Mr.Scott Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Right or wrong, all submissions should be done the same way. I'm sorry, but your calculation should not be recognized......at least not in the middle of a competition. Mods should clarify if this is legit or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havli Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 This "wrong speed" issue only applies to the KT133 chipset (and perhaps few other VIA sdram-based chipsets using other than 1:1 mem:fsb ratio). Intel 440BX, 815 and 845 RAM speed detection works just fine in both CPU-Z and Aida64 (and therefore shows the same value). I am the only one using this platform, so I don't see a problem here. This score is 100% comparable with others. Anyway... only i815 or i845 based MB can score high enough to win this stage. I have neither of them, so I try to score as high as possible with A7V133. If mods say this score is invalid, then I will remove it and buy some CPU-Z compatible board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraRaptor Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 we all know havli is right) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Antinomy Posted February 17, 2014 Crew Share Posted February 17, 2014 Scotty, this is clearly a CPU-Z issue. What CPU-Z represents as FSB+33 is in fact FSB+PCI and while you're on default, it's the same. You know better that these KT133 use sync clocks and overclocking the bus overclocks the PCI bus too. A similar bug you have with dual P2 clocks (though, I do understand that your case didn't affect the total score). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ludek Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) Is this max of these mems or chipset? On KT266A i was able to reach max ~182 MHz on ram. Via has an interesting "-33" and "+33" memory set. As far as I remember KT133, KT133A, KT266A has this "multiplier". Old VIAs are not well-compatible with CPUz. Intel i815 is the best for SDRAM. It's possible to buy a cheap mobo eg. cusl2. It has also 2:3 multiplier for ram. BTW I was looking for SIS chipset based mobos, some of them can work with SDRAM at 3-4-4 timings Edited February 17, 2014 by ludek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havli Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Antinomy: Well said, thank you. ludek111: I am not really sure. I don't have cusl2 at the moment, so I can't test this mem propertly. Last year I tried ECS P4S5A/DX+ and maximum validation was somewhere around 180 MHz as well. However SiS chipset is incompatible even with Aida64. I could only estimate RAM speed by FSB clock and memory divider. This SDRAM module is Infineon 256MB, PC 133 CL2, BX compatible (16 chip). I assume its not that good compared to modern high-density modules. Maybe BGA chips are the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 K. If everybody else is good with it, I have no issue. No harm done. Thanks for the response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Antinomy Posted February 17, 2014 Crew Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) Mr. Scott, there already was such an issue but the other way around - when CPU-Z showed a higher divider whereas a lower was in use. Results were marked as invalid and recalculated despite CPU-Z showing higher numbers. It was a Gigabyte P35 or P45 issue with 1:2 (and 3:5 for real). Just've recalled this one. But too young for memory issues Edited February 17, 2014 by Antinomy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 Mr. Scott, there already was such an issue but the other way around - when CPU-Z showed a higher divider whereas a lower was in use. Results were marked as invalid and recalculated despite CPU-Z showing higher numbers. It was a Gigabyte P35 or P45 issue with 1:2 (and 3:5 for real). Yes, I know about the 3:5 issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Don_Dan Posted February 17, 2014 Crew Share Posted February 17, 2014 Mr. Scott, there already was such an issue but the other way around - when CPU-Z showed a higher divider whereas a lower was in use. Results were marked as invalid and recalculated despite CPU-Z showing higher numbers. It was a Gigabyte P35 or P45 issue with 1:2 (and 3:5 for real). 3:5 divider on 400 strap is bugged on all P35/P45/X38/X48 boards, and it is 2:3 in reality. 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.