Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/20/18 in all areas

  1. 16 points
    Come on man, dont quit we need you. Make your decisions and stand by them. You are the mod not the user
  2. 12 points
    Thanks Gregor for all the work you did. Much respect bro what you, Carl, PJ, Frederik, Michael and Chris pulled off, to make this free service enjoyable. I withdrew from the conversation as K5 and all this old hardware is not my cup of tea, however if I look back on 2018 alone many of the OSIBS subs have been heavily discussed over and over again regarding the the validity of many submissions or the hardware being used. You can draw your own conclusions on who's too blame... Seems the centrum of the universe nitwit wins again by using an abundant, probably in his point of view a democratic usage of words. Give yourselves a big cheer and a tap on the back. Another amazing achievement: Self Destructive mode is fully unlocked. However this unexpected departure means the bot's evolution might come to a halt, and this from right now: There might not be any more future hardware additions to the Bot's database. Thanks to those that supported Gregor and the BOT for its free service. To the others; if you don't like it here, why don't you go and play somewhere else where it is much better structurized, better moderated and where you can all have your little saying ... Just let us be happy in our elite biased bubble.... Democracy stopped right here, right now... if one ever pulls this word out of the hat again or starts to copy paste the entire wikipedia to waste my time and lecture me, I'll ban him without even blinking... You all have been officially warned.
  3. 9 points
    I'd like to remind you what HWBot was initially about - it's a hardware performance database. Think about it, reread it and think again. It's only three words, you can handle it, I'm sure. Points, rankings, leagues, teams - it's all secondary. It's simply a gamification made for fun. Fun is another thing most forget in their long discussions. So the main purpose is to keep the DB as accurate as possible, not about your points. @max1024it's NOT about crystal oscillator deviation you are talking about AT ALL. You simply don't understand the bug then. Xtal deviation affects frequency and will be seen in every realtime frequency utility. The topic is about CPU-Z bug only. If you didn't understand my two little quotes, feel free to ask for details. It's not rocket science. @Gumanoid, looks like you don't get the situation. The results were blocked not because everyone is a cheater but because we can't be sure they are real. How dare you mention Carl and talk about rules applied to old results. I'll give all of you a nice example - a long time ago there was a category called Celeron 350MHz (Covington). You'll never find such a CPU because it doesn't exist. I've found out that CPU-Z couldn't tell a Pentium 2 Deschutes with L2 cache disabled in BIOS from a Celeron Covington (they share the same core) which doesn't have cache at all. How do you think, how many people commented that their scores were bugged, how many reported to CPU-Z? Don't try to "they might not know" - you can't disable L2 cache in BIOS by accident. And Pentium cartridge and PCB looks whole different way from Celeron. So Carl deleted the whole category along with results. And I've reported to CPU-Z and got this issue fixed. And nobody got banned. Some of them were teammates of those who participated in this topic. Would you really continue with this "rules don't apply backwards" and let fake category with false results stay? Important to not - results weren't painted, neither they were fake in general way. But they were erroneous in terms of hardware performance database. That's how it was done and how Turrican reacted in such a case. Back to this issue - it should be sorted out. Maybe we could make exceptions for some cases like non-overclockable boards if a result seems normal and doesn't cross the bug mechanism. Not for me to decide though, it's up to results mods.
  4. 9 points
    Yes its really a shame. Its a shame that this bug could last for 4 years without anyone, except me, contacting CPU-Z authors. Its a shame that nobody stands up when he faces those bugs. You guys say all the time how experienced you are with old hardware. Yet when boot screen says 280 MHz and CPU-Z says 300 MHz you keep calm because its an advantage for you. As you are all so "experienced" you dont think its strange when you set an FSB of 124 but CPU-Z says 100. You dont think its something wrong when old Pentium MMX CPUs have high multipliers? You open AIDA and CPU speed differs, you dont wonder why? I really wonder how I could spot this problem with my "non-existing competence". What a shame for you. And thats the real problem. You guys have the experience with those old platforms. So none of you can tell me that you didnt stumbled about this problem in the past. Yet none of you started a thread here in the forums or contacted CPU-Z. There are and there will be always software bugs. You have to understand that it is your responsibility as community to help to fix those bugs. But you just did nothing. A now you are starting a rant why hwbot is so evil because we removed those subs. How could we dare without asking you? It makes me sad that some of you fail to see the bigger picture. Its not that I had fun when I removed those submissions. It makes work. You have to understand that results which cant be trusted because of a known software bug cant stay in the ranking even if it was made with motherboards stock clocks. It also makes no sense to ask for further proof as the rules ask for a CPU-Z validation. They dont ask for an AIDA screenshot. So no trusty CPU-Z validation no score. Period. I cant tell how Turrican would handle things. I just want to say that in the last years many things have changed. I just say Windows 10, EVGA SR-2 timer bugs and we currently face a lot of similar issues with buggy benchmarks. And sadly a lot of users who thought they found a "tweak" while it was just bug using. Your reactions is making me really sad and I don't know what it justifies to spend a lot of time in such a toxic environment. This makes me understand why the whole moderation team is basically gone.
  5. 8 points
    I carefully read all your arguments and want to say the following. I've tried almost all the sockets, chipsets and processors since socket 3 and I can say that the final FSB frequency depends on the mass of factors such as the actual capacitor power, the degree of their wear, the current that is applied to the main elements of the board including the cloker, the temperature that acts on the elements of the motherboard. As a result of these and other physical processes, FSB often "swims", even in real time. The deviation from the set frequency by jumpers can exceed 1 MHz. I think many are aware of how from the "tired" motherboard in addition to squeeze out extra performance. For those who do not know, I tell: need to give a good load on the processor, running a benchmark. As a result of increasing the voltage at all nodes of the system, the FSB will also be tightened, depending on the physical state of the components of the motherboard and even the used power supply, which can deliver different currents along different lines, both to the large and to the smaller side. Somewhere such a method reduces performance and the FSB fall sdown, even downt the limit. CPU-Z in some cases just creates a load on the processor. As a result, from 66 MHz, you can get 67 MHz or even 65. All my results are in this corridor. This is the normal behavior of old systems. If you look at the result of other utilities such as AIDA 64, NOBODY knows the algorithms for changing the CPU frequency of this and other utilities, and there are no guarantees that they are not subject to the same errors as certain versions of CPU-Z. Therefore, one should not assert anything without knowing the exact Facts. I understand that Antinomy also owns the information, but let me refer to the opinion of one person is not reasonable, there is still logic, physics, mathematics and what only the creators of programs and processors know. And if the frequency as you write differs by 0.5 MHz, is this a Bug? This stupid frequency, as I wrote above, can be different at any moment of the time, and a competent OVERCLOCKER who knows 100% of the behavior of his old components will make the right decision to increase this frequency by different methods. Bug is when exhibited 150 and shows 450, for ALL of the my results, the measurement error does not reach even 5 MHz. If you say there is not 500 and 495 MHz, different tests have different load, who wants to do better - will take the next FSB stripe. As for the application of rules, laws and so on. I consulted today with lawyers and that's what they told me. In civilized, democratic countries, when adopting a new law or rule, this law has no inverse legal force. In jurisprudence, there are cases when, when adopting new rules and laws, its validity extends to legal relationships that arose before the adoption of the law. In such cases, the civilized and democratic norm is the indication of all aspects and terms from when the new legal relations will affect the old order. Typically, such situations arise when one law is canceled, and the second has not yet entered into legal force and for this period (for this period) when the old law does not work, and the new one has not yet been adopted, the retroactive rule on legal relations arising in the past . In this case, in advance in the mass media, this information should be published in public access. What I see here, no news on this fact was published on the main page of the site, no information came to the email. The present edition of the rules still applies, no transitional periods are observed. From the point of view of common sense and the law, such actions are simply not legal, not democratic. If you follow such logic, then the first idea is to delete ALL results from Cinebench 2003-R15, where the screenshots close the visible part of the screen. But this is not done. Further it is necessary to delete all results without screenshots (which were lost when moving the database). We want to establish the same order? Using the same approaches? If the administration intends to introduce NEW RULES, first publish these rules for ALL. Write a date from which these rules will apply and which versions of programs or tests to use for each family of processors. It will be fair to all. Old results, as the results without screenshots or closing the windows of programs leave as is. There will still be many attempts to establish more than one record and the existing results will be improved, but there is no need to touch, then a lot of energy, energy and time were spent. As for the help, I am ready to help in identifying and correcting the wrong results. I often look through the old results and see as much garbage. In a series of cases, which can be corrected by replacing the Mhz by Ghz, or by moving the comma several characters back. Write to me in PM I do not refuse help.
  6. 7 points
    I agree, Strunkenbold is doing a great job to keep the bot running. Sometimes when problem like this CPU-Z situation shows up... action simply must be taken. And when we don't know if the scores are false or real with those certain CPU-Z versions, then removing all scores possibly affected is the only way to keep the DB in good state. Of course it is some amount of time and effort wasted for those people affected by this. But this isn't really anything new - several benchmarks were removed completely in the past (for example UCBench and others which I don't even remember anymore). Other had points removed (PCM05, Hwbot Prime). I alone lost hundreds points by this... and I'm still here. Cleaning the bugged results from the DB is a good thing and everyone shoud understand it.
  7. 6 points
    Some of you may already noticed that for some sockets the possibility to submit with more than one CPU disappeared. The background is that we had a lot of subs with incorrect core count. Some users probably got confused by the field and thought they have to enter their core count in the first field. Of course our Hardware Database already knows which core count your CPU has (except the maintainer made a mistake), so you dont have to do this. This resulted in dual cores appeared in quad core ranking or quad cores appeared in 16 core ranking. Like a Core i7 4770k entered as 4x was suddenly making a appearance in the sixteen core Global Points ranking for Cinebench R15 and of course, scored a gold cup for the hardware ranking. To solve this we implemented a function to prevent selecting multiple CPUs once you choose a CPU which only works with single socket systems. The only exceptions are sockets like LGA2011, LGA2011-3 which can host single Desktop CPUs as well as Dual Xeons. If you spot such submissions please report. Frederik ran a query to automatically move all wrong results back to their actually meant ranking, which affected almost 10k results. Unfortunately due to a bug not all subs got catched. I still see a lot of XTU results appearing in the wrong ranking. But I think its still a step in the right direction.
  8. 6 points
    Greg, I can hardly blame you. I told Michael the same when he quit. Huge loss. Thanks for trying. Again, everybody loses because of a few pukes here. I hope you fucking clowns are satisfied. If I posted everything I really wanted to say, I would be banned for life.
  9. 6 points
    And I felt sore. What's happening on hwbot lately? who are we? Overclockers? benchers? or "screenshoters"? the results are deleted and blocked without a real reason! All perfectly understand that the result is correctly received, but the window is not in the wrong place = ban. What if I can not physically place all windows at 1280*1024 resolution? There are frames of the reasonable and human factor. Therefore, moderators are people, not bots. What prevents ask before blocking? But most of all enrages that everything is formal approach.The man presses the "block" button realizing that the result is good in itself, but there is a "snitch" who instead of overclocking looks at the results stupidly and finds some minor flaws. What's wrong with you guys? Ten years ago, there was no such crap. all overclockers bench for fun! By your actions you discourage motivation for new achievements. Is this the purpose of the hwbot today? p.s. Turrican did not want the hwbot to be the way it was now. It's a shame...
  10. 6 points
    I'm NOT agree. 1. http://hwbot.org/submission/3331215_max1024_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_233mhz_350_mhz It's normal result 100*3.5 = 350 Mhz under -35C, or may be you think that my Super Pi1M on 350 also fake? http://hwbot.org/submission/3331220_max1024_superpi___1m_pentium_mmx_233mhz_6min_32sec_134ms I'm on the HW bot more then 10 years and nkow about old HW all. 2. http://hwbot.org/submission/3457688_max1024_cpu_frequency_embedded_pentium_mmx_266mhz_500_mhz Read this via google translate https://overclockers.ru/lab/print/82458/retrokloking-world-fastest-pentium-mmx or may be AIDA 64 and other soft also have a BUG? [/img] And other my results. I look Strunkenbold at this issue formally, not understanding the situation, but it would be worth it. It is very sad to see such a lack of competence.
  11. 5 points
    How dare you call me not a team player or a real overclocker. What you fail to realize is that, this site is not a democracy. It's not yours. You are a user and are to abide by the rules laid down by the owner of the site. Period. If you don't like it, don't play. That is basically your only choice. FWIW, 1/4 of the listed subs are from my own team, so it's not like I don't have a dog in this race. W9 stands behind the mods decisions. Like it or not, they are the law.
  12. 5 points
    Lol the Bot ended up this way due to the acts of many of your fellow overclockers, who couldn't play nice and keep it fair. Because they all thought they would end up on the payrole of some big vendor and greed took over. The verification screenshots are like they are and will be imposed as is. Sorry but the 1280x 1024 resolution is a mute call, I have done most of my 2D subs on that resolution. Secondly we are 2018 already aren't we ? For another of you arguments: If you think we have the time to ask to 20-30 people daily to redo their screenshot or to ask for other verification , how on earth can we keep track ? The rules have been laid down by our predecessors, again in a reaction to the aforementioned reasons. Also if we don't maintain a strict handling of subs and allow the score for person A , but not for person B... how big of a mess will that be after a few months... I keep on repeating this but OC is a selfdestructive something... if everybody played fair we would not be here... if you have a score that is out of proportion, you know something is wrong, yet many take the chance and hope it will slip through... one day somebody will spot it and it will get removed...
  13. 5 points
    I managed 4K 12-11-11 1T tight subs with a Trident Z 3200C14 kit that uses that newer layout on MSI Z270i board, so it doesn't seem to be chipset/platform limitation but rather mobo-specific.
  14. 5 points
    I just a story on my blog on watercooling with Hailea chiller in the tropics and the issues faced with condensation. http://globetrotter.tech/blog/index.php/2018/08/12/watercooling-computers-with-hailea-chiller-in-the-tropics/ It might help a few others in terms of understanding the Humidity vs Temperature and Dew point to avoid hardware failures.
  15. 5 points
    im reporting this for sale thread for not having the latest systeminfo
  16. 4 points
    We unfortunately encountered a CPU-Z bug beginning from version 1.69 which was released on March 19th, 2014 until version 1.84 which was released March 20th, 2018. Basically the detection mechanism of CPU-Z for old Socket 5/7 Pentium's, Cyrix, Winchip, K6 CPU's was broken and produced wrong results. Antinomy digged a little bit deeper, so here is what he found out: I experienced this bug already 3 years ago and reported it to the CPU-Z bug thread here in the forums. When I checked results for the Old School is Best School competition I stumbled about the problem again, so unfortunate the bug wasn't been fixed in the last years. I contacted Frank Delattre from CPU-Z and he finally fixed the bug. One minor disadvantage is that we have now no longer FSB detection on these old chips. If you want to submit Motherboard frequency results, you have to use at least a K6-2 from now on. I went through our db and saw some results which are affected by this bug. Too keep the integrity of our db, I will remove the following submissions: http://hwbot.org/submission/2951225_chentinox_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_75_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2965665_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_75_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2965715_trodas_cpu_frequency_k5_pr75_75_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2970113_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_82.5_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2969709_trodas_cpu_frequency_k5_pr75_82.5_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2963206_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_90_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2965660_trodas_cpu_frequency_k5_pr75_90_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2983806_marquzz_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_99_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3389115_stingeryar_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_99_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2964194_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_99_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2950923_deadthings_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_100_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2953470_deadthings_cpu_frequency_k5_pr166_100_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3017463_michaelnm_cpu_frequency_k5_pr133_110_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2962672_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_112.5_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2933960_johan45_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_166mhz_120_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3635152_remarc_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_125_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2970031_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_125_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3689830_iphone_bomgi_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_132_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2925263_mr.paco_cpu_frequency_k6_233mhz_(model_6)_132_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3686726_omega_man_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_132_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3635045_remarc_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_150_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3688388_omega_man_cpu_frequency_pentium_133mhz_198_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3688332_omega_man_cpu_frequency_pentium_120mhz_198_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3635048_remarc_cpu_frequency_pentium_133mhz_210_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3016927_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_overdrive_mmx_200mhz_225_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3372942_max1024_cpu_frequency_2x_pentium_mmx_233mhz_231_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3764884_kotori_cpu_frequency_pentium_166mhz_250_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3801697_macsbeach98_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_166mhz_250_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2508087_antinomy_cpu_frequency_winchip_2_240_250.12_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3339373_max1024_cpu_frequency_embedded_pentium_mmx_266mhz_264_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3797837_jurin1388_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_200mhz_297_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3340202_max1024_cpu_frequency_embedded_pentium_mmx_266mhz_297_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3787426_griff_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_166mhz_300_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3802171_macsbeach98_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_166mhz_300_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3789220_macsbeach98_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_233mhz_300_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3794507_hyve_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_233mhz_330_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2931993_mr.paco_cpu_frequency_6x86mx_pr300_332_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3399763_michaelnm_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_166mhz_350_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3331215_max1024_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_233mhz_350_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3457688_max1024_cpu_frequency_embedded_pentium_mmx_266mhz_500_mhz I know that some of these score are perfectly valid, CPU frequency wise. But keep in mind that we are a small team and I we dont have time to discuss every single result. If a result cant be trusted, it will be removed. It took 4 years to fix this bug and another half year to clean the db.
  17. 4 points
    )))))) PS: russian is one of my native language.
  18. 4 points
    Чтобы в дальнейшем не было таких проблем надо создавать обсуждения проблематичных ситуаций ДО УДАЛЕНИЯ. Обсудили бы в спокойной атмосфере и решили что делать. А так как было сделано просто вызвало волну гнева... English: In order to avoid such problems in the future, it is necessary to create discussions of problematic situations before DELETE. We would have discussed it in a calm atmosphere and decided what to do. And since it was done just caused a wave of anger ...
  19. 4 points
    No, it's not a benchmark. Suicide runs are very hard to validate because the result relies 100% on a few MSRs or CPUID registers that are read and interpreted. Remember the FM1 locked multi bug? Very satisfying to see a CPU go as high as you want - but it was only the number in the CPU-Z window of course, nothing real. I'd say it's an impossible job to keep the DB clean in this category. It should be discussed if points are removed there. This is only a marketing category anyway. "Wow, 2999WX on 6GGGG ALL CORES!11" ....yeah. Strunkenbold, the way I see it, it's impossible to keep all categories clean that rely on user input, only screenshots and simply not enough and unsafe data points.
  20. 4 points
    If we allowed the same members that cause mods to leave to run the site there would be no site.
  21. 4 points
    Hey, did you ever click on my results? Which monitor or GPU? At least read carefully and look at the links above. Enough already to write the general phrases, it's time to think carefully and to conclude that this or that system could work at the frequency or not. We are not discussing the resolution with the GPU, although this is also an important issue, and SPECIFIC results. Wake up.
  22. 4 points
    Who is the LAW? I remember the movie "Judge Dredd" and the famous phrase of Sylvester Stalone: "I'm the Law!". It seems to me that the games of the Gods are not relevant here. ... blah blah ... I talked with a friend and we took it and decided that it turns out that some results are not valid. Wow! And not all, but some selective ones, and only a few people know this universal secret. Apparently those who decided so (and decided immediately for everyone) have exceptional knowledge in ALL old HW, and everyone else was sitting and drawing screenshots and photos of their results. They made stands, freezed the processors and everything for the sake of making a FALE?,... it is fundamental! All benching at a certain time, not tied to the versions of CPU-Z. What version of cpu-z acted at the time of filing, this one was used, so it was relevant at the time of filing and only it could be accepted for validation. I can say that ALL of my results are real, and are obtained by putting jumpers and settings in BIOS and corresponds to what programs shows! I look and I can not understand everything logically we take a multiplier of 3,5 multiply by the bus 100 we compute 350. Or is there another mathematics? Well, let the other, apparently some believe that 2 + 2 is five, but then explain how on the motherboard without the possibility of overclocking, having a pair of Pentium 2 MMX 233 get any other numbers except those close to 233? In fact, I have 231 MHz. I understand if that CPU-Z showed 587 MHz, then you can still dream about how such figures were obtained, but 231 on a motherboard that has a bus at 66 MHz and is no longer capable. With two 233 MHz processors, OMG we get 231 MHz - no words, to those who made the decision to delete. http://hwbot.org/submission/3372942_max1024_cpu_frequency_2x_pentium_mmx_233mhz_231_mhz I'm also for this! But first you need to also think about it, No? This is not the word of a real overclocker, who thinks about his colleagues in the shop. Football is a team game, we all are the Team, if in the future you want to see one player on the field, please go on. In the past, this is not the only case and many overclockers are not satisfied with this state of situation. It may be instructed that many will go away deleting their accounts, I do not think that the Team of like-minded people will be better off.
  23. 4 points
    After such, hands drop and do not want to anything benching. What happens to HWBOT?
  24. 4 points
    The EVGA SR-2 issue was a timer bug with RTC on this specific mainboard (as far as we currently know). It was not a GPUPI related issue as many other benchmarks rely on RTC as well. CINEBENCH, Aquamark and various older versions of 3DMark rely on the exact same Windows API function (timeGetTime). Which is in itself the same as GetTickCount (ie SuperPI) .. so yeah, all these benchmarks are still skewed/bugged on the SR-2. SSE2 and SSE3 are the most important extensions for GPUPI using OpenCL on CPUs. SSE4a (also supported by Llano), SSE4.1 and SSE4.2 don't add anything particular interesting for the calculation, so that shouldn't make any difference in comparison to Ivy Bridge. As for the bugged output, it's simply impossible. Really. There is no way to get to the result without calculating all partial results and accumulating them precisely. The hexadecimal digits next to the result are not an additional checksum, these digits ARE the result and therfor validate that the calculation was 100% successful beyond any doubt (unless you cheat). From a technical standpoint it is not necessary for the moderation to intervene here. No rule was broken, the timer works, no cheating happend; this is simply a hardware/software combination that is running faster. We don't know what happened in between these BIOS versions and it's quite possible that a patched errata had a huge performance impact on the 64 bit integer and/or double precision performance of Llano. The only way to find out would be to have a deep look inside the calculation to find out what instructions are actually performed and measure them. This could be a great find, so hell yeah .. if anybody sends me the mainboard I would go for it (I have a 3870K btw but no board).
  25. 3 points
    This is giving me flashbacks but I'm not sure if they're good ones or bad ones...
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up