Monstru Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 OK, explanation still doesn`t show different models I think different models... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1Day Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I agree different models Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew NeoForce Posted January 13, 2011 Crew Share Posted January 13, 2011 So it should be stated, no offense. It`s a pity that it wasn`t clearly written before the start, but I`m sure that it will help during next stages and will be written next year in rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 First two stages were a bit rough; I don't see any problems coming up with the next 4 But I agree - next year, more clear! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew NeoForce Posted January 13, 2011 Crew Share Posted January 13, 2011 and finally these are models: KHX16000D3ULT1K3/6GX and KHX2000C8D3T1K3/6GX =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 and finally these are models: KHX16000D3ULT1K3/6GX and KHX2000C8D3T1K3/6GX =) Ugh, you're right. I hate Kingston for using so similar partnumbers 9905403-039.A00LF (DFB) 9905403-067.A00LF (SV1SH) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew NeoForce Posted January 13, 2011 Crew Share Posted January 13, 2011 Thanks for understanding. We will avoid such situations in future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monstru Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 That is ok, but 31ns latency... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1Day Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 bugged run? Tweaked run ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monstru Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 that's random, not tweakable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelaras Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 For such clocks ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matose Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The scores with under 33ns latency are bugged... unless they are at 5.7GHz uncore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunGod Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) Gratz for Russian team! Was hard fight! Молодцы! Edited January 13, 2011 by GunGod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SV1SH Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The scores with under 33ns latency are bugged... unless they are at 5.7GHz uncore Oh! http://hwbot.org/community/submission/2105354_micutzu_maxxmem_ddr3_sdram_2358_marks uncore only 5000mgz lat 31.3ns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelaras Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The scores with under 33ns latency are bugged... unless they are at 5.7GHz uncore This one ?? http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/2105354_micutzu_maxxmem_ddr3_sdram_2358_marks Is there any special tweak ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SV1SH Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Gratz for Russian team! Was hard fight! Yes it was difficult. At you very good results! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monstru Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Well, you guys name it. Bug or tweak. But if it is bug, all <33ns scores must go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slamms Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 For low latency have one tweak, no comments more, need using true benchmarks))) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monstru Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 That I agree, MaxxMemm is not quite reliable, and that is a problem, because if we start to check which is bugged and which not, it is definately a pain in the but. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 For low latency have one tweak, no comments more, need using true benchmarks))) I'm now playing this card: "Any special software tweaks must be explained to the HWBOT staff during the competition" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SV1SH Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I'm now playing this card: "Any special software tweaks must be explained to the HWBOT staff during the competition" All trick in optimal selection subtimings in CPU-Tweaker, loading windows on BLCK 250+ and lowering of BLCK frequency in windows. It is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slamms Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 It is not software tweak, it is right settings in BIOS =) need higher boot fsb frequency! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunGod Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Tricky! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew NeoForce Posted January 13, 2011 Crew Share Posted January 13, 2011 Guys, I think that it can be fair to remove stage with bugged benchmark or accept as it is. I`m sure in future competitiions MaxxMemm will be updated or removed at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slamms Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Our time, ln2, money, experience, died hardware and now remove this stage? I am disagree 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.