Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Cheddle

Member
  • Content Count

    1,597
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Cheddle got a reaction from 209Guy in Post your Cinebench R20+15+R11.5+2003 Scores **Read The OP PLZ**   
    These processors sure are good at math... It looks like my sample clocks to around:
    4.5ghz both CCDs at around 1.25v (1,18v after droop) (70.5c) 4.675ghz both CCD's at around 1.3v (1.224v after droop) (77.5c) 4.7ghz both CCD's at around 1.35v (1.26v after droop) (83.8c) max clocks and volts shown below (didnt check droop but assume similar to above) (90c~) These voltages might have been higher than required, I looked for score regression/app crash and then upped voltage. CCD1 on my chip hits a real wall at 4,675mhz and needs considerably more volts to clock higher, interestingly its also about 8-10c cooler than CCD0.

    stock clocks vs. PBO in R20:
    stock of 3.95ghz at around 1.05v (57.4c) Ryzen Master PBO of 4.2ghz at around 1.18v (71c) Seems like PBO all core is being quite conservative compared to manual overclocking.

    Im using a Thermaltake Water 3.0 360mm AIO on the cpu, fans maxed, pump ramping from 40-60c

    Memory is 4400c19 vipers single rank four sticks, running RTC safe profile for these sticks. my FCLK is absoltuley maxed, might be a touch unstable but not showing in memtest, have had a USB 2.0 port disconnect so far but need more time to tell.
     

     

  2. Like
    Cheddle got a reaction from ShrimpBrime in Post your Cinebench R20+15+R11.5+2003 Scores **Read The OP PLZ**   
    These processors sure are good at math... It looks like my sample clocks to around:
    4.5ghz both CCDs at around 1.25v (1,18v after droop) (70.5c) 4.675ghz both CCD's at around 1.3v (1.224v after droop) (77.5c) 4.7ghz both CCD's at around 1.35v (1.26v after droop) (83.8c) max clocks and volts shown below (didnt check droop but assume similar to above) (90c~) These voltages might have been higher than required, I looked for score regression/app crash and then upped voltage. CCD1 on my chip hits a real wall at 4,675mhz and needs considerably more volts to clock higher, interestingly its also about 8-10c cooler than CCD0.

    stock clocks vs. PBO in R20:
    stock of 3.95ghz at around 1.05v (57.4c) Ryzen Master PBO of 4.2ghz at around 1.18v (71c) Seems like PBO all core is being quite conservative compared to manual overclocking.

    Im using a Thermaltake Water 3.0 360mm AIO on the cpu, fans maxed, pump ramping from 40-60c

    Memory is 4400c19 vipers single rank four sticks, running RTC safe profile for these sticks. my FCLK is absoltuley maxed, might be a touch unstable but not showing in memtest, have had a USB 2.0 port disconnect so far but need more time to tell.
     

     

  3. Like
    Cheddle got a reaction from DildorTheDecent in Post your Cinebench R20+15+R11.5+2003 Scores **Read The OP PLZ**   
    These processors sure are good at math... It looks like my sample clocks to around:
    4.5ghz both CCDs at around 1.25v (1,18v after droop) (70.5c) 4.675ghz both CCD's at around 1.3v (1.224v after droop) (77.5c) 4.7ghz both CCD's at around 1.35v (1.26v after droop) (83.8c) max clocks and volts shown below (didnt check droop but assume similar to above) (90c~) These voltages might have been higher than required, I looked for score regression/app crash and then upped voltage. CCD1 on my chip hits a real wall at 4,675mhz and needs considerably more volts to clock higher, interestingly its also about 8-10c cooler than CCD0.

    stock clocks vs. PBO in R20:
    stock of 3.95ghz at around 1.05v (57.4c) Ryzen Master PBO of 4.2ghz at around 1.18v (71c) Seems like PBO all core is being quite conservative compared to manual overclocking.

    Im using a Thermaltake Water 3.0 360mm AIO on the cpu, fans maxed, pump ramping from 40-60c

    Memory is 4400c19 vipers single rank four sticks, running RTC safe profile for these sticks. my FCLK is absoltuley maxed, might be a touch unstable but not showing in memtest, have had a USB 2.0 port disconnect so far but need more time to tell.
     

     

  4. Like
    Cheddle got a reaction from rkv_2401 in solarpowered BOINC pc   
    decided to go with BOINC - contributing to world community grid and mind modeling
     
    specs of computer:
     
    i5-2400 (3.1ghz)
    2gb ram
    300gb raid1 array
    n600 pcie wifi card
    80 plus gold psu
     
    specs of solar:
    2x250w mono panels
    600w pure sine wave inverter
    40v/20amp PWM charge controller
    nasty old car battery (will replace one day)
     
    right now under full load the PC is pulling 75 watts of power - as long as my battery isnt too shit I reckon this setup will be fine for 24/7 operation
     
     

     
  5. Funny
    Cheddle got a reaction from CyanideInsanity in Valve Index now available in Canada ! Here are the prices !   
    Reading page one of this thread has reduced my IQ
  6. Like
  7. Like
    Cheddle reacted to TahoeDust in Unigine Valley Benchmark Scores Thread + SUPERPOSITION ***Over 1000 Submissions!***   
    Nice score!
     
    I guess I have to crank it up to 11 and give it another run.  Binned 5.2Ghz 9900k should be here tomorrow...we'll see if it makes an improvements over the 7820x soon.
  8. Like
    Cheddle reacted to Madgemade in Unigine Valley Benchmark Scores Thread + SUPERPOSITION ***Over 1000 Submissions!***   
    Superposition 1080p Extreme:

    Superposition 4K Optimized:

    Notes: GPU-Z doesn't support the Radeon VII fully yet. Ran in windowed mode because overclocking doesn't work in fullscreen (clocks get stuck at 1650mhz).
    CPU: Xeon E3-1230 V2
    GPU: AMD Radeon VII
    GPU Clock: 2040 Mhz (2080Mhz for 1080p)
    GPU Memory: 1200Mhz
     
    Nobody has put up a Radeon VII yet so I thought I would. Overclocking support is quite broken. Not as bad as the reviewers drivers but not good. Overclocks don't work fullscreen and that's why I have used windowed mode. I didn't think stock clocks would be appropriate for a benchmarking thread. Once fullscreen overclocking is fixed I will rerun and probably get higher scores.
     
    As you might notice, I am limited by heat only. Once the junction temp hits 110C it hard freezes and PC needs to be power cycled. With better cooling I imagine 2200 is possible I have seen it briefly for a few secs before overheating.
  9. Like
    Cheddle reacted to GoldenOne in HTC Announces two new VR headsets, "Vive Cosmos" and "Vive pro eye"   
    I think luke said it best in the latest WAN show.
    VR isn't dead. Its growing, and its good.
    Its just not exploded like many people and companies thought it was going to. Back when everything was being marketed toward VR and everyone was trying to jump on the hype train.

    I mean, there is still measureable growth, and there are new products such as this coming out.
    https://www.vrfocus.com/2018/12/vr-industry-sees-positive-growth-as-q3-headset-sales-hit-1-9-million/

    I think stuff like quest (and hopefully cosmos if they price it right) are going to be really good for general adoption.

    The problem with current gen VR like the vive and oculus is that whilst they ARE really good. You have to have a very beefy PC, a fairly large space to use it, and its very expensive.

    With stuff like the oculus quest, you just get it, and go. Wherever you like. And its at a price that is affordable to many people. So I personally feel that affordable products like that will be a strong force of growth. But only time will tell!
  10. Like
    Cheddle got a reaction from Jumper118 in Post your Cinebench R20+15+R11.5+2003 Scores **Read The OP PLZ**   
    heres one for the road. not sure ill get much higher

  11. Like
    Cheddle reacted to minibois in Does anyone know the cinebench r15 score for dual xeon e5430? Or other gaming benchmarks   
    From the spreadsheet linked here: 
    From the user @Cheddle, running at 3.192ghz, they get 630cb in Cinebench R15.
     
  12. Like
    Cheddle got a reaction from Jumper118 in Post your Cinebench R20+15+R11.5+2003 Scores **Read The OP PLZ**   
    sold the 7900x - having some fun in the manlet category

  13. Informative
    Cheddle got a reaction from Froody129 in Watercooled 980ti vs. 1080 vs. 1080ti   
    One thing that reviwers often fail to do is proper, solid, long term custom loop overclock benchtesting... They also have a bad habbit of listing a bit table of comparison frame rates without clarifying the clock rates, cooling, brand or any other detail that is critical to comparing two GPUs - so I thought I would show the differences Nvidias Flagships have made over the years while water cooled. I do have results from a 980 but its only air cooled (if anyone is interested I can add them) ive been collecting some data for some time - ill add more as I go through more benches and find some older 980ti/1080 stuff (no longer have the cards) but see below for some 3dmark comparison.
     
    all of these cards are basically balls to the wall using full cover EK water blocks
     
    the 980ti (1,505mhz) had a 1.23v custom BIOS
    the 1080 (2,114mhz) had a resistor/shunt mod to remove the power limit
    the 1080ti (2,114mhz)  is totally stock and the TDP wall is being hit quite often...
     
    the results I use to draw my conclusions are below: 
     
    Time spy:
    http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/1384479/spy/1061457/spy/72810#
    Graphics score:
    980ti: 6077
    1080: 8250 (35% on 980ti)
    1080ti: 10931 (32% on 1080 / 79% on 980ti)

    FPS GT2:
    980ti: 34.39fps
    1080: 47.97fps
    1080ti: 63.10fps

    Firestrike:
    http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/12012710/fs/9549548/fs/7381702
    Graphics score:
    980ti: 21483
    1080: 24382 (13% on 980ti)
    1080ti: 31641 (29% on 1080 / 47% on 980ti)

    FPS GT1:
    980ti: 103.88fps
    1080: 117.84fps
    1080ti: 153.31fps

    Conclusion:
    Firestrike is tested at such high framerates that its hard to say if its a very good test these days to use to compare GPU to GPU and draw a conclusion on how this difference will be realised in an actual gaming scenario - if you are looking to replace your 980ti with a 1080ti you might look at the firestrike results and decide is not a very good idea however if you look at the timespy results you might just rush out and buy one... Timespy however is known to be a sort of 'quasi' DX12 test with instructions 'spoon fed' to the GPU rather than, as they would in a game, 'force fed' at the GPU (read more about that here) so again it cant be used reliabily to decide what to do.

    ----
     
    1) tests are showing that the 1080ti is in fact a reliable 30% faster than the 1080 (see here) seeing as these cards have a similar stock to overclocked ratio it is very fair to apply this as a consistant rule to all variations of 1080/1080ti's
    2) tests have shown that AIB cards do not acheive higher clock rates than FE cards (once cooling has been eliminated) - (see here and here) - this further supports the '30% faster being a consistant rule' theory
    3) tests have shown that the 1080ti does in fact just about dobule the performance of the 980ti (here) HOWEVER! the 980ti overclocks HUGELY compared to the 1080/1080ti

    Below I explain why, if you have a 980ti and are looking to upgrade, you should think twice! (you might see above how my 1080 only got 13% firestrike performance over my 980ti... turns out once you add overclocking into the mix, you get some interesting results....

    individual stock vs. overclocked - and why you can trust the reviewers to say "980ti is 50% the speed of the 1080ti"
    stock 1080ti vs overclocked 1080ti (stock air blower vs. overclocked EK-FC WB):

    http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/12012710/fs/12010758
    Graphics Score:
    1080ti stock: 27,743
    1080ti OC: 31,641

    1080 ti overclock percentage: 14.1%

    stock 980ti vs overclocked 980ti:
    Graphics Score:
    980ti stock: 16,923
    980ti overclocked: 21,483

    980 ti overclock percentage: 26.9%

    note: these percentages will be MUCH smaller on an AIB card as they are generally overclocked out of the box by anything from 0-20% over the reference clocks... In my experience AIB cards do not acheive consistantly higher overclocks than reference cards they are just faster out of the box - the silicon lottery is still very much the only thing you can bet on - I've owned three 980ti's, two AIB and one reference - one AIB reached 1,490mzh stable, the other 1,560mhz... 

    to summarise - based purley on Firestrike GPU score:
    stock 980ti vs stock 1080ti: 63% gap
    OC 980ti vs OC 1080ti: 47% gap
     
    conclusion: Always take a reviewers comparison tables with a grain of salt and look to the community for their own findings. Overclocking should always be a thought when choosing a video card. All of the benchmarks listed here are repetable within margin of error and are not outliners/suicide runs with fans set to 100% or anything crazy. 

    NOTE: I didnt double check anything ive wirtten above, have made countless speeling mistakes and used calc.exe to work everything out.
  14. Funny
    Cheddle reacted to Lathlaer in Unigine Valley Benchmark Scores Thread + SUPERPOSITION ***Over 1000 Submissions!***   
    Joking aside, I'm pretty sure that @done12many2 or @Cheddle could get the top score back anytime they wanted - if they wanted to 
  15. Like
    Cheddle reacted to FakeNSA in Apple Watch can detect diabetes with 85% accuracy   
    FTFY, because some of them just suck!
  16. Like
    Cheddle reacted to Syntaxvgm in So apparently, the Intel/Radeon marriage is a thing that's happening   
    Here's a non paywall article 
    http://www.investopedia.com/news/intel-amd-team-first-time-80s-take-nvidia/
     
  17. Like
    Cheddle got a reaction from Jumper118 in Post your Cinebench R20+15+R11.5+2003 Scores **Read The OP PLZ**   
    Minor increase over my last score. I really wasnt excpecting to surpass 2600cb on the 'little' intel 10-core
     
    I couldnt get 5ghz @ 1.29v - ill man up eventually and give her more juice - these Sky-x cpus are FRAGILE

  18. Like
    Cheddle got a reaction from Jumper118 in Post your Cinebench R20+15+R11.5+2003 Scores **Read The OP PLZ**   
    Little more ram speed tweaking. 4 hours AIDA64 stable + HCI memtest 130% at those clocks. 

    I definitely have a little more in the core, I'm passing 3dmark at 5ghz - just needs more juice to be stable in cinebench

    clocks are: 4800mhz core / 2800mhz mesh / 4000mhz ram

  19. Like
    Cheddle got a reaction from Jumper118 in Post your Cinebench R20+15+R11.5+2003 Scores **Read The OP PLZ**   
    Coffeelake ain't got shit on me
     
     

  20. Like
    Cheddle got a reaction from TidaLWaveZ in ASUS Strix MB broken LLC a OC3D review/rant   
    the asus x399 zenith extreme also has broken LLC 
  21. Informative
    Cheddle got a reaction from Taf the Ghost in ASUS Strix MB broken LLC a OC3D review/rant   
    the asus x399 zenith extreme also has broken LLC 
  22. Informative
    Cheddle got a reaction from done12many2 in Post your Cinebench R20+15+R11.5+2003 Scores **Read The OP PLZ**   
    Interesting.
     
    On my Asrock X299 Taichi HWmonitor seems to report VTT as a 'combined' value - so it I run 700mv on each VTT setting in BIOS HWmonitor will report as 1.4v
     
    I notice yours looks very different...
     

  23. Like
    Cheddle got a reaction from done12many2 in Post your Cinebench R20+15+R11.5+2003 Scores **Read The OP PLZ**   
    thanks! thoise will be VERY useful 
     
    0.9v VTT sounds quite high? how long have you ran that without issues? mines about 0.65v stock from memory
     
     
  24. Informative
    Cheddle reacted to done12many2 in Post your Cinebench R20+15+R11.5+2003 Scores **Read The OP PLZ**   
    Despite what you see in the previous RealBench screen shot, I am now running 3000 MHz (or higher depending on what I'm doing) cache.  That screen shot was just some initial testing after a delid with nothing more than CPU OC and default XMP loaded (I think ).
     
    I did check to see what the Apex input voltage defaults to and it's 1.89v.
     
     
    I am using a G.Skill TZ 4 x 8 3200 MHz kit (14-14-14-34-2T XMP).
     
    When I run XMP speeds, I just manually set VCCSA/VCCIO/VTT all to .9v and use the XMP default 1.35v.
     
    When I run 4000 MHz 16-17-17-39-1T with tight secondaries, I run BIOS values of .925v VCCSA / .9v VCCIO / .9v VTT / 1.39v DRAM.  This results in a perfectly stable mem overclock with high bandwidth and low latency.  I also run 3200 MHz cache most of the time when I run my memory at 4000 MHz.
     
    Here's a screen shot that has my timings (primaries and secondaries) along with performance numbers if that's any help.
     

  25. Like
    Cheddle got a reaction from done12many2 in Post your Cinebench R20+15+R11.5+2003 Scores **Read The OP PLZ**   
    Great chip!
     
    mine certainly cant pass at those voltages... What vrin are you running?
×