Rauf
-
Posts
1304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Rauf
-
-
Nice! Seems like good efficiency
-
Up for sale are 2x Galax 980 Ti LN2.
First one is a V1 LN2 edition. Backplate says "Rauf - Team MLG". ASIC 68.9. Sold
Second one is a V2: GOC, no backplate. ASIC 73,4.
Both have been treated with vaseline, so it's pretty easy to rinse off if you want to. Only second card tested on LN2, was going to test the other as well but never got around to, that's why it is vaseline treated.
Second card is decent on LN2. It did 1915/2150 in all Fire strikes.
Price
V1: 550€ shipped in europe
GOC: 600€ shipped in europe
Buyer pays fees. Can do paypal or bank transfer.
-
Seems like a very good CPU if it's not on cold water!
-
Nr 1 sold
-
Ok, last call for good and decent ln2 cpus. 450€ for nr1 and 375€ for nr2.
-
Lol, 1.2v is better than the four i've tried so far...
-
OCP fix will not be made public since it's only needed at max freq on LN2 with 1.8V+. In any other situation it's not a problem and only increases the risk of your card being damaged.
But if we ask nicely in pm we can have it?
(If I decide to get one...)
-
Döner
There is no limit for graphics cards or graphics cores used, on cpu this is different, dual core cpu only
Seems a very strange decision since aquamark scales with at least 2 gpus.
Cheap cpus and ultra expensive gpu-setup...
-
Not used on ln2. Not delidded, but can do if you want. Not tested for max clocks.
-
Very nice efficiency
-
Bump
-
The i3:s actually makes this a bit of an issue for me. Some of the big companies obviously have access to several from a very good batch of ES i3. They hand them out to some overclockers who take most of the high global points. The rest of the high points are taken by other ES cpus. The problem I have with this is the scaling of the globals, below the top 3-5 the scaling is virtually none. So for the extreme guys we must spend a lot of money for binning a top 5 i3, which scores 5 points more than an pretty average top 10 cpu. And 10 points over a cpu that is actually pretty bad (top 20).
This takes some of the fun and the competition out of XOC. I have a couple of i3 for binning, but now there is actually no point because I don't need another couple of 30-35 pointers...and the chance of hitting higher is virutally none. And I know that any day there might come more ES cpus to push my scores down even further.
Another thing about ES cpus is that I know for a fact that some of them travels around a bit. Don't know how common that is but some rankings may have the same cpu twice in the top positions. That is not impossible for retail cpus either, however I think it is more questionable when it comes to ES as they are not paid for by the OC.
Still, considering all the above, I'm not really against ES cpus. They are physically the same I guess, just cheaper for the big companies to bin. As for the points, I have hopes that the coming proposition for adjustments to global points will have an adjusted slope for points distribution that makes it worth competing for a top 5-10 score.
-
[ATTACH]3776[/ATTACH]
ES i3 vs Retail 6700k
Thanks for sharing! Seems it's just a good batch!
-
Could it be the case that retail i3 and i7 are made out of different silicone (and hence different scaling) whereas i3 ES are made out of i7 silicone and have two cores disabled?
Exactly my thoughts, the die on retail i3 is different from the 6700k. At least when it comes to size.
-
Yes it is probably possible to find as good retail. But binning i3 seems harder than 6700k and they are very hard to find at 6.4 ghz multicore stable.
Also there seems to be a bit of a trend with very good ES right now. I don't mind, it is always nice to see good results.
-
Ok, lets make it 500/400 for the 6700K.
-
Very nice! Elmors cpu?
-
Hi
I'm selling a good retail 6700K. Does 6.4+ GHz in 3D05. Not maxed out, only given it 1.88V max and not gone below -170. Bought it from Zwitterion a while back. Delidded of course!
Link:
http://hwbot.org/submission/3005241_zwitterion93_3dmark05_geforce_gtx_560_ti_66239_marks
Also have one 6700K that I haven’t tried much. Did 6.17 GHz in CB R15 with only 1.85V and -150. Didn’t push it more as I needed it for the GOC qualifier. Never got around to try it again. Completely untested in legacy 3D. Selling cheap because of this. Retail and delidded.
Link:
http://hwbot.org/submission/3003539_rauf_cinebench___r15_core_i7_6700k_1357_cb
Price:
450€ for nr1. SOLD! Buyer pays fees and shipping. Paypal or banktransfer.
375€ for nr2. Buyer pays fees and shipping.
Last I have an i3 6300 if anyone wants it. Not a good clocker but if you want it for 100€ it’s yours. Not delidded. This one is also retail.
Shipping is around 17€ for EU. 22€ for non-EU. EMS is around 50€ for non-EU.
-
SA: Auto
IO: Auto
PLL: 1.65
Standby: 1.40
3866 MHz on the memory
There is no finetuning done for the individual chips. No time for that.
Very nice! Then I would expect there to be quite a lot of room for extra performance for some of these CPUs. Also for the low CBB cpus some voltages could make a major difference. For example I can take my old one from CBB -120 to -170 with a little tweaking on some voltages.
-
I'm a little curious about how you test these. Same voltage settings for pll core, pll termination etc.? Or are they more finetuned than this? Would be interesting if you could share voltages if you use the same for all?
-
Superb guide again! Have been waiting for this
Strange that it has OCP issues though...
-
GPUPI is an extreme example, but there are plenty of benchmarks that fall in between. For example 3DMark06 scales with multi-threaded CPU but only up to a certain point. It doesn't make sense to have a distinction to 8C and higher if the benchmark only scales to 4 CPU cores. (this is also the case for multi-gpu in benchmarks like 3DMark01)
Another consequence of this system is that the popularity index for each of the rankings will hurt, meaning a lower amount of points for each category compared to what 1xGPU is now receiving. But that can be addressed with a threshold adjustment as discussed in the technical thread.
Another consequence, but more related to perception, is that the "top single gpu" score will most likely not have the highest points anymore since it would fall out of the category with the highest participation. Technically it can be solved by creating an intermediate ranking of "single gpu", but this adds an additional layer of complexity. Not exactly a prime example of the KISS principle.
Also, this will not address any of the concerns that the most expensive graphics card is required to be competitive in 3D benchmarks. If anything, it opens up more global rankings for the GTX 980 Ti to dominate. For the GTX 970 owners, this has no effect whatsoever. Certainly the cost has been reduced from $1000 to $400 for the CPU, but the $1000 graphics card is still a factor. $1400 for CPU+GPU in 3D is still triple the $400 for CPU in 2D. In that regard, the Class idea was addressing this problem much better (data output here).
I don't see any real problems, I see opportunities. The 4 core cpu category should be for the true 3D benchmarks which steponz listed earlier.
As for the popularity the "unrestricted CPU" category should not be affected as all GPU submissions (incl. 4 core cpu) should count towards the points in that category. Will be the same as now. As for 4 core CPU it is the most popular CPU so it will probably get enough points. I don't think it should get as much as the unrestricted category anyway, doesn't seem fair.
Yeah, you still need the highest end GPU, and from an economical point of view both 4 core CPU + low and mid end classes of GPUs would be better. But that would mean an impossible amount of rankings. If I have to choose one I would go with 4 core CPU over GPU classes. 4 core CPU systems must be the most popular systems on hwbot and that means a 700€ GPU to compete for top rankings. Otherwise it would mean X99 MB, 5960X, extra mem + GPU = >> 700€.
-
but meanwhile you have no problem belittling my result for your argument. And it's so funny that you said what you said because you are ahead of people in top 10 with lower gpu clocks, so I guess your score is because of skylake also.
You did read the part about a great achievement?
Of course my score is because of skylake, never said otherwise...
-
Unfortunately this is telling as to the real agenda. Increasing HW points in relation to Globals would do nothing but help out 3D, since all those low level cards would suddenly become much more attractive. It will make Global 3D and 2D less attractive since they won't be as powerful in terms of moving yourself up the rankings. So why wouldn't someone that wants to see more 3D interest not agree that HW points should be worth more in relation to Globals? Or is it that only the 3D that give globals should be worth more? In other words, make sure those that spend the most get the most points?
Don't know why you talk about "the real agenda". If you have followed this discussion you would know it has always been about the global points for 3D vs primarily XTU. Your agenda is quite clear by the way as you only bench for HW-points...Try reading the topic of this discussion...
HW points (top spots) is mostly about running average GPU clocks and pair it with a golden last gen CPU. It is not so much about the HW the points indicate (the GPU).
This may be true in 3D, since every generation brings new efficiency (when your Intel), but not so in 2D. Trying to take down gold cups in Socket 462 is as hard today as it was in 2004. Even in 3D, after a certain point of competition it becomes much, much, much more about the GPU.Example: This recent sub in 8800 GTS 512:
http://hwbot.org/submission/3048348_strong_island_3dmark03_geforce_8800_gts_512_mb_74160_marks
Its gotten to the point that cards need to be zombie modded and extensively soldered to make it into the top spot. Certainly using the newest generation of CPU helps but that is the nature of 3D. A ton of work still went into that sub. Worth only 49.7pts. Some have even argued that the level of 'hard' should count for giving out points. Shouldn't this perhaps be worth more than this?
Yeah, he is nr1 because of newest Skylake CPU, vs nr2 who runs higher GPU clocks but on haswell... Still a great achievement, but it actually proves my point.
Don't know why you bring up 2D HW-points. Of course a new generation of cpus is not gonna help an old E8500 clock higher...2D HW-points is all about binning or being very lucky. Don't see the "hard" part but more on that below.
http://hwbot.org/submission/3060316_rauf_unigine_heaven___xtreme_preset_2x_geforce_gtx_980_ti_8917.17_dx11_marksUnless the argument is that running a couple of 980Ti in SLI on stock coolers is harder than the first example? Still this thread is littered with calls from overclockers that want to see even more points added to globals for this sort of submission.
In my sometimes solitary opinion, I would love to see more 8800 GTS subs with guys have to add caps, replace components, using voltage regulations cards running under LN2 than stocker coolers taking down more total points. But only my opinion, everyone decides in their own head what makes a great overclocking submission, mine happens to be the first example.
I don't understand why you have to belittle my result to make cheap points in your argumentation. Or maybe you're just mad about Country Cup
I don't want points to be given out based on how "hard" a benchmark is. That is very artificial and can never be made fair. I want 2D and 3D to get similar global (and HW) points. Or maybe you don't think there is anything wrong with XTU points and that a GFP XTU is much "harder" than a GFP in Fire strike and therefore, by your own argumentation, deserves more points?
Asrock Z170 OC Formula-DDR4
in Memory Heaven (air/extreme)
Posted
Maybe I'm just lucky but I haven't had any problems at all with my b-die. Only tried one kit so far and I binned them single stick for volts at 3600 12 1t on bios 1.93. They needed around 1.6v (dmm). In dual they had no problem running 3840 c12 1t (for xtu 6320). Didn't try minimizing volts, just set 1.8 in bios so around 1.85 dmm.
They couldn't do 2000 c12 though.