Martin-w, you posted my reply:

 

 

Yet are still focusing on a point that I never made in the first place:

 

 

To clarify again, Asus can do what they want; but it's the users that decide if they accept that as the final and last word.... or take it with a grain of salt and move on. Recall that initially, the entire practice of overclocking wasnt recommended, and remained a nearly cult endevour until a minority of super-enthusiasts pushed the envelope outward until what was once frowned upon eventually became explicitly supported in most modern bios. 

 

At this point if you want a "safe" overclock, the bios practically does it for you. (Kind of takes the fun out of it)

 

As a practical matter, the vast majority of people seem not to bother doing even that much though, and settle instead for default and speedstep. My experience has been that those who want more however, kind of want it all, and almost by definition are going to be pushing at the edge, where rules become more amorphous and higher risk is expected.

 

If there's a real point to all of this from me, it's that as you said, people do use Prime95 and I believe with reason. Even after absorbing Asus's input people will continue to do so because it's useful, time-tested and trusted. In fact, some may trust it even more now, in that in this particular instance, it was the old reliable canary in the mine that pointed out a problem that might not have been found by a putatively safer program.

 

 

As in most of what I've said it's a personal choice, and mine is not to mess with programs that clock out on me after a certain period unless they provide something I can't get elsewhere, which in this instance is not the case.

 

 

 

 

Apologies if I've misunderstood you. So to recap. You said...

 

 

The issue has been known for quite a while among the usual suspects, so I don't think intel should be concerned with large amounts of people blundering into trouble.

 

 

And we have covered how Asus [you meant Asus not Intel] aren't concerned about “large numbers of people blundering into trouble” They simply mention The adaptive voltage/Prime95 issue in their overclocking guides, and when required in their forums. Just as they should!

 

My mistake, I typed Intel when I meant Asus, but the principal stands. If you're inexperienced, and want to overclock, then you'd be insane to just dive in and start changing things. You're going to search first for a reliable beginners guide, probably from Tom's hardware or some other generally well regarded source, and read a bit before messing around with your expensive investment.

 

It's the same as people who come here with questions and maybe lurk a bit before digging into the innards of FSX whilly-nilly.

 

Asus however, is going to be conservative, (which is to be expected) and that's why people tend to go to them last, because generally they are going to point you toward fairly mild overclocks using their recommended software, and then what's the point?

 

 

So you tell us people go to Asus last! And they go to somewhere like Tom’s hardware first because they provide a “reliable beginners guide”.  You also tell us that Asus overclocks are going to be “mild”. On both counts that is incorrect! Again, the Asus ROG forums are replete with individuals of all experience levels, perusing the forums and also digesting the excellent Asus overclocking guides. And no, absolutely not, Asus recommended overclocks are far from “mild”. 5 way optimization pushes the 6700K up to 4.8 GHZ and if your CPU will take it, further. My 37700K was pushed too far by the auto overclocking software. Numerous videos by JJ from Asus relate to overclocks that anyone would be satisfied with, not mild at all. In fact Asus promote the superior overclocking capabilities of their motherboards and 5 way optimization software.

 

 

To clarify again, Asus can do what they want; but it's the users that decide if they accept that as the final and last word.... or take it with a grain of salt and move on.

 

 

 

Of course!

 

 

If there's a real point to all of this from me, it's that as you said, people do use Prime95 and I believe with reason. Even after absorbing Asus's input people will continue to do so because it's useful, time-tested and trusted. In fact, some may trust it even more now, in that in this particular instance, it was the old reliable canary in the mine that pointed out a problem that might not have been found by a putatively safer program.

 

 

But don't you think that many still use Prime 95 out of habit. Something they've always done. It's almost a reflex. It's "the way it's done" It's almost tradition. I think even if you showed some people definitive evidence that prime 95 was a very bad idea [i'm not saying it is] they would still deny it and use it. It's like trying to argue with climate change deniers. :wink:

 

And it's certainly true of course that Prime 95 doesn't stress all of the newer architectures instruction sets. Couple that with baring no resemblance to the way we use our PC's in real world use, and maybe there's a better way. 

You might find this interesting in regard to overclocking Skylake. From Asus...
 

Preferred Stress Tests

1) ROG Realbench for all round application stability. Use the stress test option with the correct

amount of system memory assigned. Run for 4 hours. The stress test uses a combination of

Handbrake, Luxmark and Winrar to stress the system. It works very well as a stress test for

this platform.

http://rog.asus.com/file/?download=RealBench_v2.41.zip

2) Google stressapp test via Linux Mint (or another compatible Linux disti) is the best memory

stress test available. Google use this stress test to evaluate memory stability of their servers

– nothing more needs to be said about how valid that makes this as a stress test tool.

Install Linux Mint from here: http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php

Install the Google Stress App test from here:

http://community.linuxmint.com/software/view/stressapptest

Once installed open “Terminal” and type the following:

stressapptest -W -s 3600

This will run the stressapp for one hour. The test will log any errors as it runs. This test is

more stringent than Memtest for DOS, Memtest for Windows and any other memory test

we have used so far.

3) Prime95 28.5 is not a good stress test for this platform. It is easy to pass hours of Prime95

and then fail a Handbrake encode within minutes. As an example, a CPU can pass Prime95 at

1.30V but needs 1.34V+ to pass Handbrake at a given frequency. Use ROG Realbench

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz2VRRbLPrZnMXBnOXRWeVlHcHM/view?pli=1
 

I wasn't taking any sides with using or not using prime95. Personally, I still use it along with other tools, as it can reveal weaknesses with an OC. I was only clarifying how software can be used to damage a processor, and tossed in that Asus probably sees that potential problem with it as well. The irony is that prime95 seems to have become a poster child for any such tool in which someone can damage their CPU when using if they don't really understand what they are doing when tweaking bios settings. I've read plenty of posts on OCN from people who obviously fall into this category; so yes, bad things do happen from time to time to a few.

Software always lags hardware in exploiting capabilities (for instance, check out TSX). I can't think that FSX/ESP is the only way a well rounded flight sim can be designed and implemented. A FS that would fully exploit the current cutting edge of CPU architecture would need to be developed almost from scratch, costing millions. Maybe we should petition Bill Gates to make such a grant (without hope of making a profit...he could afford it). Wasn't he a flight sim enthusiast?

I guess we diverge ... games/sims require synchronization, SQL, Video processing does not.

 

I don't mean to belabor this point too much, but ACID-compliant databases are the mother of all synchronization problems, because ultimately you need to have a single view of "truth" at any given point in time, with a variety of different readers and writers all going on at once.

 

Think about a very simple problem - we have a basic bank ledger. It's just a pair of really simple tables, one tracking user and balance, the other being a transaction journal. You and I each have $100, and I want to transfer $50 to you. Seems simple, until you start digging into it. I first need to read my balance and ensure it has >$50. Then I need to decrement my balance by $50 and increase yours by the same amount.

 

Done? Of course not. Now I need to persist both pages to disk. Of course, since I/O can always fail, I need to ensure that if the second write fails after the first one succeeds, I can roll the whole thing back. Wouldn't do much good if I lost the $50 but you didn't get it. (That's the "A" in ACID).

 

That seems simple until you realize that you can have different transaction isolation levels, where some transactions can read the balances before they have been persisted to disk. You also don't want to stop the entire world every time someone writes to disk, so you end up with journals and buffer pools and a ton of locking and synchronization to make sure that you combine acceptable performance with that single view of truth.

 

Consistent data stores are really, really hard.

 

I have yet to see a game provide multi-core utilization higher than 60% (which is about what we see in P3D) ... here is a video from the most recent DX12 game I know that claims "advanced thread utilization" - Ashes of the Singularity ... as you can see from the video, one core is higher than the rest and that's the synchronization core.  All games/sims that are "time" based will exhibit very similar core utilization ... there is no logical way around this (except perhaps quantum computing) ... if there is, you need to sell the "engine" code with demonstration code and decide what you want to do with all the money you'll get

 

Rob, you keep confusing equal CPU utilization with effective multi-threading, and they're not the same. I readily agree with you that one core is higher than the others, but there are two points that I need to make.

 

First, there's no guarantee that this is running the synchronization thread and even if it is, there's nothing that this graph alone says that it needs to be as high utilization as it is. I've written code where the sync thread is next to zero utilization; it spends most of its time waiting on others. Second, because none of the cores is at 100%, I wouldn't be surprised if they hadn't optimized further, and if some of the cores weren't idle because they were waiting on certain hot locks. It also may be that the game is GPU limited, or frame limited - it may animate at up to a certain rate and any additional CPU power simply isn't used.

 

My point is, you have CPU cycles to spare. If I could get a flight sim where I could regularly get 3-4 cores over 50% and performance would scale somewhat linearly with core count I'd be happy. Until I'm at 100% I'm not worried - at that point I have cycles that are waiting but not getting run. (Waiting on locks is more pernicious - it just appears as idle time.) Synchronization isn't particularly CPU-intensive or a performance limiter; serial operations where one depends on the results of the first do. We already see this with FSX and FS9 - different areas of terrain render in at different rates and times; there's certainly more room for async loading and processing than now.

 

There are still significant gains to be had if one has a more asynchronous attitude towards processing and radically limits how much is needed for that "single view of truth" in a flight sim. It's not a bank, it's not FAA-certified - it's a very realistic game.

 

We may need to agree to disagree. However, the days of constant, linear CPU speed ramping up are over, just like the days of continuously increasing aircraft speeds died with the Oil Crisis and Concorde. There's still tremendous room for scale in parallel processing. Almost every other branch of software seems to be adapting and figuring it out.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

And we have covered how Asus [you meant Asus not Intel] aren't concerned about “large numbers of people blundering into trouble” They simply mention The adaptive voltage/Prime95 issue in their overclocking guides, and when required in their forums. Just as they should!

 

And I repeat, I believe it's not a huge issue because it's an old and well known problem that's been incorporated long since into the fairly common knowledge of the overclocking community. Asus may find it wise to continue to repeat that warning indefinitely because it's their forum and that's their choice. I repeat again I have no problem with that except insofar as to point out that for various reasons many have and will choose to disregard their recommendation about various software for testing (and any other) purpose.

 

So you tell us people go to Asus last! And they go to somewhere like Tom’s hardware first because they provide a “reliable beginners guide”.

 

I've told no one to go anywhere. (that would be rude!)

 

Or, perhaps I'm wrong on that, and you can link that part of my post. What I have stated was that many experienced and inexperienced overclockers seek known, time tested and reliable sites like Tomshardware, Hardocp and others. That's been true from the beginning of overclocking itself, when the average bios was largely indecipherable, overclocking was a fringe hobby, and doing so was clearly discouraged by both the cpu and the motherboard manufacturers.

 

​As I lived it, it was mainly through the efforts of enthusiasts and their willingness to buy premium motherboards and chips to support their desires that helped nudge those manufacturers towards the overclocking functionality that's now percolated down to more modest boards. The impetus started not with the manufacturers, but with the enthusiasts and enthusiast sites, and those old, venerable sites still exert a draw for many that will exceed that of product specific forums in the same way that a general forum like Avsim will tend to draw more traffic than a dedicated forum.

 

You also tell us that Asus overclocks are going to be “mild”. On both counts that is incorrect!

 

My actual quote was:

 

Asus however, is going to be conservative, (which is to be expected) and that's why people tend to go to them last, because generally they are going to point you toward fairly mild overclocks using their recommended software, and then what's the point?

 

My personal experience has been that maybe except for enthusiast motherboard brands, specifically marketed towards hardcore gamers/overclockers, recommended/autotuned overclocks tend to be based on what's safe for a factory heatsink, which is below what an enthusiast might accomplish by things like lapping the CPU, enthusiast level thermal paste, and spending out for generally higher-end cooling solutions, not to mention sometimes expensive cases with superior airflow properties. (and careful attention to the properties of an individual CPU, which can vary)

 

But don't you think that many still use Prime 95 out of habit. Something they've always done. It's almost a reflex. It's "the way it's done" It's almost tradition. I think even if you showed some people definitive evidence that prime 95 was a very bad idea [i'm not saying it is] they would still deny it and use it. It's like trying to argue with climate change deniers.

 

And it's certainly true of course that Prime95 doesn't stress all of the newer architectures instruction sets. Couple that with baring no resemblance to the way we use our PC's in real world use, and maybe there's a better way.

 

Could be some of that, but as I said earlier:

 

If the software from Asus or whoever else is useful and effective, then it will gradually join the other suites of software that overclockers and others use. If not, then.... not.

And I repeat, I believe it's not a huge issue because it's an old and well known problem that's been incorporated long since into the fairly common knowledge of the overclocking community. Asus may find it wise to continue to repeat that warning indefinitely because it's their forum and that's their choice. I repeat again I have no problem with that except insofar as to point out that for various reasons many have and will choose to disregard their recommendation about various software for testing (and any other) purpose

My response was in regard to this...

 

 

The issue has been known for quite a while among the usual suspects, so I don't think intel should be concerned with large amounts of people blundering into trouble.

 

When you make a statement like the one above, it could most certainly imply that you do indeed believe that Asus are "concerned with large amounts of people blundering into trouble". Thus, it's right that I should point out to you that Asus aren't at all concerned with such a thing. Your first quote above, doesn't really make it clear that you don't believe that, but so be it. My job is done. I must admit, you are a frustrating person to debate with.

 

 

What I have stated was that many experienced and inexperienced overclockers seek known, time tested and reliable sites like Tomshardware, Hardocp and others.

So what, we know that. The Asus ROG forum is also a "time tested and reliable site". Just so you know. It's been a great resource for many years. No different.

 

 

My personal experience has been that maybe except for enthusiast motherboard brands, specifically marketed towards hardcore gamers/overclockers, recommended/autotuned overclocks tend to be based on what's safe for a factory heatsink, which is below what an enthusiast might accomplish by things like lapping the CPU, enthusiast level thermal paste, and spending out for generally higher-end cooling solutions, not to mention sometimes expensive cases with superior airflow properties. (and careful attention to the properties of an individual CPU, which can vary)

 

Okay, now that's interesting. That wasn't of course what you said originally! You originally referred to Asus specifically. And of course, as you well know, Asus ARE an enthusiast brand motherboard! So you should be aware that Asus overclocks aren't at all "fairly mild" or "what's safe for a factory overclock". Do you see the contradiction?

 

You actually said...

 

Statement one

"Asus however, is going to be conservative (which is to be expected) and that's why people tend to go to them last, because generally they are going to point you toward fairly mild overclocks using their recommended software, and then what's the point?"

 

 

Then you contradicted that with...

 

Statement two

"My personal experience has been that maybe except for enthusiast motherboard brands specifically marketed towards hardcore gamers/overclockers, recommended/autotuned overclocks tend to be based on what's safe for a factory heatsink,"

 

As I said, Asus ARE and enthusiast brand! Difficult to debate with, very contradictory. "maybe" and "generally" doesn't help.

 

Just so you know, 4 way and 5 way optimisation has been around for quite a few years now. It's a stress tested software, firmware and hardware based automatic overclock. Doesn't matter if you have the factory heat sink or an NH-D15 or a Corsair H110... it will overclock as far as your specific set up will go. EVGA, Gigabyte, MSI I believe have something similar.

 

The above was just in case you are sticking to statement one above rather than statement two. :wink:

If the software from Asus or whoever else is useful and effective, then it will gradually join the other suites of software that overclockers and others use. If not, then.... not.

Well no, not really. It may "join the other suites of software that overclockers and others use"... but in time, if no longer as useful as it once was, it remains within that suite of software purely through tradition. As Asus point out in the quote above...

 

 

3) Prime95 28.5 is not a good stress test for this platform. It is easy to pass hours of Prime95

 

and then fail a Handbrake encode within minutes. As an example, a CPU can pass Prime95 at

 

1.30V but needs 1.34V+ to pass Handbrake at a given frequency. Use ROG Realbench

 

Hi

The Asus 5way is very very good even for experianced Overclockers

The Asus Rog forum is the best site if you have Asus MoBo , in my option better than the other hardware sites.

For flightsim the OC is kind of differnt than normal games , try to find a hardware site that recomend fast mems.

Here you get very good information from guys like Saab340 , Luke . SteweW and lot of members with differnt specialités with a passion for flightsimming.

So what, we know that. The Asus ROG forum is also a "time tested and reliable site". Just so you know. It's been a great resource for many years. No different.

I don't assume what other people know. As for your comment about "many years" it depends on your perspective. As far as I know, the ROG forum and brand name have only been in existence since approx 2006. Madonion (now Futuremark) were out there pushing the overclocking and benchmarking lifestyle since at least 1997. That's quite a head start in establishing a reputation. Similarly, Tom's Hardware was out there in about 1996, and I was at both of those places almost from the start, at a time when Asus and other motherboard and chip makers had very limited interest in overclocking.

 

To me, and likely many others, ROG (not ASUS) is a relative baby, born from the interest and increasing popularity of overclocking pioneered on those original sites.

 

Okay, now that's interesting. That wasn't of course what you said originally! You originally referred to Asus specifically. And of course, as you well know, Asus ARE an enthusiast brand motherboard! So you should be aware that Asus overclocks aren't at all "fairly mild" or "what's safe for a factory overclock". Do you see the contradiction?

You are litigating a bit and getting caught up. I referred to Asus specifically because that was where the discussion was at the time. To me the comment was always about motherboard manufacturers as a group, whether MSI, ASUS, GIGABYTE or whoever. I also see ASUS apparently unlike yourself as a general motherboard manufacturer with some specialty gaming/enthusiast lines. (since we are parsing)

 

As I said, Asus ARE and enthusiast brand! Difficult to debate with, very contradictory. "maybe" and "generally" doesn't help.

See above. Your frustration may be that I don't tend to speak in absolutes. I avoid them, because there's always the possibility of new information.

 

Just so you know, 4 way and 5 way optimisation has been around for quite a few years now. It's a stress tested software, firmware and hardware based automatic overclock. Doesn't matter if you have the factory heat sink or an NH-D15 or a Corsair H110... it will overclock as far as your specific set up will go. EVGA, Gigabyte, MSI I believe have something similar

My understanding (and that may have changed) was that many avoid using Auto overclock (I certainly do) because while the settings may be safe/stable, manual overclocking can often do better regarding voltages and temperatures which can affect a final overclock. For me it's always been an organic experience, pushing here and there until I've drawn what I want from a particular system. Since I haven't made a new system in the last 3 years though, (Graphics cards seemed a better speed option) auto settings may have improved. Simply, I have too many personal experiences of auto settings doing alarming things regarding voltages and resulting heat to trust them just yet. At best, to me, autotune simply gives a base to work from.

 

EDIT: Having written that, In the interests of due diligence, I went and did some research on recent boards and found that at least ASUS autotune now allows much finer manual voltage control than previously. I'll have to do a new system in a few months to see if I like it personally.

 

Well no, not really. It may "join the other suites of software that overclockers and others use"... but in time, if no longer as useful as it once was, it remains within that suite of software purely through tradition. As Asus point out in the quote above...

Who decides usefulness? Also, Prime95 is a moving target in constant further development. Eventually I believe the issue (from Prime95's side) that drove some of this topic in the first place will become be a moot point.  http://www.mersenne.org/download/

 

As for your final quote, I consider that an opinion open to debate, but probably pointlessly. To me, in the end it's about personal choice.

 

Cool, but not earth shaking, this is probably my reaction.

 

I don't assume what other people know. As for your comment about "many years" it depends on your perspective. As far as I know, the ROG forum and brand name have only been in existence since approx 2006.

 

Er...yes, exactly. Most people would regard that as sufficient time to have gained a sizable following. Most people would regard that as plenty of time to, as you put it "establish a reputation".

 

 

 

I referred to Asus specifically because that was where the discussion was at the time. To me the comment was always about motherboard manufacturers as a group, whether MSI, ASUS, GIGABYTE or whoever

 

So you specifically refer to "Asus" but really meant "all" motherboard manufacturers". It's pretty easy to state "motherboard manufacturers" rather than "Asus" isn't it. This was clearly a contradiction.

It's also wrong in another respect. You now refer to MSI, Asus Gigabyte. Well all of those manufactures have their own overclocking utilities and no, they too, as well as Asus, don't "only advocate auto tuned overclocks based on what's safe for the factory heat sink". All of them have reasonably advanced overclocking utilities.

 

 

I also see ASUS apparently unlike yourself as a general motherboard manufacturer with some specialty gaming/enthusiast lines. (since we are parsing)

 

Are you kidding? You have some strange ideas. If Asus isn't an "enthusiast brand" then who is? Asus are probably the most popular, most famous "enthusiast brand" Sorry but that comment is very strange indeed.

 

 

 

See above. Your frustration may be that I don't tend to speak in absolutes. I avoid them, because there's always the possibility of new information.

 

 

And of course that makes it relatively easy when you get caught out, to say, err... yes, well, I did only say maybe. Err, yes, err, I did say "generally". Err, yes I did say possibly. Do you see how when you debate like that it makes it very difficult to engage in a sensible debate. You either make a definitive statement or you don't. That definitive statement is either wrong or right. If it's wrong, then you concede the point. Not, well I did only say "maybe".

 

 

 

EDIT: Having written that, In the interests of due diligence, I went and did some research on recent boards and found that at least ASUS autotune now allows much finer manual voltage control than previously. I'll have to do a new system in a few months to see if I like it personally.

 

I would certainly check it out. 5 way optimisation is actually very good. As I said previously, it's a software, firmware and hardware based overclock. Remove AI Suite from your system and the overclock remains in the UEFI. No longer does the user have limited control, now it's possible to set a limit for frequency, temperature and voltage. So no more excessive voltage and heat. In addition, the stress tests it runs can be configured how you like, with AVX, without AVX, run for a few minutes or many hours. It's the best automatic overclock implementation yet in my view.

 

And it doesn't stop thereof course. 5 way optimisation will also tune all of your system fans. You can switch fans of, on, and program the fan curve of your choice for multiple scenarios. It does much more than this of course, so worth watching the video.

 

I'm not saying it's perfect, I'm not saying it's for everyone, that's personal choice, but it's certainly true that auto overclocking has come of age. It's also true that very experienced overclockers attempting to squeeze just a few more megahertz out of their systems can use it as an initial overclock, and tweak further. Pointless for most of us of course, as a few hundred megahertz makes minimal difference in terms of frame rate, but fun for those that regard it as such.

 

 

 

"Cool, but not earth shaking, this is probably my reaction."

 

 

If you're referring to your video...

 

 

4.7 overclock with ease, you say "not Earth shattering" .So what were you expecting? It's an overclock, not a quantum field generator to enable us to enter higher dimensional space. :smile:

 

It's also a very bad choice for video. The guy isn't an overcloker. He's happy at stock frequencies. There are a multitude of better choices out there.

We seem to be straying away from the original topic of addressing the bug in Skylake CPUs. Anyone reading this thread would have to plough through a lot of stuff which has little to do with the bug and a lot to do with opinions on motherboards and overclocking.

Very true! valid point. I will refrain immediately. My apologies.

Er...yes, exactly. Most people would regard that as sufficient time to have gained a sizable following. Most people would regard that as plenty of time to, as you put it "establish a reputation".

 

I don't speak for "most people" either, but if I did, I would say that "most people" would regard a ten year head start as sufficient time to gather an even larger reputation.

 

So you specifically refer to "Asus" but really meant "all" motherboard manufacturers". It's pretty easy to state "motherboard manufacturers" rather than "Asus" isn't it. This was clearly a contradiction.

 

What it clearly was to me was casual conversation. I hadn't yet realized I was in court.

 

Are you kidding? You have some strange ideas. If Asus isn't an "enthusiast brand" then who is? Asus are probably the most popular, most famous "enthusiast brand" Sorry but that comment is very strange indeed.

 

Not so strange. Asus makes a great many things, and in the motherboard space their products range from the poorest OEM boards to the distinctly enthusiast and gamer oriented like ROG. Asus itself, I have always thought of as a general manufacturer just like FORD, for instance, with both economy and luxury brands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asus

 

You you see how when you debate like that it makes it very difficult to engage in a sensible debate. You either make a definitive statement or you don't. That definitive statement is either wrong or right. If it's wrong, then you concede the point. Not, well I did only say "maybe".

 

And I avoid absolutes with statements such as "Most people" because there's no real way to know what "most people" think, without maybe doing a poll. To me, it's as imprecise as anything you have protested about above. I don't speak as if in a court, and habitually qualify statements because I have never been, and hope I never am as certain of my own correctness as I often find those who use definitives freely (Such as "everybody hated Microsoft flight). It's a pet peeve and personal choice I try hard not to stray away from.

 

It's also a very bad choice for video. The guy isn't an overclocker. He's happy at stock frequencies. There are a multitude of better choices out there.

 

And there we see differences at work again. "The guy isn't an overclocker." is a personal opinion stated in the form of a fact; again as imprecise as anything you were parsing from me. I myself might have said something like, (insert a few uhmms and errrs) "To me, he's not a real overclocker" I also would have likely said "I think, that's a very bad choice for video."

 

Again, it's a personal choice. 

 

......................................................................................................

 

 

 

We seem to be straying away from the original topic of addressing the bug in Skylake CPUs. Anyone reading this thread would have to plough through a lot of stuff which has little to do with the bug and a lot to do with opinions on motherboards and overclocking.

 

Agreed, and I was actually losing interest in my own thread! (also noticing that Luke and rob had wandered off)  :smile:

 

With the "fix" largely out in the wild from the various manufacturers, I guess it remains to be seen what, if any, further findings there will be about the issue. I always found Bios updates kind of annoying, but presumably people who feel most affected (and are tracking the reports) will be biting the bullet the quickest. I bet there are Prime95 users out there right now trying to see what (if any) new issues might arise from the fix.

 

Interestingly, (fun fact?) in digging deeper, I read that the bug was reportedly originally discovered by the the community at hardwareluxx.de before being passed onto GIMPS, which conducted further testing. Both groups then passed their findings onto Intel. Kudos to them if this is correct!

 

One wonders about all those researchers and whoever who have been using Prime95 on Skylakes and might now have to run a lot of calculations again to see if they were correct. That might add up to an awful lot of frustration from some people.

Pity you couldn't have left it there after the complaint. Guess you just had to respond didn't you. Which then invites me to counter your points. And there's plenty of scope to do so.

 

I won't, as promised. I'll do the grown up thing and leave you with the last word.