cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

RealBench 2.43 does not support 69xx (Broadwell E)

cekim
Level 11
First you see this when you start:
CPU:Intel Processor - Speed:2999.3 MHz - Multi:30.0 - Bus:100.0 MHz
RAM: - 130986 MBytesGB -
MB:RAMPAGE V EXTREME - FW: - Desktop
OS:Windows 10 Pro
GPU1:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 - GPU2:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980

Second: you get this error if you run:
"Unable to properly parse system specs. Please report in RealBench forum.

If you manually replace cpuz with the latest, then you can get the correct info, but of course RealBench views this as a corruption/alteration and thus invalidates the result.

Here is what I see with cpuz manually replaced:
CPU:Intel Core i7 6950X - Speed:1199.7 MHz - Multi:12.0 - Bus:100.0 MHz
RAM:1599.7 MHz (1:24) - 128GB - 14-14-14-34-2T
MB:RAMPAGE V EXTREME - FW:3101 - Desktop
OS:Windows 10 Pro
GPU1:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 - GPU2:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
21,525 Views
43 REPLIES 43

Gobe
Level 8
Well, that sucks. I've been far too busy the past 6 weeks to look at Broadwell-E or play with benching, so I guess I'll spectate while this hopefully gets worked out.

Gobe wrote:
Well, that sucks. I've been far too busy the past 6 weeks to look at Broadwell-E or play with benching, so I guess I'll spectate while this hopefully gets worked out.

I think the punisher might like this chip... It likes it rough (high voltages). 😉

You don't get that 5.0GHz reward though. You have to settle for scores.

Menthol
Level 14
I suppose we'll see an update soon, can you run the stability test or since it doesn't recognize the chip it won't run at all?

Menthol wrote:
I suppose we'll see an update soon, can you run the stability test or since it doesn't recognize the chip it won't run at all?

Yes, runs the entire suite (test and stability) and produces a number, but it errors out at the end saying it cannot parse the machine info.

If you replace cpuz, then it has the right info and still runs, but it hides the number.

Menthol
Level 14
Good that means my score will remain at top a little longer:)

Menthol wrote:
Good that means my score will remain at top a little longer:)

Indeed.

Actually, this is the sad part about 6950x. For the most part what it accomplishes because of its comparatively limited OC range is to produce the numbers 5960x did in "bench" form on a 24/7 basis.

If programmers haven't gotten the message that GHz are dead and they need to learn how to parallelize in ways they've previously assumed impossible, then need to listen harder.

Until or unless something forces a move to a new material Intel is looking for ways to slap more, slower cores on the same chips and ways to optimize their power consumption.

Go wide or go home it seems.

cekim wrote:
If programmers haven't gotten the message that GHz are dead and they need to learn how to parallelize in ways they've previously assumed impossible, then need to listen harder.


Individually, silicon transistors with far faster switching speeds can be produced, but try to put millions of these on a single wafer and it's not so easy. GHz isn't dead but the headroom is running out under current technology. It's going to take some hard work to push silicon further.

Semiconductors with far better electron mobility might be the place to pick up (Gallium Nitride comes to mind). Rather than continuing to flog silicon to within an inch of it's life, it makes sense to work with a material where electrons can be moved more quickly with far less effort (read voltage and ultimately power) required to move them. Faster switching/lower power. Yes please!

Gobe wrote:
Individually, silicon transistors with far faster switching speeds can be produced, but try to put millions of these on a single wafer and it's not so easy. GHz isn't dead but the headroom is running out under current technology. It's going to take some hard work to push silicon further.

Semiconductors with far better electron mobility might be the place to pick up (Gallium Nitride comes to mind). Rather than continuing to flog silicon to within an inch of it's life, it makes sense to work with a material where electrons can be moved more quickly with far less effort (read voltage and ultimately power) required to move them. Faster switching/lower power. Yes please!


Of course, setup time for Si manufacture and the equipment needed are already hideous enough and only pay off with large economies of scale.

It's hard to turn down "sand" as your primary raw material and that may hold us here for a long time. Much as Iron remained the primary structural metal for cars/engines until the price of fuel forced a change (engine blocks remained virtual unchanged from the 60's through to the early 90's.

Gobe
Level 8
Yea, for as many challenges as silicon presents, we've gotten pretty good at using it. The upside going forward is limited versus other materials, but time and $$$.