Massman Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 Latency result looks weird: 3x lower than what other users are reporting. Is this a bug in the program or did you use a tweak or OS difference? Quote
Chiller Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 this is my daily setup and daily vista, only set other cooling fins on my memory, and set the timings in bios lower, not only the 7-8-7-20 65 1T but other settings also. as you can see, i ran this benchmark several times, and getting higher and higher with lower timings. So i think no bug. Quote
Massman Posted January 1, 2010 Author Posted January 1, 2010 Hm, okay ... then we need to figure out why the others are scoring so low :-/ Quote
Chiller Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 i will run more and more tests with maxmem ok? try to get as high as possible. i'm going to run it now at stock like the settings are 24/7 a day , maybe it is that i have a Gulftown with more L3 cache or so ? i don't know, the score is everytime above 4000. and succesfull, no errors or anything. Quote
Massman Posted January 1, 2010 Author Posted January 1, 2010 Gulftown might be an issue. Can you retest the exact same configuration (mobo/mem/os) with a Bloomfield? Quote
Chiller Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 don't have a bloomfield at the moment in the house Quote
westsider Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 gulftown ist the issui thats right i think latency calculator deosnt work correct on gulftown because i benched 1048MHz 7-8-7-20 1T and got just 38ns latency with W3540 there is no way to get 11ns latency with bloomfield Quote
Chiller Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 if i had a Bloomfield, i would run it, but i got alone a Gulftown Q3QP unlocked. The memory is Corsair Dominator GT 2000 cl7 3x 1Gb. and everythime the benchmark is correct en submitted succesfull, so i don't think i got a bug. everytime the run is between 4300 and 4600, and when i get my memory higher it goes to 4800. so maybe when i cool the memory good, i should get hopefully 5000 Quote
westsider Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 dude less cores mean more bandwidth and better memory performance if you try 2 cores on your result would go beyond 5.5K i believe you no problem its just i tried it myselves and i am not bad at Ram/system tweaking maybe somebody gets some more juice out of it but our results of about ~1600-1700 and you have 5K you know... there is something weird in software or you mean gulftown has a magical IMC nothing personal Quote
westsider Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 hier i have done some test for you 2 cores HT:ON http://i032.radikal.ru/1001/11/ef9f4bb741f3.jpg 4 Cores HT:ON http://s61.radikal.ru/i174/1001/ea/2cf4655496bd.jpg they are identical setups only core count is different and gulftown manages to get 11ns with 6 cores HT:ON ??? if thats true ,i am glad but i think somehow maxmem code has issue with latency calculation on gulftown Quote
Chiller Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 ok, i try with HT of, lets see, what that does, maybe 5000 who knows. and submit the score Quote
Chiller Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 you have rigt, less cores, HT off, is higher score. now past 5000, trying to get higher. and do more testing with less cores Quote
Kal-EL Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 What is that tec contraption you got mounted? Quote
Chiller Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) i tried with less cores, and jou're right, less cores more score. first HT off, then only two cores on. now you have more then one result of me you can compare. now the score with only 2 cores are of the chart lol. That TEC contraction i mounted is a Freezone Elite TEC Chiller, and it cools very good on Gulfy. With only 2cores activated, the coolant starts to freeze lol. going subzero, needed to put toiletpapier on the cpu for no ice forming lol. i only change the stock cpu block with a heatkiller 3.0 for better cooling because the stock cpu block is a bad toy Edited January 2, 2010 by Chiller Quote
westsider Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 you are welcome dude i think this tweak is my copyright nobody confirmed me uptoday that its so.yo uare the first one less cores somehow produce huge bandwidth and it helps on SPI1M and 32M very well nobody tried it uptoday as far as i look Quote
westsider Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) i tried with less cores, and jou're right, less cores more score. first HT off, then only two cores on. now you have more then one result of me you can compare. now the score with only 2 cores are of the chart lol. That TEC contraction i mounted is a Freezone Elite TEC Chiller, and it cools very good on Gulfy. With only 2cores activated, the coolant starts to freeze lol. going subzero, needed to put toiletpapier on the cpu for no ice forming lol. i only change the stock cpu block with a heatkiller 3.0 for better cooling because the stock cpu block is a bad toy u r welcome dude u should tweak it better dude you have more speed but my bandwidth is higher i had 1048mhz 7-8-7-20 1T what are you subtimings? Edited January 2, 2010 by westsider Quote
Chiller Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 how to do it with less cores? just disable them in bios Quote
Massman Posted January 2, 2010 Author Posted January 2, 2010 The creator of MaxxMem has confirmed that the score is a bug caused by the application: the hardware was incorrectly recognised which resulted in an impossible latency result. Will be blocked. Quote
Chiller Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 that's something you are fast with he? blocked result? i have also contact with creator of Program, testing now internal beta for him. he only says cpu with L3 cache doesn't be recognized properly, not bug Quote
Massman Posted January 2, 2010 Author Posted January 2, 2010 Yes, especially when it's you. From the creator to the hwbot staff: Hello, position 1. http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/maxxmem/rankings is FALSE/wrong! but no cheat. it causes by false detecting of cpu. please correct this, i will try to avoid this in the future. He requests your score to be blocked. Quote
Chiller Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 no cheat, false detection of cpu, is not my problem, i ran it, and that's my score, simple Quote
Massman Posted January 2, 2010 Author Posted January 2, 2010 It's indeed not your problem. It's ours. We solved it. Quote
Chiller Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 you solved it ? there's nothing solved, just deleted, so i can't run and submit score now because it detect's my wrong. what's there about solved ? Quote
Massman Posted January 2, 2010 Author Posted January 2, 2010 *zucht* Why should we allow a bugged result? 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.