Massman

Check the QPI frequency of that score. 5.2GHz. Now find another one that comes even close to that result.

Very interesting information, thanks for sharing!!

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_t2300_1.66ghz

No, this feat has been locked down to clean up the database. @ Larry: I'm working my way down from the high-end chipsets and just finished 790i

Doesn't matter, I prefer everyone to stop complaining about the user or the score. Problem has been solved. The end. To everyone. Thanks all

I don't know what you're talking about, Anvil, but please take it somewhere else. Thank you

Again, I'm not going to discuss the user. Please refrain from commenting on anything other than the score. Thanks.

I'm with dinos22 on this once; crazy Vantage with those old-skool GTX295's

I disapprove any submission of which the owner knows it might be bugged. Appart from that: score got blocked, so no need to continue the discussion.

I'm not thát fast, Gamer . Scores have been blocked as this was already noticed by other crew members. Account is being looked into and team captain is notified about all this.

No more proof; I was hoping another moderator would've picked up on this and block the score . The BCLK is indeed bugged, so score should be blocked. (it's not actually the BCLK that is so worrying, but the insane QPI frequency)

Time to update this thread. What has happened in the last days: - Released Core i5 article - Released LGA1156 motherboard round-up - Retested UD6 for F1-OC - Retested GD80 with new bios for F1-OC As this is a thread about the boards' OC capabilities, I won't comment on the findings in both articles. Check them out if you want, don't if you don't want to. Hey guys, As we haven't recieved our retail DFI P55 motherboard, I've just started to pretest my retail 750 on the Gigabyte UD6 ... you know: just in case! Pushing i5 750 on the UD6 Results speak for themselves Most cool of this session might actually be the validation I've been able to obtain: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=715625 A few things to note: - You're only as strong as your weakest core. Core #1 does 5132MHz (as you'll see later) with only 1.64V and probably -60°C, but I need to decrease the temperature to -70°C to get my other cores to idle stable at that frequency. Core #0 is most definitly the weaker of all four. - If you're pushing for BCLK, you need to focus on pushing the temperature. I drop in temps to -85°C/-86°C for the 251MHz BCLK validation, but that's really the limit for this configuration. The chip is, by the way, not at all benchmark stable at that temperature. Pushing i5 750 on the GD80 As you might know, I wasn't totally convinced by the GD80 as it has some issues with voltage under extreme cooling. A couple of days ago I figured out what was the big issue, fixed it and now I can actually run at 1.6V+ VTT. First the result: Notes: - Although I did spend some time tweaking the memory timings on the UD6, it seems that the board is genuinly slower than the GD80. Other people contradict this finding so maybe I'm just lucky, but on air cooling I can do 6 seconds better on the GD80 at 4100MHz (8m37 versus 8m43). I can post the screenshots here if you want, just let me know. - If you plan to use 1.6V VTT, increase the PCH 1.05V to 1.3V. I've asked MSI to make this happen automatically, but this is the key to make it happen. The reason is really simple: PCH is integrated on uncore die, so ... - My initial observation of the GD80 being better in terms of clock per volt seems to be correct. With the UD6 I'm maxing out at 5070MHz, with the GD80 at 5132MHz using the same volt and temp conditions.

Might be GT4 bug, might also be multi-card. Without subtests it's impossible to verify, score blocked.

I know that my 360 overclock isn't the best there is, but is it really necessary to crush me so hard? With nick and arrow and everything ... :(

Check the verification link

If you think the score is bugged, please don't submit it anyway

Don't worry Nature subtest was bugged - it's a common issue on Windows7.

No idea, but there are other people who have the same issue: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=234723

Explanation here: http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3656

I retested my 750 on LN2 yesterday evening with some surprising results. First of all, I must say that the Gigabyte UD6 is a very, very solid board for extreme overclocking: no voltage issues whatsoever, which makes you go that extra percentage faster. http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=714433 Also ran 1M 8.25s and 17.17s pifast. Those are on the bot, didn't bother to upload them here. Temperature: -boot: -65°C -benchmark: -75°C to -78°C -validation: to -83°C The lower I go, the more unstable the system gets so it's really a matter of finding the right temperate for your benchmarks. It's also noticeable in the benchmarks itself: at a certain point I had to re-try the pifast at 240.2MHz BCLK 5-6 times and 241MHz was okay from the first try.

With the F5c bios I have no bootup issues anymore: 1.7V vcore and 1.7V vtt with -65°C is perfectly bootable. It's very good Gigabyte fixed this already. Not an issue of the board, but of the version of CPU-Z you're using. For 64-bit OS versions you should switch to the 64-bit version of CPU-Z. I've had the multi-drop issue before, but switching to the latest version fixed it for me. Okay, here's what you do with the UD6 if you have the 88 debug code: - Switch of power supply and wait untill all leds of the board go out - Boot the board; it will go: C1 -> 88 -> shutdown - Wait for the board to restart - Debug will go a couple of C1's and then boot IF the frequency/voltage/temperature allows it I've done this a couple of times and it always works for me; never had to reset the CMOS during my last session. As for the GD80: same issues here, but no easy solution for this. Imho, the easiest method is to reset the CMOS and use the OC profile to get started. Doesn't take that long anyway so who cares, hehe. Btw, you're right about the GD80: it's definitly not a bad board. It can run the same temps as my UD6 and is in fact a little better in the clock per volt department. Only issue with the board is that the vcore/vtt problem still exists, which makes it a challenge to boot with the right voltages. As I've mentioned earlier, this is where the v-switch comes in handy big time. I'll update this thread with more info tomorrow when the valid.canardpc.com website is up and running again. I've got some nice validation on my 750

Card looks kinda cool

Then I hope I can write a similar newspost like this: http://hwbot.org/hwbot.post.do?postId=1113

I think 1.5B4 fixed the PCI-e coldboot error as I described in post 7.

Quickly retested this morning: 1.5B4 equals issues; 1.5B2 equals 2000CL9 perfectly bootable.