websmile
-
Posts
5824 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
58
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by websmile
-
-
Who is this Justin Wong guy who always spams here?
-
1
-
-
Good stuff, but you forgot either the spd or mainboard tab you wanted to show :D
-
Thanks
- made a fast retest of #3 while checking new BIOS and they do well, geekbench3 4266 12-11 works with tweaking at 2,11v Bios set.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, gotohell said:
Bro please dump BIOS from SOYO sy-p4vgm \\ my telegramm @ism1337
That´s enough now, if you have a problem to find this BIOS make a thread and ask if someone can dump it - no need to spam 50 old threads
-
3D mark vantage if I remember correctly is the 3d which scales most with coes, but I am a bit outdated^^
-
1
-
-
We talk about psc, I ran Samsung 2666 9-11-11 on Intel z77 iirc, this is a total different game with trcd - PSC doing trcd 10 on Intel above 2400 is very unlikely on air and to find 6 sticks doing this is more than difficult
-
2
-
-
6x2gb PSC at 2440 trcd 10? Sorry, I am no expert on x58 and memory limits but on 1156 and all other Intel platforms I know this is simply not doable
-
I know your wallet is ready, bro ??
-
1
-
-
Thanks
- #2 sold, payment received
-
Howdy
sales time, the memory kits are tested and work fine
1. 2x8GB G.Skill Trident Z Red DDR4-4133 C19-19-19-39 1,35v
Tested on apex x for 4200 12-12-12-28 tight 2,08v Geekbench3, XTU and X265, maxed out at 4260 GB3 2.14v. Fast test on Apex XI showed similar potential, 4266 12-12 tight worked for CB15 but not GB3. With box and sticker
2. 2x8GB G.Skill Trident Z Black DDR4-4400 C19-19-19-39 1,40v
Tested on Apex XI, due to the fact that 4200 divider does not work for me and BCLK-oc is somewhat strange I tested 4133 12-11-11-220 tight at 2,06v and 4180 12-11-11-28 tight, ran out of bclk and 4266 12-11 boots and enters windows but failed GB3 at 2,15v. These sticks have no labels anymore, so I have doubts they have warranty, but spd, pcb-print and layout show these are genuine 4400s. Bulk
3. 2x8GB G.Skill Trident Z Black DDR4-4400 C19-19-19-39 1,40v
Tested on Apex XI for 4133 12-11-11-28 tight Geekbench 3 at 2.01v, at 2.11v they do 4266 12-11-11-28 tight Cinebench 15 but fail GB3. Intact labels, 1734 built. Bulk
Prices (shipping comes on top)
1. 250 Euros
2. 185 Euros sold
3. 275 Euros
Payment with paypal (buyer is responsible for fees or gift payment) or bank transfer at germany. Shipping is limited to european union at 12-16 Euros depending on courier, for outside of european union shipping is unaffordable because the german monopol company dhl randomly ended option to send small goods with letters. You can get a quote nontheless, but shipping might be a deal killer
-
2
-
1
-
-
Is there any chance the 4200 divider on memory will work c12 in the future? I tested this with two different cpus (8086k and 8600k), different settings and it did not work on apex xi, plus I talked to a couple of people using gene with same problem. Tested with bios 0231 and also latest BIOS from asus website, it worked 2 or 3 time out of 100 tries and that simply is not enough for such a good oc board
-
1
-
-
You cannot change LOD without changing AA, as far as I know this was the reason FM made the change to flagging anti aliasing settings changed
-
1
-
-
Let´s simply say that he used a 6950 for a loooong time^^
-
2
-
4
-
-
I don´t like playing the devils advocate, but what do we do when UL changes rules again? Delete all scores again? And what about the fact that UL has major problems to guarantee security and check for several new benchmarks (Timespyyy cough) and I do not even talk about legacies like vantage and older? We can of course stop tweaking, but will it help to stop cheaters and will it work in the future?^^
Marco , the timer issue is mainly a problem if you use win 8 and 10 and pre skylake hardware, becuase there it is often a sign that rtc clock was (or could be) manipulated - the time shift effect to boost scores illegally you can find at win 8 and 10 rtc bug article.
-
6
-
-
48 minutes ago, cbjaust said:
And yet no allowance was made in the hwbot rules for changing AA.
Still don't know if reporting non-conforming scores will be actioned.
Why should hwbot make an allowance for AA? The fun fact is that all results before I think 2017 which had AA changed were valid with Futuremark if I remember correctly, so it was clear this was allowed. Suddenly FM changed this for hall of fame, implemented a check on this and excludes new results from ranking. If you look at programs like nvinspector there are 100+ driver settings you can change, so each time fm is bored and changes rules we delete all old scores and start at zero? I am not sure this makes sense, but agree that this might need clarification especially for new members like you?^^
-
2
-
4
-
1
-
-
Because scaling on single and multi core is not linear with frequency but explodes, geekbench 3 was not designed for frequency like this and it simply looks as if the lack of maintenancemakes calculation not work properly under certain circumstances. Your safe benchmark btw also bugs at win 10, this was tested, and as said the maxmem settings also boost the score if too low bc of above mentioned reasons. At least some plausibility checks should be done, especially when you see that other benchmarks that profitate from high memory like spi32m which have a firm calculation base are faster at 4100c12 vs around 4800c14 at tests shown here on hwbot
-
People told you to report scores like the ones by H2ovsln2 - who has done this multiple times before even when I was still a mod, but got no time out for whatever reason. But talking about cheats when someone changes driver settings, or uses LOD where allowed is simply not leading anywhere. Benching is already much too much pay to play and soldering instead of optimzing skills. If you think that legal driver tweaking, or waza, or disabling services at os is cheating, bench prime 95 like others do and cheat on temps
- the gb3 desaster you talk about is constantly ignored by hwbot btw, it is not only that low maxmem bugs the score because of not enough drm-memory left to correctly run the benchmark, everyone who has eyes also sees that the results at settings like 4600-4800c14 bugs at multicore mem copy, but as long as majority rather plays this instead of reporting tons of scores, nothing will change, I am tired of messaging people on fb or talking ther about it, discussing this and see no result, It is the community who needs to change this, and if you don´t do it, don´t complain ?
P.S. Lod was allowed long ago, and that aa changes are illegal to fm(UL) is not older than 2 years, while 3dm01 is now nearly 20 years old. So what sahll hwbot do, delete all scores made applying to rules?
-
5
-
-
What´s the problem here? Since the beginning of benching people changed driver settings and it was legit, like aa settings, you change driver from high quality to performance and settings change... The score is ok, main problem is others smartassed around, pulling cables, running black, changing bench files and rsolutions, mipmap etc. This is what kills hwbot benching, but this is definitely not the place to discuss here on a correct score
- topic closed
-
1
-
-
CPU is an ES
- makes it even worse, cpuz outdated and no recognition of cpu at all benchmarks therefore. This is pro oc how it should be - not... maybe even at November when this was benched obviously it might have been suitable to check if 1,86.1 for example works or ask developper for matching version
-
Closed, thanks for the space hwbot
-
Meeeehhhr Effizienz, Frank
- this needs finetuning indeed, keep on pushing -
Final bump - closed, thanks for the space, hwbot
-
Pulling out the big guns, bro? :D
-
Final bump - I sense ebay incoming as they sent me a special offer
Alex@ro - Core i9 9900K @ 7000MHz - 45sec 0ms wPrime - 1024m
in Result Discussions
Posted
Not bad at all