Maybe it needs said connection to register itself, disable whatever blocking software you're using and give it another shot? Seems to work fine for everyone else, there is no install, just run the exe and it auto starts the benchmark
Tried 4.1, worked. But 4.0 is enough for my needs. Besides...I had problem to achieve that 4ghz anyway, or even all cores 3.7 because 1 option in uefi. I figured out it finally, but OC was pain in ass. Dumb throttling every try. I got it delided BTW, and used coolabolatory ultra. But my cooler is rather crappy so I little affraid to OC more, as it require more V both on cores and on ring(cache). Cache is another story, cannot set it up more than 3.4ghz, more results in freezes while gaming(mostly my son games in CS:GO), ofc pushing V should help, but then temps rises too much for me to feel comfortable with it. One guy from my country(of origin) had problems too, he finnaly found stable 4.13Ghz at 1.3V core or 4.2Ghz with 1.4v, and ring 1.3 at 3,4ghz...witch is killing this cpu. He sold it anyway, and went to skylake. I am using 1.234V atm and it is good, ring is on 3,4 as said and 1,2v. As looking on web games test this cpu on this speed is faster than HW 4.5ghz, so no need to push it more. End of OT
lol they guys in first place have dual XEON E5-2686 V3 (thats 36 cores for both) Retail around $3,650.00 each or 950 each for Engineering sample's Speedys cpus by themselves cost over 7k new....god only knows how much the hole pc cost to make? cpus alone cost more than my truck did. People like that have special insurance just for there pc?
I thought I would give this a go. I have a Intel i5 4690k that I have set to 4.6GHz max. With a bit of help from my bf this is my first overclock. It's been stable for about 4mths now. Bit jealous of some of these i7 scores tho
It's crazy how well optimised this is for hyper threading. My 4690K @ 4.5 GHz got 1,421,760 My Q9650 @ 4.0 Ghz got 934,828 But my i7 870 @ 4.0 GHz got a whopping 1,564,660!! The i7 870 can sometimes out perform the 4690k when the i7 is overclocked and the i5 is at stock but never when they are both overclocked. I've also never seen a Nehalem outperform a Core 2 Quad buy such a wide margin before, this is mad:
Here are my results using 5930K @ 4.5GHz... Not really sure how to read the results and or what they mean, but here you go.. Are my results any good??
How does this work>? The lower your render time is the better right? Rays/sec the higher the better correct? I wonder how my 4790k would do on this? Does memory speed impact the score on this benchmark? I am only running 1600mhz for now.
1 second left to finish the bench. :infinity: New 5930k @ 4.5GHz testing. --------------------------- Corona 1.3 Benchmark Error --------------------------- Could not run Corona 1.3 Benchmark: Application exited with errors. (Press Ctrl + C to copy the message to clipboard.) --------------------------- OK --------------------------- Corona 1.3 Benchmark Finished BTR Scene 16 passes Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5930K CPU @ 3.50GHz Real CPU Frequency [GHz]: 4.4 (actually 4.5) Render Time: 0:02:40, Rays/sec: 3,025,940
BTR Scene 16 passes Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5930K CPU @ 3.50GHz Real CPU Frequency [GHz]: 4.5 Render Time: 0:02:40, Rays/sec: 3,025,510
Corona 1.3 Benchmark Finished BTR Scene 16 passes Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5930K CPU @ 3.50GHz Real CPU Frequency [GHz]: 4.7 Render Time: 0:02:35, Rays/sec: 3,117,450 ----------------------- Corona 1.3 Benchmark Finished BTR Scene 16 passes Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5930K CPU @ 3.50GHz Real CPU Frequency [GHz]: 4.7 Render Time: 0:02:32, Rays/sec: 3,196,990
5930k@4.7GHz@1.332v/3.5GHz cache / 32GB 2666MHz DDR4@1.20v First run of new 5930k landed me the #16 position 5930k category. Fine tuning now, I think she is a keeper & has completed into the #4 position searched 5930k. :infinity:
Heres my newest update score: Hope you all like it: Disregard where it says 2.8ghz, its really 2.9ghz flat.