Christian Ney Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 (edited) Source: Ocaholic.ch Edited May 3, 2013 by Massman Quote
Eeky NoX Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 2.56v looks pretty yummy!! Haha nice Andre (aka rtiueuiurei) 6.2G for 1.216v is real Chris? Quote
Eeky NoX Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 You mean a 22nm chip with 2.56v Sam? ...I'll say 22ns ^^ Quote
Crew Leeghoofd Posted May 2, 2013 Crew Posted May 2, 2013 Chrisitan can you check with your little Marc as he mentions on your webbie the 2 x 8GB dimms were used for Nick's memory validation, seems a 4 x4 config... Would be cool to get a smooth 7GHz at 1.6Vcore for benching and a 5GHz 24/7 at 1.2Vcore... with IHS popped maybe Quote
stasio Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 2.56v looks pretty yummy!! Haha nice Andre (aka rtiueuiurei) Probably CPU-Z bug (1.62 from October 2012) Quote
Eeky NoX Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 I know I know Stasio OFC!! I'm really interested to know the real voltage, that's why! Quote
GENiEBEN Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 Is 77 the 'official' max multi? If so, kinda neat, would make 8500 possible with enough binning... Quote
Crew Leeghoofd Posted May 2, 2013 Crew Posted May 2, 2013 Roman NDA violation, you have been flagged, reported and executed !! Quote
Splave Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 should have erased the names as well wait till you see the monster peter has built Quote
Hyperhorn Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 Just imagine 6.2 GHz @ 1.2 V would be real. "Does it scale?" Roman NDA violation, you have been flagged, reported and executed !! Not mentioning that info was part of the IDF 2013 slides I will grab me some popcorn and you can go on with the violent NDA protection. Pics or it didn't happen! Quote
hokiealumnus Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 wait till you see the monster peter has built +1. :ws: Quote
dumo Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 (edited) Those peeps that used cpuz for haswell validation probly will get the heat from Intel. I feel bad for 'em because I'm sure theres no intention on their part (as a tester) to leak it to public:( Probably Franc can do something in the future to prevent things like this to happen. CPUZ always an integral part of new platform testing and validation. Just my 2c Edited May 3, 2013 by dumo Quote
CL3P20 Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 C'mon out with the Gigabut valids haters! You guls get your cocks in a knot cuz they were late sending you samples or what? Quote
Massman Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 Hey Community, Should I remove this post? I'm torn between being an "Assman" for having the leaks in a thread or being an "Assman" for censorship if I take the thread down. Regards, A torn Pieter. Quote
Bobnova Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 I don't see it as your responsibility to protect Intel's NDA, personally. Even if you signed it, I doubt it says that you have to hunt down and execute people who breach it. The Z77 one certainly didn't. Though I didn't get the IB NDA, only the Z77 chipset NDA so maybe CPUs they do In any event I'd go for leave it up, but now that I've seen 'em I don't really care much I can certainly understand wanting to take 'em down so Intel doesn't get pissed at you, especially if you get samples from them. I probably would, in that situation. (and, likely, would get yelled at) Quote
dumo Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 (edited) Personally, I think is the best to take this thread down. Do the right thing!! It is not fair if those peeps that exposed probly will get the heat from upstairs when the peeps who rummaged cpuz data base laughing, drinkin beer and bongin some purple blunt. Edited May 3, 2013 by dumo Quote
l0ud_sil3nc3 Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 Are these screens even indexed by Google or available on the CPUZ website / database for public viewing? I was made aware there is a way to hide them, but have never seen the option. Quote
Christian Ney Posted May 3, 2013 Author Posted May 3, 2013 Are these screens even indexed by Google or available on the CPUZ website / database for public viewing? I was made aware there is a way to hide them, but have never seen the option. There you go: Quote
l0ud_sil3nc3 Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 Oh I thought there was a way to hide them after you published online but I guess not. Quote
dumo Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 (edited) Actually, is not helping overclocking community in general. Intel will protect their unreleased products and market standing from uncertainty at any cost....and it will trickle down to the bottom of chain. Edited May 3, 2013 by dumo 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.