May 2, 201312 yr 2.56v looks pretty yummy!! Haha nice Andre (aka rtiueuiurei) 6.2G for 1.216v is real Chris?
May 2, 201312 yr Crew 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
May 2, 201312 yr 2.56v looks pretty yummy!! Haha nice Andre (aka rtiueuiurei) Probably CPU-Z bug (1.62 from October 2012)
May 2, 201312 yr I know I know Stasio OFC!! I'm really interested to know the real voltage, that's why!
May 2, 201312 yr Is 77 the 'official' max multi? If so, kinda neat, would make 8500 possible with enough binning...
May 2, 201312 yr 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!
May 3, 201312 yr 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, 201312 yr by dumo
May 3, 201312 yr 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?
May 3, 201312 yr 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.
May 3, 201312 yr 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)
May 3, 201312 yr 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, 201312 yr by dumo
May 3, 201312 yr 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.
May 3, 201312 yr Author 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:
May 3, 201312 yr Oh I thought there was a way to hide them after you published online but I guess not.
May 3, 201312 yr 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, 201312 yr by dumo
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.