igor_kavinski
Diamond Member
- Jul 27, 2020
- 8,824
- 5,225
- 106
I got me the same.
These 40x40 pads cover the lga1700 perfectly.
I got me the same.
These 40x40 pads cover the lga1700 perfectly.
hmm...OK. i thought the CPU was rectangular not square.I got me the same.
The die might be but the part that mates to the cooler is more square. What matters is it's effective and less messy to deal with.hmm...OK. i thought the CPU was rectangular not square.
Just checked and the pad does cover the CPU almost completely but it's wider so it will also partially cover the steel retention bracket around the CPU.hmm...OK. i thought the CPU was rectangular not square.
Same here with my i7-920 and Xigmatek Dark Knight cooler. I redid the paste a few years ago when I added more RAM, bought a GTX 1060 6GB and decided to overclock the CPU. First application of TIM lasted at least 10 years. I'm thinking about keeping most of my rig and maybe putting the parts out on display in my office for a little nostalgia.So...I've been dismantling my ancient 1156 rig tonight. Most of it will probably get taken to the e-waste disposal. Sad because the ASUS P7P55D-E Pro motherboard, i5-760 CPU, and Corsair DDR3-1600 (4x2GB) Are all in excellent condition. Only overclocked to play with it when it was new...always reverted back to stock.
Anyway...I want to keep my Noctua NH-U12P SE2 cooler. It's still more than good enough for quite a few CPU's, just not the i5-13600K that I bought. When I went to dismount it from the CPU...it was stuck...the TIM had hardened and was like cement. (Cleaned right off with 91% IPA) Oddly enough, temps NEVER got over about 60C...ever, so inspite of drying out, the TIM and cooler did their job...for more than 10 years.
Some of us still go the extra mile and lap the contact surface of our heat sinks! In the early days, I even lapped the processor lid to eek out that last little bit of performance. At least I don't do that anymore.Paste is a right-of-passage. You've never really built a computer until you have used paste.![]()
I hope no one from Intel sees your comment. Don't want them to think they are being too "generous" to us.Not a big increase in price over the past 12 years for such a HUGE increase in performance.
I hope no one from Intel sees your comment. Don't want them to think they are being too "generous" to us.
Posted the GB and MM scores the other day. Ran Rapydmark 1.2a...everything was fine except the Cathedral 3D test. Everytime it reported test error. (even though it ran to completion) No idea what that's about.Hope to see your stock settings scores for Geekbench 5, Rapydmark at High and MemMaxx2!
Yet the 3D test report says:esults of all tests:
Total time (all tests): 41.326 seconds
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Matrix multiplication
Iterations: 100M | Performance: 28,785,262 it/s (20th) | Time: 3.474 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: MulDivAddSub (int,double,int64_t)
Iterations: 100M | Performance: 34,590,108 it/s (20th) | Time: 2.891 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Trigonometric functions
Iterations: 100M | Performance: 50,607,288 it/s (20th) | Time: 1.976 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Floating point operations per second
Iterations: 4K | Performance: 2,237 it/s 577.300 GFLOPS (20th) | Time: 1.788 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Find prime numbers SQR method
Iterations: 50M | Performance: 35,561,876 it/s (20th) | Time: 1.406 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Fibonachi sequence (92)
Iterations: 1000M | Performance: 418,410,016 it/s (20th) | Time: 2.390 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Pi approximation Taylor series method
Iterations: 200 | Performance: 108 it/s (20th) | Time: 1.838 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Greatest Common Divisor (GCD) Euclid's algorithm
Iterations: 400M | Performance: 178,890,864 it/s (20th) | Time: 2.236 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Fill Memory 256 MB
Iterations: 6K | Performance: 1,949 it/s (20th) | Time: 3.078 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Copy Memory 256 MB
Iterations: 6K | Performance: 2,557 it/s (20th) | Time: 2.346 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Memory cache performance (max 4 threads)
Iterations: 10 | Performance: 11 it/s (4th) | Time: 3.541 s
Last result: SizeMem= 8 kB Iterations= 65536 Time= 2 ms
SizeMem= 16 kB Iterations= 32768 Time= 2 ms
SizeMem= 32 kB Iterations= 16384 Time= 2 ms
SizeMem= 64 kB Iterations= 8192 Time= 6 ms
SizeMem= 128 kB Iterations= 4096 Time= 6 ms
SizeMem= 256 kB Iterations= 2048 Time= 6 ms
SizeMem= 512 kB Iterations= 1024 Time= 6 ms
SizeMem= 1 MB Iterations= 512 Time= 6 ms
SizeMem= 2 MB Iterations= 256 Time= 9 ms
SizeMem= 4 MB Iterations= 128 Time= 12 ms
SizeMem= 8 MB Iterations= 64 Time= 20 ms
SizeMem= 16 MB Iterations= 32 Time= 52 ms
SizeMem= 32 MB Iterations= 16 Time= 63 ms
SizeMem= 64 MB Iterations= 8 Time= 64 ms
SizeMem= 128 MB Iterations= 4 Time= 77 ms
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Files Encrypt AES256 (10 MB)
Iterations: 2K | Performance: 1,353 it/s (20th) | Time: 1.478 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Memory Encrypt/Decrypt AES256 (1 MB)
Iterations: 400 | Performance: 461 it/s (20th) | Time: 0.866 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Memory Encrypt/Decrypt Blowfish448 (1 MB)
Iterations: 400 | Performance: 517 it/s (20th) | Time: 0.773 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Memory Compress/Decompress 1 MB (Gzip)
Iterations: 400 | Performance: 497 it/s (20th) | Time: 0.804 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Files Compress 10 MB (Gzip)
Iterations: 200 | Performance: 239 it/s (20th) | Time: 0.834 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: RSA Keys Generator (2048 bits)
Iterations: 200 | Performance: 162 it/s (20th) | Time: 1.234 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Hash SHA1/256/512 MD4/5 CRC32 RIPEMD160 (512 bytes)
Iterations: 100K | Performance: 25,354 it/s (20th) | Time: 3.944 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Random Numbers Generator (2048 bits)
Iterations: 20M | Performance: 14,771,049 it/s (20th) | Time: 1.354 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Bitcoin Address Generator
Iterations: 20K | Performance: 11,661 it/s (20th) | Time: 1.715 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Distances between points on Earth (Haversine)
Iterations: 100M | Performance: 73,529,408 it/s (20th) | Time: 1.360 s
-------------------------------------
Test Type: Cathedral 3D Test
Iterations: 1 | Performance: Test error | Time: 0
I have no idea if any of that is bad or good.FPS average: 437 | min: 253 | max: 1237
Rapydmark should be run with the HIGH setting. You can select all tests and then scroll down and deselect the Cathedral test. It doesn't affect the total time taken to complete all tests.Posted the GB and MM scores the other day. Ran Rapydmark 1.2a...everything was fine except the Cathedral 3D test. Everytime it reported test error. (even though it ran to completion) No idea what that's about.
OK. I'll try that after I get home.Rapydmark should be run with the HIGH setting. You can select all tests and then scroll down and deselect the Cathedral test. It doesn't affect the total time taken to complete all tests.
I don't see your Rapydmark screenshot anymore. Don't see your Memmaxx2 screenshot either in the other thread. Dunno what's the issue. Maybe forum taking its revenge from you?OK. High stress test:
I don't know what's going on with that...I noticed it last night. Maybe after I get a couple of cups of coffee in mah belly...I don't see your Rapydmark screenshot anymore. Don't see your Memmaxx2 screenshot either in the other thread. Dunno what's the issue. Maybe forum taking its revenge from you?
I'm getting roughly 38 GB/s RAM bandwidth with E-cores. With them turned off, it increases to about 39.4 GB/s.
This is with DDR5-4600 CL28-30-30-60 (it's actually an EXPO DDR5-5600 kit that I got for about $100. Can't get it to run any better with PMIC VDD/VDDQ 1.25V and CPU/IMC at 1.17/1.225V).
I seem to remember that your Rapydmark score was about 226 sec. Mine is doing about 230 to 234 sec with air cooler so I guess that's good for a 12700K gimped with slow RAM?
Thanks!heh...fixed.
Never had it installed. Here's the results:Thanks!
May I have your Geekbench 5 URL? I think you posted it in some other thread. Can't seem to find it.
Definitely don't want to delete those. That's my primary boot drive. I'm more concerned with deleting the partitions in Disk 2.
He said disk 2. The HP NVMe drive. Currently his F drive.
I have a brand-spanking new drive. I can move everything I want to keep onto that drive, then just format drive 2 into a single partition.He said disk 2. The HP NVMe drive. Currently his F drive.
It's possible it came from the factory formatted with those partitions. The EFI partition is essential if the OS boots from that drive, which doesn't currently appear to be the case with the HP drive.
If you decide to go through with deleting those partitions to recover the 600MB, I would backup the data on the main partition before doing so. The disk management utility built into computer management may be able to delete those partitions and expand the partition your F drive currently occupies. If not, MiniTool and EaseUS have free partition managers.
Thanks. I moved the data I wanted to keep, formatted the drive, used mini tool to remove the partitions and create a data drive.He said disk 2. The HP NVMe drive. Currently his F drive.
It's possible it came from the factory formatted with those partitions. The EFI partition is essential if the OS boots from that drive, which doesn't currently appear to be the case with the HP drive.
If you decide to go through with deleting those partitions to recover the 600MB, I would backup the data on the main partition before doing so. The disk management utility built into computer management may be able to delete those partitions and expand the partition your F drive currently occupies. If not, MiniTool and EaseUS have free partition managers.