buildzoid Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I'll take this as valid. I have some doubts about this score but you have a 4.9Ghz score that is a full 4 seconds faster than this while having almost the same settings. So I don't see why this should be an impossible score. Well I hope you have your wallet ready. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzuki Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) At every 100 mhz i have a gain of 6 seconds. This guy benched at 4.7>. He should show a video and be banned. It's not fair as i have the next result under him. Edited October 1, 2014 by suzuki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzuki Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 @buildzoid - or maybe i should validate this in the competition : http://hwbot.org/submission/2639934_ as i can replicate it again and again and at the end pressing the slow mode button and you will see only 4 ghz with a good time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex@ro Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Christian New will tell you why this is fake.Simply put this guy made the benchmark at 4700+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators websmile Posted October 1, 2014 Administrators Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) This score is a joke - I am not in the comp, but I can tell that experts, best ocer in the world at superpi, have made best shots at 6m34s at 4,5ghz.... on XP, which is around 6-10seconds faster than win7 or win8 - this result was made with higher frequency for sure and downclocked or was made on win 8 after downclock, it is physically and technical impossible at these settings P.S. To make this clear, 4,5ghz 6m34 on LN2 including mems... so this result is even more suspicious Edited October 1, 2014 by websmile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t8y Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 1.6vcore for just 4.37ghz? you sure you didnt just forget to change vcore back from when you were running 4.8ghz? lol, well regardless i dont think you've fooled anyone, your subtimings would want to be damn well "Optimization" because the mem frequency is low and the primary timings are junk, typical single sided samsung i guess though.. which also not helping your case here. not to mention low uncore, HT enabled, no maxmem and probably not the best OS choice for 32m.. nice try though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CL3P20 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 fail - your initial loop times would never be this low running actual clock, without properly set OS... which everyone can see from SS is not. Not to mention, latency at those timings and speed does not equate to the time shown.. tsk*tsk* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizerty Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I will try to talk to this guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taloken Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I guarantee there was no intention of cheating from this guy. He has submit this with total honesty. Bug run or super tweak, i let the experts decide, but i don't want to see the word "cheat". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolhand411 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) with all due respect,..I ren bbse/cold earlier in this competition @ 1358.4 CL7-9-6-18-64-1T under XP 32 ,my time was 6m 42.515 your results are very suspicious to say the list Edited October 2, 2014 by coolhand411 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint19 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I was really trying to not post here. But many people here know that this time isn't possible with those settings, OS and frequency. Even, if you take a look of his best SP32M result, you will see that's running at very similar settings on RAM but @4.9GHz with a 4.368s initial time. There isn't way that you can get a better initial time with almost 500MHz less in that CPU. Best result: http://hwbot.org/submission/2640878_comias_superpi___32m_core_i7_4790k_6min_28sec_487ms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.