Monstru Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 OK, explanation still doesn`t show different models I think different models... Quote
Crew NeoForce Posted January 13, 2011 Crew 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
Massman Posted January 13, 2011 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
Crew NeoForce Posted January 13, 2011 Crew Posted January 13, 2011 and finally these are models: KHX16000D3ULT1K3/6GX and KHX2000C8D3T1K3/6GX =) Quote
Massman Posted January 13, 2011 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
Crew NeoForce Posted January 13, 2011 Crew Posted January 13, 2011 Thanks for understanding. We will avoid such situations in future. Quote
matose Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 The scores with under 33ns latency are bugged... unless they are at 5.7GHz uncore Quote
GunGod Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) Gratz for Russian team! Was hard fight! Молодцы! Edited January 13, 2011 by GunGod Quote
SV1SH Posted January 13, 2011 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
Stelaras Posted January 13, 2011 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
SV1SH Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Gratz for Russian team! Was hard fight! Yes it was difficult. At you very good results! Quote
Monstru Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Well, you guys name it. Bug or tweak. But if it is bug, all <33ns scores must go Quote
slamms Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 For low latency have one tweak, no comments more, need using true benchmarks))) Quote
Monstru Posted January 13, 2011 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
Massman Posted January 13, 2011 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
SV1SH Posted January 13, 2011 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
slamms Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 It is not software tweak, it is right settings in BIOS =) need higher boot fsb frequency! Quote
Crew NeoForce Posted January 13, 2011 Crew 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
slamms Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Our time, ln2, money, experience, died hardware and now remove this stage? I am disagree Quote
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.