Dreadlockyx Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 CPU-Z doesn't always tell the real voltage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoLKoRn Posted May 28, 2012 Author Share Posted May 28, 2012 Yah.. latest he can broken 9GHz ! it will damm nice if it real but waiting for CPUID again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eeky NoX Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Hope it could be legit after all :w&s: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 It takes 24 hours to cpuid (valid.canardpc) to check if submission gets rejected or validated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.nfraR.ed Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 It's not instant validation anymore or had never been? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 There are several checks, first is instant then there is another one every 24 hours that dooesn't check the same stuff as the first one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flanker Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I really hope, this will be WR for validation...9 GHz is nice wall . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) I thought CPU-Z was updated because of how AMD chips behave? About the video: if it's stable enough to pause and film, it ain't on the edge/ it's in no danger of crashing. If I was at 9GHz, I sure as hell wouldn't be so chilled out Or.... the BS answer: the psychology is wrong. Break the CPU MHz WR by 500MHz and just react with "yea, whatever. I'll stop and film it" LOL really? Edited May 28, 2012 by K404 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2385966 I think he even submited a 9.144 GHz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaJ0r Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Hmm OS is looking very stable for such a high clock. Unbelieveble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhenzjhen Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 OMG!! Superb!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flanker Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 only gold chip and a bit luck . I change this chip for my home, is it possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.nfraR.ed Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Hm, noticed from a picture he's running the latest bios 1402, which was released to public 3 days ago. Could it be this bios is bugged? The difference with the previous record is so big and he's still going up. 10GHz soon, anyone? Windows 7 gadgets are happily running, while he's validating. Yeah, I know I sound like hater, but I still can't believe it. Wonder if he's increasing the HTref/multi in windows or directly boots with the dialed settings and doesn't touch anything while in windows. Voltage reported by cpuz is still 1.89V. Edited May 28, 2012 by I.nfraR.ed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eeky NoX Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Well noticed mate It's clearly bugged validation... so sad Edit: any reaction on this side should sounds like hater's statements... but here nobody can be seen as a hater. We all doubt. Edited May 28, 2012 by Eeky NoX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Will give a try with my chip + CVF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Hm, noticed from a picture he's running the latest bios 1402, which was released to public 3 days ago.Could it be this bios is bugged? The difference with the previous record is so big and he's still going up. 10GHz soon, anyone? Windows 7 gadgets are happily running, while he's validating. Yeah, I know I sound like hater, but I still can't believe it. Wonder if he's increasing the HTref/multi in windows or directly boots with the dialed settings and doesn't touch anything while in windows. Voltage reported by cpuz is still 1.89V. You don't sound like a hater. I don't believe it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eeky NoX Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Excuse Chris Dino we're so accustomed to see you joking... But I recognise that he's right, we don't need no other board or bios to be convinced. Just want some efficient run at max of that chip. Some numbers cain't be wrong!!! (PI!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Isn't it a common problem that AMD efficiency bombs at high HT? Example@ Sempron wPrime runs are at 6.4GHz..... PCMark05 runs are at ~4.5GHz. Of course....there are still guys running massive MHz, so there is still an efficiency comparison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaPaKaH Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) If anything, I actually agree with Dino - an attempt on another motherboard shall be made. This is not the first case when I see Crosshair V Formula boards produce results that are not in line with reality (reality = results done on other boards). As some people probably know, me and websmile (a guy from Germany) are between the most active DDR3 binners in Europe. We have a very clear idea where the tRCD walls and MHz/volt scaling limits are for most ICs. None of us has a C5F, but the C5F results we see from fellow binners (sometimes with our ex-kits) usually greatly exceed what we thought was the max of specific kit or IC. So, for this matter, I, personally, would not recommend relying on memory overclock results made on C5F when looking for pre-binned memory (unless you're going to run a C5F as well). I could be wrong and the board is an engineering masterpiece so, don't take me 100% seriously. Edited May 28, 2012 by TaPaKaH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators websmile Posted May 28, 2012 Administrators Share Posted May 28, 2012 The several irregularities Sam mentions are true, I fully agree on that. The Crosshair 5 may be an excellent board, but it sometimes produces results that are too good to be true, and which are not reproducable. This result was widely discussed in germany as well, and efficiciency on 1M etc make it very likely this is bugged, which is disappointing, but these things happen in world of high oc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amdnord Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 i think its clearly that he isnt capable of hitting 9.1ghz, not even close to this, lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flanker Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 new batch, good position at waffer, luck, this all aspects can be possible...We need Andre Yangs old good one chip. His FX hit "easily" over 8500 MHz, I believe for answer from him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebanik Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 new batch, good position at waffer, luck, this all aspects can be possible...We need Andre Yangs old good one chip. His FX hit "easily" over 8500 MHz, I believe for answer from him There is simply no comparison between the 2 chips. One hits 8.55Ghz, another 9.1Ghz. Difference of 600Mhz. And if you see the video, that will redefine the word 'easy' for overclockers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flanker Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 we will see for next proof, maybe he will try again in superpi, if superpi run will be about 10-10.5s at 8500 MHz, I have no problem believe 9 GHz validation. Between FX are very big diferences, at air some can hit only 4500-4550 MHz stable, but there are few over 5000 MHz stable. The same with LN2, worst of these hit only 7000-7200 MHz, the best over 8500 MHz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebanik Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 we will see for next proof, maybe he will try again in superpi, if superpi run will be about 10-10.5s at 8500 MHz, I have no problem believe 9 GHz validation. Between FX are very big diferences, at air some can hit only 4500-4550 MHz stable, but there are few over 5000 MHz stable. The same with LN2, worst of these hit only 7000-7200 MHz, the best over 8500 MHz. How many over 8500 Mhz FX chips have you seen???? 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.