Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/01/18 in all areas

  1. 20 points
    BIOS 1704 modified for Windows XP ACPI support https://1drv.ms/u/s!Atmpv-6qHr_6o9hDCg_c2HDTGFUr7g Rename to M10A.CAP and flash using USB BIOS Flashback. Using EZFlash will not work. Edit: Set Boot Performance Mode = Turbo Performance to be able to change ratio in the OS
  2. 17 points
    Within tradition the ROG overclocking series continues with Z390 as well . You can download latest tools here : OC PACK Bios 0050 for Maximus XI Apex and Gene, can change BCLK with OC PANEL : Maximus XI Apex Maximus XI Gene MAXIMUS XI GENE older bioses : 0057 0044 0043 ( improves oc capability of short-traced dimms such as G.Skill RGB or Galax based A2-pcb) USB Flashback: Few notes: 1. LN2 wise the benching experience with additional voltages is quite same, RSVD switch works most of time for solving CBB issues, some cpu's can scale with up to 1.85V PLL Termination . Typically new cpu's scale up to 1.8V for multi-thread and 1.95+ for single-threaded benchmarks. 2. No more slow-boot with Samsung B-die sticks and tight timings 3. Cofee Lake refresh has a little bit different IMC compared to regular Cofee Lake, meaning you might need to sort your oc-dimms again and also some dimm's are simply not liked by the new IMC. A value of 0.95 vttdram helped few kits in my case but ymmv. 4. Make sure you use a strong PSU otherwise you might run into issue and experience shutdown in heavy-load benchmarks. While using heater and hard benchmarks it is best to use heatspreader on VRM. 5.For Windows 7 use the Asmedia USB ports that are located above the HDMI . You need to install driver which you can find here: Asmedia USB Driver 6.The Maximus XI series use a new way of measuring vcore which is more accurate. elmor explained it here: https://www.overclock.net/forum/27686004-post2664.html?fbclid=IwAR28uwLxzdE6mG7Hya0w17pTYFoPwYTWNpuZw7-9_KJMnHNI3wgR-kN5qpc
  3. 17 points
    Hi and welcome to my short review of the 2x8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-4600 C18-22-22-42 RGB memory kit. 1. Optics and specifications The G.Skill F4-4600C18D-16GTZR come in the classic cardboard box G.Skill uses for its DDR4-premium series, the two 8GB modules are packed in a matching memory tray inside. Apart from a sticker with the part-number and specifications, you can also see that the RGB series won several awards, that this specific kit is optimized for Intel systems and that several software suites like RGB fusion as well as the Asus, Asrock and MSI RGB software tools support ways to customize and control the light effects. These are at the moment the highest rated retail kit available in Europe, cheapest shop price is around 510 Euros. G.Skill DDR4-4600C18D-16GTZR The sticks themselves use classic brushed aluminium heatsinks we all know from the DDR4 TridentZ series, one side is gray and the other one black, the top is white and transparent to let the RGB light effects shine. The PCB is black, a quick look with Taiphoon burner shows us it is 8-layer as well as the fact that the chips used are manufactured by Samsung, the so called B-die ICs, eight pieces used on one side of the PCB which is a standard configuration nowadays of 8GB sticks of higher bin. Visual inspection tells then that a so called short trace PCB, also known as A2-layout, is used, this means that the gap in the middle between chip 4 and 5 is wider than on older classic layout A1 is wider. This is more and more common today and meant to optimize low voltage for high frequency. On the benefits and disadvantages of this we will make a notice later in this test. 2. Tests and overclocking Method and test systems The kit was tested using Geekbench3, Intel XTU benchmark and Superpi 32m in windows, apart from this all settings that are OK for daily use had to pass DOS memtest which shows errors independent from cpu or other hardware or software influences, checks the whole amount of Ram and is first choice to check the memory itself. We used 64bit operating systems, no maxmem (limited use of memory) set. Hardware Asus Maximus Apex X Z370 BIOS 1704 Intel Corei5-8600K 2x8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-4600C18-22-22-42 1,5v (F4-4600C18D-16GTZR) Seasonic Focus 1050W For the low timing pro benchmark tests, we used windows xp 32 for SuperPi 32m with waza and Windows 8 or 10x64 with maxmem set to 4000MB, this is necessary because at higher voltage and low main timings. Hardware2 Asrock Z170M OC Formula BIOS 7.21B Intel Corei5-7600K 2x8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-4600C18-22-22-42 1,5v(F4-4600C18D-16GTZR) Seasonic Focus 1050W Results for the Asus Apex X system First of all, we had to upgrade the BIOS to latest version to make the XMP work, then this was easy. Timings of 18-22-22-42 2T at DDR4-4600 were set, voltage was 1,5v BIOS. We made several check, resulting in the lowest voltage for these settings to be at 1.40v. We then went up with the frequency, but had to accept that 4600c18 was already very close to the limit of our IMC on air, so we had to loosen the timings to run a stable 4700 19-26-26-45 2T at 1,4v, we then were able to boot and go to win at same settings but could not reach stability, with IMC voltages already at 1,4v+ and same for DMI voltage, we accepted the imc limits and went on to fid sweetspot settings for 24/7. With a memory kit rated like the G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-4600, you do not want to gift away performance. Having this in mind, we used one of the predefined memory profiles of our board (Raja 4133 1,4v profile) because there is no need to reinvent the wheel when experts did the job, with tightened secondary and tertiary timings for optimal performance and started to vary this and work our way up. After the profile worked easily, we tightened timings again, went up from 4133 16-16 to 4200 to 4300 17-17-17-42-360 and ended up at DDR4-4300 16-16-16-38 360 rockstable at 1,5v, not minimized. All these results are only values to show the potential, your mileage may vary and please take in that the Apex X for me was unable to run 1T at 4000 and above stable with any memory kit at low voltage daily settings with BIOS 1704. On the second systems, I made crosschecks and there it worked flawless with KBL up to 4133, highest divider. Results for Z170M OC Formula system Now, let´s go to the benchmark tests for competitive use. We had to do all of these on our Test-system #2, for a simple reason. Due to the layout, a well known problem showed up on the Apex X, about which we already have confirmed information that it also hits Apex IX – the memory kit, no matter how good it is, with the A2 PCB layout will not post above DDR4-3866C12, lots of kits already fail 3800, and for our kit 3866c12 was end of the road as well. Of course I was not satisfied with this, for me it was clear that the first tests showed that this kit has a lot of benching potential, so I moved on to the Z170 system. After a quick Post test for DDR4-4000 12-11-11-28 1T, which easily worked, I simply moved on to DDR4-4133 12-11-11-28-220 1T and started to move up with Geekbench 3 and XTU. Finally I opted out, due to imc limit, near DDR4-4220 12-11-11-28 tight settings around 2,05v, not minimized or maxed out, set in BIOS. I also checked the kit for the capability to run the famous copy waza tweak, which creates enormous pressure on the ram, at using old windows xp, and 4133 12-11-11-28 220 tight worked easily, with 2v set, not minimized and lots of headroom left. Conclusion and final thoughts After I finished my test suite, the performance of the G.Skill F4-4600GTZR completely convinced me. These are not only the highest rated retail kit available at the moment in Europe, but also extremely well selected and made an excellent job at various settings I tested for daily overclocking and performance optimization. A small annoyance was the fact, that after the necessary BIOS update on the Asus Apex X, I had problems with RTLs and IOLs being quite loose, but this was tested to be on all kits I used for comparison to confirm this. Might be a price to pay for extremely high frequency now, and we all learned that frequency on new systems is one of the most important performance factors. I saw gains at all benchmarks, especially at Geekbench 3 memory performance when optimizing at 4133-4300 C16 to C18 at below 1.35-1,5v, and stability was excellent. This was extremely important for me because 4600 needed very high memory controller and dmi voltage to work. Second annoyance was the compability problem with the memory layout and the Apex, I will do no fingerpointing here, but the fact that the A2-Layout is used for years now by nearly all leading manufacturers of oc memory and that pro overclocking at 4000c12 works on Z170 boards for example raises some questions for me, especially when influential members of the industry emphasize A2 is becoming more and more of a standard. I will not include this in the pros and cons, this is not a mainboard review. Now let´s see my pros and cons. Pro Excellent performance, IMC is the limit Good capability to run tighter timings at high frequency at daily useable voltage Scalable RGB lighting for modders and performance enthusiasts Awesome pro benching capabilities Limited life long manufacturer warranty Con High price 4600+ needs high board and imc voltages – this is a problem for all kits rated this high Thanks for reading My thanks go to G.Skill and G.Skill Deutschland@FB for the support and the sample. Published first on OCX forums
  4. 16 points
    A little bit of progress, this is already quite a few revisions in...
  5. 16 points
  6. 16 points
    Come on man, dont quit we need you. Make your decisions and stand by them. You are the mod not the user
  7. 15 points
    This. I know i have no voice here plus i lack the knowledge to help Frederick, but one thing i know: the way team points team rankings will be in rev.8 more people will abandon this ship. Please take this words that i'm writing in consideration before moving to rev.8. @richba5tard Frederick i can imagine how busy your life is, i have "only" two small kids here to spend time and money + job + wife attention + second graduation + family, not easy i know, but even with all this i'm able to find some time to do my only hobby: overclock, from 386sx to z270, i love this, and i really want to keep doing it here with Hwbot.
  8. 14 points
    Now that XTU will have its global points removed soon, I am officially publishing my findings on this benchmark. I tried to give full insight on how to disect and uncover the security issues of XTU but also some tweaks and the possiblity to run the inner benchmark executable on its own for quick performance testing and points calculation. https://www.overclockers.at/articles/intels-xtu-analyzed This is not some kind of personal vendetta against Intel; far from it. The article's purpose is purely educational to raise awareness for benchmark security and timer reliability. This is not only about cheating, it's about the credibility of benchmarks and result databases like the bot as well. Security vulnerabilities are not taken seriously enough by benchmark developers and HWBOT in my opinion. Yes, I am going the hard way with XTU in my article of course and that's not for everyone. But there are already tools available for download that will get you ahead without any effort. So I'd like to start a discussion here on how we can improve the situation permanently. It goes without saying that any serious initiative would require a cooperation from all sides involved.
  9. 14 points
    A recent discussion in the Team Cup 2018 thread unearthed a rather peculiar performance boost in GPUPI with Llano CPUs. The boost happens with all BIOS versions below AGESA 1.1.0.3 and shows nearly twice the performance in GPUPI while other benchmarks are not significantly affected. Thanks to @mickulty I was able to look into this issue to help the moderation of this Team Cup stage. My first step was reproduce the performance boost. I tried Windows 7 SP0 and SP1 and both showed the boost on a GIGABYTE GA-A75-UDH4 with BIOS version F4. Flashing to F5 or F8a removed the performance advantage again. This can be reproducable every time without a single exception or variation. The next point on my todo list was to check if a GPUPI "does the work". I validated that by using GPUPI's intermediate result dumping feature, that creates a dataset which is normally used to drive a virtual devices to test the implementation without actually calculating anything. Side note: These virtual devices are needed to test GPUPI's thread scheduler and its scaling. The intermediate results were 100% valid and showed that the benchmark is calculating 100M correctly without any shortcuts. Next up was OpenCL. Maybe the IGP of the APU helps with the work? Although theoretically impossible because Llano's integrated GPU does not support double precision calculations, this was a good opportunity to try the new native path of GPUPI 4 that's currently in its Alpha version. It is based on OpenMP, a threading model only compatible to CPUs. The resulting score is even better without using OpenCL: BIOS F4: BIOS F5: With the native path the calculation is completely transparent in my disassembler, so it is easy to statically analyze the involved instructions. I was able to narrow it down to the 64 bit integer Modular exponentiation. To make it even easier to work on test cases and optimizations I have a small toolset ready to create micro benchmarks with small parts of the code. I used these to show the following test cases: BIOS F4: BIOS F5 and F8a: What you see here are two micro benchmarks for the modular exponentiation as it is used in GPUPI. The left window (test-modpow-pibatches-dynamicdiv.exe) does multiple modpows with different base, modulo and exponent and shows more than twice the performance per batch for the F4 BIOS (~3 seconds VS 8.x seconds). The right window (test-modpow-pibatches-staticmoddiv.exe) calculates only the third modpow from the left window over and over. Although that should be the same calculation this time there is no difference between F4 and F5/F8a - both are ~1.4 seconds. That's where it starts to get interesting for us! Why is it so much faster to calculate only one batch over and over (8.8 VS 1.4 seconds) and where is the performance boost now? The devil is in the disassembly: What you see here are the inner loops of the modular exponentiations. On the left is the slow multi version and on the right the faster 3rd modpow. You need to know now that the modulo is calculated using the remainder of a division. When you search for a div instruction in the faster code on the right you won't find any. That's because we declared the batch with a static variable (more or less) the compiler was able to optimize the always horribly slow 64 bit div and filled in two multiplication, a bit shift right and a subtraction instead, which is way faster. So now we know that these instructions are not the problem, the perform equally on both BIOS versions. And that leaves us with the solution: The performance of the 64 bit integer div instruction. Finally I was able to write the micro benchmarks that exactly show the problem in numbers: BIOS F4: BIOS F5/F8a: From left to right: 64 bit integer multiplication: F4 ........... 0.84s F5/F8a ... 0.84s 64 bit integer modulo F4 ........... 13.7s F5/F8a ... 33.86s 64 bit integer division F4 .......... 13.69s F5/F8a ... 33.86s TL;DR: The performance difference is reproducable at any given time GPUPI does the work The 64 bit integer division instructions to calculate the modulos inside the Modular exponentiation of the GPUPI core are responsible for the performance difference Starting with AGESA 1.1.0.3 on FM1 presumably all APUs calculate 64 bit integer divisions about 2,5 times slower than it could be. 😑
  10. 13 points
    Hardware design is pretty much done, firmware and software have basic functionality. The earliest I could have something close to final would be end of January.
  11. 13 points
    Hey, I don't really have preference and expertise on how to divide leagues, just wanted to add some more point about the 'Elite / sponsored' status. I do get some samples sometime, so I moved my account to elite because I consider myself slightly more fortunate than others who tried hard with their fully-hard-earned hardwares. (Honestly speaking I personally don't think I deserve the elite status if we were talking about knowledge and skills alone, I'm no top-10-world-ranked bencher material, just an average motherboard and RAM reviewer who got lucky in competitions a lot, and like to know more about things + share if it was useful) How much samples? I got around 1 motherboard per gen, usually for testing before a certain platform's launch date. Most of these motherboard also not always a 'retail pack', because those were prepped for extreme benching, sometime even these were an ES board with a couple workaround here and there so can't really sell it. RAM also around 1 kit per gen/platform (or if there wasn't anything new, then around 2 kits per year). GPU not so much - one or two per 3-4 year maybe, I don't bench 3D much anyway as my main job is CPU/MB/RAM coverage. If the motherboard don't come with CPU then I need to buy retail CPU for it, (if provided it's most likely ES, random quality, sometimes good, sometimes average), and GPU if I need to buy to bench 3D. Most of the time I still buy CPU/MB/RAM on my own though, as most big competitions need to buy retail hardwares for it, and bin CPU if needed (for gskill ocwc this year I binned 8x 8600K) As far as expenses go, these 'free' samples did help (not exactly 'free; though as I need to work providing feedback and workaround, sometimes providing testing documentation if necessary to the MB vendors), but not as much to make profit with it edit: Forgot to vote, I'm OK with 3: 1) Elite/Pro/Sponsored 2) All Others not limited by cooling (as we cannot be completely certain/validate cooling method) 3) Rookie (with time constraint - not sure how long though, should be 6 month or 1 year maybe?)
  12. 13 points
    Sorry you have reached your allowed amount of comments for this month. Please cool down until dec 1st 2018, or become a pro member(tm) for just 0.99$ and post now!
  13. 13 points
  14. 12 points
    To put a lot of unnecessary pressure on myself: I am going to release the first version of my generic wrapper on the 11th of April. Regarding donations/financing, let's talk about that when the first version is out and stable.
  15. 12 points
    Country Cup will happen... but no Aussie participation this year, IPs and accounts will be blocked... so no need for internal war New rule to be added , only members who participated in Team Cup can submit to Country Cup....
  16. 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.
  17. 11 points
    K guys time to get crancking again after a month off To open the field to everyone I want to try out a Low Level Clock challenge in a few divisions. Meaning some divisions will be MHz limited and a few even also temp limited. I already discussed our monitoring options with some very old german moderator. For monitoring use either: HWinfo V6.00, CPUID HardwareMonitor Pro or Open Hardware Monitor Open Hardware monitor can be downloaded here: LINK CPUID Hardware Monitor Pro: LINK HWINFO: LINK Ensure that the maximum CPU frequency is being monitored and if needed the idle and load temps (during the run)!!!! . Div VII : Intel legacy: LGA1150 or older socket with a max CPU speed of 4703MHz + Pos. Temp limit GPUPI 100 v3.3 3DMARK11 PHYSX (ver link required) X265 1080P PI32M DIV VI: AMD legacy: AM3+, FM1 or older socket with a max CPU speed of 4503MHz + Pos. Temp limit GPUPI 100 v3.3 3DMARK11 PHYSX (ver link required) X265 1080P PI32M DIV V: Dual core only, max CPU speed of 5103MHz GPUPI 1B v3.3 Cinebench R15 X265 1080P PI32M DIV IV: Quad core only, max CPU speed of 5203MHz GPUPI 1B v3.3 Cinebench R15 X265 4K PI32M DIV III: Hexa core only, max CPU speed of 5303MHz Geekbench4 Multi core Cinebench R11.5 X265 4K 3DMark 11Physx (ver link required) DIV II: Octa core only, max CPU speed of 5403MHz Geekbench4 Multi core Cinebench R15 X265 4K 3DMark 11Physx (ver link required) DIV I: max CPU speed of 5503MHz (no LGA 3647) Geekbench4 Multi core Cinebench R11.5 (divided per core) X265 4K 3DMark TimeSpy Physx (ver link required) This will only work of everybody abides to the speed (and temp limitation) therefore a general warning is already included in this proposal: get caught cheating and it will be instant ban. I don't care bout your current status or Instagram level. Either you play by the rules or you can find something else to do in the upcoming months. Current round will focus on 2D only, The next round same CPU specs but with GPU limitation and 3D only. Round 3 will be a mix of 2 and 3D Example of a valid screenshot: no clipping so full res desktop screenie Taskbar fully visible and time CPU-Z for CPU, memory and mainboard tab CPU Maximum frequency and temp ( if required) during the run
  18. 11 points
  19. 11 points
    Div VII : Intel legacy: LGA1150 or older socket with a 4703MHz + Pos. CPU Temp limitation GPUPI 100 v3.2 3DMARK11 PHYSX (ver link required) X265 1080P PI32M DIV VI: AMD legacy: AM3+ or older socket with a 4503MHz + Pos. CPU Temp limitation GPUPI 100 v3.2 3DMARK11 PHYSX (ver link required) X265 1080P PI32M DIV V: Dual core only 5003MHz speed limit GPUPI 1B v3.2 Cinebench R15 X265 1080P PI32M DIV IV: Quad core only 5203MHz speed limit GPUPI 1B v3.2 Cinebench R15 X265 4K PI32M DIV III: Hexa core only 5303MHz speed limit Geekbench4 Multi core Cinebench R11.5 X265 4K 3DMark 11Physx (ver link required) DIV II: Octa core only 5403MHz speed limit Geekbench4 Multi core Cinebench R11.5 X265 4K 3DMark 11Physx (ver link required) DIV I: 5503MHz speed limit Geekbench4 Multi core Cinebench R11.5 (divided per core) X265 4K 3DMark 11Physx (ver link required) Can everybody live with the above? The temp limit for Div 6 & 7 is only positive temp on the CPU at idle and load. What cooling you use is you choice, no limits on memory cooling. For all subs HWinfo must be used during the run and ofc displayed in the verification screenshot
  20. 11 points
    After discussing the member points algorithm (both seasonal and carreer) with George for a bit I'd like to make a suggestion: Instead of top X total points which count towards your member points: top X global points top X hardware points (preferably same X to keep things easy to explain, but I can be convinced if need be) no benchmark/worldrecord points for crazy quad sli/crossfire setups, but an award/achievement instead This would close the gap between $$$ and skill further.
  21. 11 points
    lo all, Team Cup is still in full motion however already time to focus on the last compo of the year: the Country Cup. Early announcement so you still have time to get the gear aligned.. This year countries will battle over 10 stages, 5 2D and 5 3D stages. CountryCup will start from the 4th of November and run till 31st of December. Current selected benchmarks (stuff can still change ofc) for the stages are: Stage1: X265 4K - 8 scores required over different sockets Stage 2: CB R15/core - 8 scores required over different sockets Stage 3: Max FSB/Bclock - 6 scores required over different sockets Stage 4: AMD Superpi32M - 6 scores required over different sockets Stage 5: GPUPI 1B with Single core CPU - 3 scores required over different sockets Stage 6: Single card Dual GPU only 3DMark05 - 5 scores required over 5 different videocards (no Radeon Pro Duo or titan Z) Stage 7: AMD CPU/GPU 3DMark01 - 5 scores required over different videocards (no Vega FE edition) Stage 8: GPUPI 32B single AMD GPUs only - 5 scores required over different videocards (no Vega FE edition) Stage 9: Night Raid IGPU - 5 scores required over different IGPUs (no VEGA M) Stage 10: TimeSpy Extreme single nVidia GPU - 5 scores required over different videocard generations (No Titan V) Country Cup is for retail hardware only! the validation and screenshots will be in line with the ongoing TeamCup ( so don't forget mobo tab and GPU-Z Sensor tab!) For stage 9 and 10 a Futuremark verification link is required and must be VALID at UL website There will two backgrounds this year, change of background will be announced 5 days ahead so you can still post all of your done scores. New competition background available. Newscores need to submitted with it!!
  22. 11 points
    modern OC is a moderators nitemare, even the latest timespy and co can still be tricked and submitted valid sigh... Why can't peeps just press run benchmark
  23. 11 points
    Want to simplify code and decrease server load, and at the same time decrease load on your poor already short staff? 2 Leagues Pro/Sponsored Everybody else Stop with the silly leagues by cooling method in which temperature can't be proven anyway. Want to move up the ranks? Move up your game. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
  24. 11 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.
  25. 10 points
    I browse old rankings a lot so I thought I'd use this time to also pick out some notable retired OCers - there's no bombproof way of telling whether someone is retired so if any of you are still around just reply here and accept my apologies! @knopflerbruce - one of the few to run AM2 on LN2, almost 3,000 hardware golds - most ever. No subs since 2017 @Christian Ney - memory OC legend and of course one of only 6 people to get the Aquamark achievement @Mad222 - King of AM3 with the only sub 10 mins SP32M. No subs since 2013 but possibly doing some work under the @GalaxOCLab group account? @fredyama - similar to Mad, still occasionally active on group/manufacturer accounts . SP32M records in the 3770K, 7700K and 9900K eras. @AndreYang - I can't believe he hasn't subbed on his personal account since the Haswell era! His 980X Pifast WR may be the result with the most comments (127) @alibabar - First in the hardware masters rankings by over 10,000 pts even though there are no subs since early 2018. @dhenzjhen - owner of absolutely nuts scores like 7x Titan X Pascal GPUpi and quad-Xeon setups. No subs since 2017. @Massman - knows for being one of the few to be crazy enough to bench iGPUs and APUs on LN2 outside of comps @8 Pack - owner of multiple 3D global podium spots even though he has been inactive since 2017. @Vivi - still has the 780ti and 290x '03 records after all these years. @S_A_V - owner of the PCMark '04 record on LN2, on Phenom! Still ranked 5th in Russia after years of inactivity @Ananerbe - strong AMD bencher in the AM2/AM3 era with many 1M/32M podiums and 8.3+ GHz on Vishera @michel90 - still ranked Top 30 Extreme and #1 in Switzerland after almost 2 years of inactivity. Master of Geforce 200 series legacy 3D and 775 SuperPi Suggested by other members (thanks @zeropluszero, @Fasttrack, @suzuki, @Bullant and @Achill3uS): @dinos22 - for some reason the first thing to come to mind was that sick G3258 32M and also the 4-way '03 that stayed GFP for 5+ years. Aussie OC will miss you! @sofos1990 - so many insane 3D scores but the sub that sticks in my mind was the full-on crazy scientist DDR3 alltime frequency record with oscilloscopes in the rigpic. @hipro5 - 3D heroics are a little too far in the past for me to judge how amazing they were but that 680+ FSB E8600 all-time LGA775 SP1M record is ridiculous @SF3D - Only one to push the REX to over 700 MHz BCLK valid, but that's a silly achievement to point out here Extremely influential bencher with his own line of pots @poparamiro - very prolific classic 3D bencher on chiller, his scores are so ubiquitous in the rankings that I didn't even realise he was retired! @chew* - owner of the all-time Thuban 32M SP32M record and one of only 2 (besides Mad22, mentioned above) to achieve sub 12 mins @K404 - multi-GPU LN2 God who ran everything and anything around the GTX8000 / 9000 era @nachtfalke - the LN2/Cascade/SS version of poparamiro @robbo2 - one of only 5 benchers to do 8 GHz on both AM3+ and FM2 Who am I missing? It's kind of weird how so many of them stopped in 2017.
  26. 10 points
    I'm not really officially retired, just lost access to LN2, and need to get a few things sorted so I can get back to grinding some stuff again. I used to be a lazy student, now I work overtime almost every day, and keep getting involved in different projects that eat up most of my spare time.
  27. 10 points
    Or can we get an IP ban going?
  28. 10 points
    Very true, that's why I haven't disclosed anything meaningful to cheat with. I merely showed that it's possible to point out that there are problems that can not be neglected. So no tools and no instructions from my side, if that's what you meant. Ok, let's make XTU the exception. And I only disclosed after it has lost its global points and it's far more than a cheat manual (I hope). In Allen's case we are talking about fooling CB R15, right? It went exactly the way it should have been. Cheat discovered and rules changed for the better. If some results with this cheat slip through, it's because of the submission system, not because of Allen. Speaking of CB R15, this week I have successfully wrapped R11.5 and R15 with BenchMate; a project that I will make public later this year. If you are interested, follow me on FB and Twitter. Every now and then I am posting status updates about the project. That would be solution to a lot of the existing problems in the overclocking community.
  29. 10 points
    Competition points can't be eliminated ( restricted to Team efforts ). I have participated in lots of competitions in the past, where I was absolutely certain that there was no chance to win the prizes. I had to buy HW in order to participate ( for the points ), and then lose money by reselling this HW. Only LN2 benchers can win prizes. All the rest participate for points. Remove points = no participation. Furthermore, competitions are a vital part of HWBOT since spirit is kept high and there is a lot of interest.
  30. 10 points
    As hwbot is always lacking in funds and staff, I think it would be a great idea if hwbot introduced micro transactions in an EA style where we can buy a few different items with real money. This would help support the platform financially and I think as gamers love them so much overclockers would too. My suggestions are 1) buying points in different leagues (hw masters points are cheaper than actually league points) 2) buying into the next league. Say I'm a novice who has never used Ln2 but I want the cool elite status, I could just pay to more up, say a set amount per league moved up, with elite being highest price and enthusiast being the cheapest. 3) buying a a submission to be kept in the database even if it slightly broke the rules, but isn't and obvious cheap. Think of it like a fine for accidentally cover the cinebench render window or using windows 10 on sandybridge. 4) early access to a competition so you can put your scores in before anyone else to make sure the right wallpaper is up etc. Gamers love beta and alpha testing so overclockers will do as well. 5) buying extra hours at the end of a competition so you can ensure yours is the last sandbag and nobody can sneakily beat you right at the last second. 6) buying a point boost in a competition to add 100 points to your score so you can just beat out that pesky guy who spent the extra time tweaking his ram!!! Such an annoyance these kids who spend their whole week tweaking ram cos they don't have anything better to do I think with the formula laid out above hwbot will be rolling in it in no time. Hwbot can start up the world tour 2.0 with mega prizes like rolls Royce, rolex watches, holidays, 3175x Xeons. Also they could get faster servers, have a full time dev team working on making the database work more effectively and full time paid mods driving lambos to moderate competition submissions. Would also like to hear any other suggestions people have that we could put micro transactions on! #makehwbotgreatagain
  31. 10 points
    why do you think that Nik? Some people already volunteered so I hope to have 2 moderators operational in the next month or so. I hope Frederik can resolve/fix some annoying bugs like the links that don't work, etc Biggest issue is I have not enough knowledge of the ultra old stuff or the brand new 3D stuff on LN2 so we need a few experts that can keep an eye on eg. the LOD used subs in Timespy or such benchmarks... It is like with any club or such, volunteers keep the boat afloat, if you loose those than it will be over and done...
  32. 9 points
    When there's a group benching event I often contribute my CPUs, board or mems and other people can upload the scores on their account, if they like. Nearly all of top hardware scores on E2160, E4300, E5200, E6300, E6400, E6600, E6750, E7200, E8400, E8500, E8600 and Q6600 were done with CPUs that I still own. EDIT: I am also binning 939, 1156, 1366, AM3 and AM3+ (CPUs, board, mems) in parallel because the supply of 775 on eBay has dried out lately. You might see the results ... ehr ... some day
  33. 9 points
    I got an alert that hwbot went down but as I was on a surprise weekend for my wifes birthday I could not do anything but reboot the server remotely. Unfortunately that did not solve the issue. Sorry about the downtime! Rev8 on UAT seems to work well and I no longer hear major complaints. It will go live "soon".
  34. 9 points
    Hardware points should be awarded for every single bench you can sub in. CPU and GPU. Otherwise there is no incentive to run them, so they might as well be removed.
  35. 9 points
    bios 0057 works easy with A2 pcb, previous bios need to set CMD RATE ==> N:1 and it will have no issues 4133+. Performance is pretty much the same as 1T in geekbench at least, found very small difference if any. For Maximus IX Apex and Maximus X Apex running A2 PCB ==> TCWL needs to be set to 14 and also twrrd_sg ==> 25 twrrd_dg==> 21, this makes 4133 easy train and run if kit is capable. 2.0V is limit for dimm voltage without LN2 mode, use ln2 mode and manually set voltages like regular mode, you should have no problem. Example of safe voltages for air/water set manually PLL Core Voltage to 1.00V, Pll Termination 1.20, Cpu standby 1.10, Pll Bandwith lvl 0 , DMI 1.00V, little bit raised pll termination of 1.20 will max out the cache as well.
  36. 9 points
    All of them , except XTU , because it's Intel only and it's buggy. A couple of remarks to consider and listen to other members opinion. *Cinebench R11.5 is the only modern cinebench that allows 32bit systems to compete , should we give them a chance for globals ??? *Should we define a cpu core cut off ,(lets say up to 32cores) to get rid of those server systems from rankings ???
  37. 9 points
    No, because he is no longer actively benching for his team. That doesn't take away from a legendary score at all. It's just his team will not be able to profit from it forever due to not benching any more. Can't help your team if you don't bench.
  38. 9 points
    I voted for 2 leagues , but i would prefer a 3 league solution , being as : 1 - Rookies/Novice (aircooled - watercooled setups only) 6 months time frame 2 - Amateurs/Hobbyists (everything goes) 3 - Elite/Pros/Sponsored
  39. 9 points
    I guess If we simplify the leagues we need points for all subs and no cut-offs...
  40. 9 points
    Yeah writing a plugin is the proper way but it's just too time consuming getting to know the invision pb framework, setting up a dev mode invisionpb to develop and test the plugin, etc etc. I just hacked the theme to include the info into an iframe. It's dirty but it works.
  41. 9 points
    Some people have issues with USB port on this mobo after lots times benching under Ln2. Bcz the Polyfuse will break if temp lower than -40 degree. here are 3 pictures of Polyfuse locations on this mobo . You can remove the polyfuse and short both pad with tin . Then usb should work again.
  42. 9 points
    For me it was always important what the community thinks. Hwbot lost a lot of users. For instance my whole team is not active anymore. The feedback I got was mostly around everything is getting too complicated. Ranking, rules, hardware categories. Everything gained too much levels of complexity and in the end its no fun anymore. Now, while you can't make everyone happy, you also gain nothing if you spend time on an website which has no users anymore. And since its a dance between correctness and happy users you have to listen what the people say. The last feedback I got was because of splitting 9800 GT category which I heard made many people upset but none of those said something as they were already too frustrated of the whole situation. Of course I was thinking about if that was worth the trouble, if it was worth the thing to upset people. Back then I believed it was necessary to keep a fair competition alive and was somehow logical as the rest of hardware db had the same scheme to separate categories also by Shader count. Since you are one of those which were affected Im actually quite surprised by your statement. While its very important to know for me if the community still in favor of my work, there are also some other points which made me decide to leave. Most important its my family. I just cant spend so much time anymore for hwbot. And the other thing is the question how does the development of hwbot evolve. In the moment I see just to many bugs and no indication that something will change. I wait for a response from Frederik and how he visualizes the future of the bot. And if there is a reasonable plan, count me in again. Even just for some light tasks. About Order: Those are very good suggestions. And now thats why I think this will not happen: Over the last years I made the experience that even if you say there is a broken link, there is bug on the website, there are duplicate categories in the db, there is no one who fix your reported stuff. Or it takes months up to years (Im not exaggerating). On top of that I think this needs some kind of coordination. Someone who assigns tasks like PJ did before he left. But that would usually need someone who works full time for the bot. And I guess the bot raises just enough funds to keep itself running. Its not like the bot could pay someones salary. That leaves two options. Either Frederik agrees to work at least one day in the week for the bot just to do the maintenance work, fixing small bugs, makes additions to the db which I cant do, talks to the team makes suggestions to important topics and and and... Or as this will not happen, theres only the possibility to distribute the work to more people. Which would mean someone is moderating competitions, one or two deal with the reported stuff, one for the hardware db and one who has some control over the website and post news can edit the rules etc. About Democracy: I know the bot made many people unhappy because of decisions which discussed somewhere in the forum and where never announced in the news. I guess thats why some people lost the confidence in this website. And I absolutely agree on this. But I wonder how should democracy work for this website? I remember we had polls. I remember the majority was always about to give more points, more benchmarks, equal points for same positions,... But there were very good arguments against. Yet always the greedy faction won. I think its good to hear different opinions. And the decision should be made on those opinions, but in the end stuff decides. Because they need to run this service. Thats absolutely true. The question is always to what degree we accept submissions which are flawed. I can accept when the CPU-Z memory tab is missing for a score which is somewhere in the middle of a ranking. But when I think of those Win10 results, I really begin to ponder what the best approach would be. Either let every submission in the ranking which doesnt look suspicious. But then, arent we de facto allow Win10? Doesn't we punish user who read the rules, especially because Win10 performs better than Win7 in some benchmarks? Or be strict and remove anything, causing many frustrated users. And when we dont remove Win10 results we make the people angry who obeyed the rules. If we would decide to let those Win10 results in the rankings because 90% of them are probably correct, how do we distinguish a tweaked run from a RTC bugged run? In my opinion, this is the door to meaningless rankings. Given that Win10 becomes more and more the standard OS in the world I guess that many users must be frustrated. It is a disaster. But everyday more and more of those results come in. And I dont think that the users actually even think of that there could be something wrong with their result. How many do really look in the rules. And even if they do, they see there is someone else having a result with Win10 for two years in the ranking, so it must look like the situation has changed and things are allowed now. In my opinion users need to get warned, they need to get aware of the situation. But that doesnt happen. I talked about this problem in our internal forums to no avail. It is just really frustrating. This was a common thing I heard from some people. First announce changes and then, let people discuss. I must admit, I really underestimated that the removal of those results would cause such a misunderstanding. I really thought that things would be clear. Instead I think many people are confused. But probably discussion is needed to help people understand the issue. So I think it should be a common thing to announce every change in the news section of the website. Its just too bad that we lost our news writer and no one from the team has access to the news section of the website. The only exception is Frederik but since he variously visits the forums, the time when such an article could be published could range from one day to several months. And thats just way too unreliable. However its not only hard to publish those announcements its also hard to actually write such an article. Sometimes it is just simply hard to explain the decision itself. But given that the result in this particular case wouldnt be any different, I went ahead wrote a small article trying explaining the problem and removed the scores. So maybe this was a tiny bit too hasty. But my feeling from the discussion was that many people didnt really tried to understand the problem. Instead they tried to convince me that their result wasnt affected by the bug or tried to express how evil the bot has become. Which doesnt matter at all in this case. So in my opinion those discussions will always end up the same. Its just about "please dont remove my points". And probably all good suggestions end up with much more work for the mods. And thats the reason I say we can do this, we can announce decisions and give time to talk but people should understand that for the most cases the decision was already made for good reasons. Id like to thank you all for your kind words.
  43. 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.
  44. 8 points
    Everything should be removed, known good or bad. The only mention should be in a cheater's list, considering a life time ban.
  45. 8 points
    Hi all I wasn't lucky with Abit for sA benchmarking - they never survived more than a few days (had several ones, ones I remember were fully modded from moose83 and stock one from Ananerbe). I also had no luck with Epox boards. Many other boards either don't have mounting holes near socket or miss good/custom bioses. The board that was almost flawless for me is Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe - it has a bunch of modded bioses (thanks Scotty!) and I never had bios corruption issues with it. But it has a major flaw that is killing this board for most of the benchers - no 12V cpu power connector, so it uses 5V rail for cpu vrm. I was using external vrm to avoid this problem but this approach also have certain problems and is not always available for many of us. Anyway, with NB mod, this board is able to hit >250MHz fsb with tight timings which makes it strong alternative for NF7/AN7. Yesterday I made a simple mod to power cpu vrm from 12V. All you need is to remove/replace stock 6.3v capacitors and coil, solder 12V rail from PSU to the input of VRM: I have used 12V connector desoldered from the dead mobo and made a ground connection from connector as well: I have tested it to boot 200x11 yesterday and the mosfets are cool (and it should be quite easy to cover these with radiator). Further steps are NB/SB cooling, Vcore mod, Vnb mod, Vdimm mod which are well known. I will also resolder a 12V connector to a different location as the above shown version was just the fastest one for testing purposes. Although the board is 2-phase design, mosfets are powerful enough (I was benching stock board with 2700MHz 2V barton and the weak point was the 5V rail of my PSU) so current should not be an issue even with higher overclocks. Anyway, A7N8X-E should be WAY easier to find and 5V rail issues will no longer be a limit. Good luck with this nice board :)
  46. 8 points
    Newer members not understand the difference between a legit and an illegal cheat is as much of a fault on those experienced members for not making this clear before hand as it is on the new guys throwing the accusations. My advice for future threads would be to lead with a question instead of accusations if you wish to have dialogue on the issue. Otherwise you're just insulting members who have been here for some time.
  47. 8 points
    i guess those things run cinebench so fast you didn't had the chanche to screen them
  48. 8 points
    My FRIEND, you said it ALL. THANK YOU. THAT IS THE SPIRIT. AAA+++
  49. 8 points
    guys back to class plz... cleaning thread, damn Down Under benchers...
  50. 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.
  • Newsletter

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

    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...