Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Silicon Lottery releases their historical binning statistics

  • 18-10-2018 1:40am
    #1
    K.O.Kiki
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,823 ✭✭✭✭


    https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics

    Too big a post to let it get buried in the general IMHO

    If you were too scared to overclock, look at their results in the 90s/100s and just bung that in.


Comments

  • #2
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    My 4790K disagrees with them :pac:


  • #3
    btkm8unsl0w5r4
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,535 ✭✭✭btkm8unsl0w5r4


    Interesting....I do think that one mans stable is not necessarily another. I have had chips that clock really high at low voltage but under a specific workload fall over. For gaming they are fine. Would that be considered unstable?


  • #4
    L
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 655 ✭✭✭L


    Henrik Melodic Thunder wrote: »
    Interesting....I do think that one mans stable is not necessarily another. I have had chips that clock really high at low voltage but under a specific workload fall over. For gaming they are fine. Would that be considered unstable?

    I think it would be Fitz. Still useful but definitely unstable if you can cause the chip to fall over.


  • #5
    Inquitus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,763 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    L wrote: »
    I think it would be Fitz. Still useful but definitely unstable if you can cause the chip to fall over.

    Yep I would agree, the definition of stable is rock solid in all conditions, under all loads.


  • #6
    btkm8unsl0w5r4
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,535 ✭✭✭btkm8unsl0w5r4


    L wrote: »
    I think it would be Fitz. Still useful but definitely unstable if you can cause the chip to fall over.

    I agree, I have a 8700k that will do 5.3 but down to 5.1 on avx, thats a 5.1 chip in my book. The avx offset is a bit of a cheat in those charts IMHO.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,012 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    Henrik Melodic Thunder wrote: »
    The avx offset is a bit of a cheat in those charts IMHO.


    I wouldn't have said so, I don't think there are any real world use cases where a CPU would be maxed out using AVX extensions in the way a synthetic benchmark does. To the point where most people don't stress test using it and its been that way for years.

    Its good though to see Adored's earlier criticisms against reviewers using golden sample cpu's, de-lids and over-clocks are correct.

    Also, Jays2cents 7980XE hit 5ghz easy on air, without a delid. Talk about a good chip.


  • #8
    Metric Tensor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,725 ✭✭✭Metric Tensor


    Would anyone else bit a bit worried about some of those voltages.

    Take my 6700K for example. I have it running at 4.5 GHz with a voltage of 1.315V. I have no doubt it would run faster at a higher voltage but they are quoting 1.44V for 4.9 Ghz - I would be very uncomfortable running at that voltage on a daily driver. Am I wrong?


  • #9
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,012 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    Metric Tensor wrote: »
    Would anyone else bit a bit worried about some of those voltages.

    Take my 6700K for example. I have it running at 4.5 GHz with a voltage of 1.315V. I have no doubt it would run faster at a higher voltage but they are quoting 1.44V for 4.9 Ghz - I would be very uncomfortable running at that voltage on a daily driver. Am I wrong?

    There wouldn't be extreme testing on the chips. They would take the first few, work out a power to hertz curve, then test chips at a few points. The chips could probably do the same at less voltage but they simply want to know if it does x at y.


  • #10
    .G.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭.G.


    My 6700K refuses to do anything over 4.6 and isn't really stable at it either. I run it at 4.5. Guess mine sucks.


  • #11
    btkm8unsl0w5r4
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,535 ✭✭✭btkm8unsl0w5r4


    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    I wouldn't have said so, I don't think there are any real world use cases where a CPU would be maxed out using AVX extensions in the way a synthetic benchmark does. To the point where most people don't stress test using it and its been that way for years.
    Inquitus wrote: »
    Yep I would agree, the definition of stable is rock solid in all conditions, under all loads.

    AVX loads are common enough, Prime95, video encoding, 3d mark, Aida64


  • Advertisement
Advertisement