The Following User Says Thank You to smph For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-04-25
, 08:33
|
Posts: 951 |
Thanked: 2,344 times |
Joined on Jan 2012
@ UK
|
#362
|
|
2012-04-25
, 11:54
|
Posts: 48 |
Thanked: 31 times |
Joined on Dec 2011
|
#363
|
It all depends on silicon everyone is going to have different results it's like a lottery of who has the better silicon chip!
The Following User Says Thank You to smph For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-04-25
, 14:46
|
Posts: 110 |
Thanked: 62 times |
Joined on Mar 2012
|
#364
|
|
2012-04-25
, 14:49
|
|
Posts: 2,021 |
Thanked: 1,060 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
@ Hong Kong
|
#365
|
|
2012-04-25
, 15:38
|
Posts: 1,539 |
Thanked: 1,604 times |
Joined on Oct 2011
@ With my N9
|
#366
|
|
2012-04-25
, 15:52
|
Posts: 245 |
Thanked: 915 times |
Joined on Feb 2012
|
#367
|
Sad... If I do a 3$ donation i'm sure my bank will take 3-4€ of charges :/
|
2012-04-25
, 16:21
|
Posts: 1,463 |
Thanked: 1,916 times |
Joined on Feb 2008
@ Edmonton, AB
|
#368
|
Are you implying that the actual voltage is the one given by the dyn_nominal variable? From what I've read that's not the case, dyn_nominal is the voltage at which SmartReflex starts a new round of calibration and lowers from there if possible. The idea is that dyn_nominal is a stable voltage for that particular chip in all conditions, including after deterioration due to aging and at high temperature.
I can't actually set the voltage lower than the default calib voltage, so if I'm right undervolting is not possible, in fact, at least not with the current method.
The Following User Says Thank You to Creamy Goodness For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-04-25
, 17:04
|
Posts: 1,539 |
Thanked: 1,604 times |
Joined on Oct 2011
@ With my N9
|
#369
|
|
2012-04-25
, 17:12
|
Posts: 93 |
Thanked: 85 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Halifax
|
#370
|
I can't actually set the voltage lower than the default calib voltage, so if I'm right undervolting is not possible, in fact, at least not with the current method.