guys!

bug. the user submitted this result as SPI 32M first. I changed it, but apparently, the engine has some issues with this.

Okay.

GPU 325MHz - stock (1.77V?) 330MHz - 1.8V 345MHz - 1.9V 355MHz - 2.03V 360MHz - Black screen at any voltage => 357MHz at 2.05V; GPU ~ 35°C load It seems that I'm hitting a wall at around 360MHz I can increase the voltage over 2.1V, but it doesn't help me get it more stable. MEM 566MHz - stock (3.45V?) 600MHz - 3.55V 610MHz - 3.66V (with artifacts) 615MHz - 3.6V (heavy artifacts) => 620MHz at 3.6V; MEM ~ 50°C load 620MHz isn't always stable and I have heavy visual artifacts. The score still scales upwards, so ... I'm fine with it. Increasing the voltage up even further doesn't help, so I guess the only thing left to do is decrease the temperatures