Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/25/21 in Posts

  1. It's me again, beta 11 adds ability to set AGP/PCI frequency as well. It has most of the functionality I want. It even has a better granularity for the FSB frequency than clockgen. What's left is to add ability to save and load OC profiles, complete the CPU detection/info and add some options like "minimize to tray". NForce2Xtreme-v1.1-beta11.zip
    10 points
  2. The Corsair compo could have been so much more, it has a strong competitive field of our community members, but nearly no newcomers. You should have seen the reactions on the Discord channels when you posted the placeholder. The newcomers, that is the entire reasoning behind the this whole thread correct? The ommitance of the CPUZ tabs when using BM, to make benchmarking easier and more accessible? My entire point of my previous rant post is is that the level of restrictions laid down by the rules and the required verification screenshot are not the sole cause of the participation level in compos or HWBOT in general. Think about how freakingly expensive Hardware is and even harder to get hold of these days. That's another reason to cherish the legacy benchers, they are a vast value and need to be taken care off. To be competitve you need to indulge yourself in different OSses, tweaks,... like explained before. OC has a hard learning curve and some just don't have the dedication or motivation to get it done... even though OC tools make it soooo much easier versus 10 years ago. Take XTU, so easy to do, but from the 4K subs we get a month, how many continue to come back and start to bench other benchmarks? Many newcomers also think that a one time big investment in the latest and greatest will make them shine, so they will get a sponsorship deal and that they can keep up their ranking by posting a score once in a while. I guess we all know better. It's an attitude that BM nor we can't change... If I was rude, my apologies, I'm not a keyboard guy, I speak from the heart.
    9 points
  3. Hi team, we have this incredible platform with hwbot that we mostly love and sometimes hate. Train of thought: Recently I uploaded a result with Benchmate commented by buildzoid who pointed out (and rightfully so as it is compliant with the rules) that one of my three cpu-z windows didn’t show the memory tab as I made this annoying mistake and opened up the same cpu-z tab twice. That I‘m sure happened to all of us once in the heat of the moment trying to conserve that precious score in a screenshot. https://hwbot.org/submission/4810041_ w Ah annoying! Well I re-ran it before it even got picked up by an admin the next day and put up the proper screenshot. No big deal right? However it got me thinking to the point that I wanted to write a thread to check if any of you feel a similar way. So in my case described above all the relevant info about memory were present in the screenshot of our one stop shop: Benchmate. Despite the fact that we have this great tool in 2021 that has been constantly evolving over the past years which streamlines the benching experience, makes it all simple and safe we still have to open half a dozen cpu-z windows that in most cases don’t offer any relevant additional info when used in conjunction with Benchmate. From a historical standpoint we’ve been using cpuz forever to monitor hardware info. However this is not history class, it’s overclocking so I don’t count an argument that is just like „we do it because we have always done it“. Let’s evaluate: Cpu-z has barely evolved at all. Same layout/gui as ever. Here is the deal: I’d be cool with it if there were like a combined window/tab with all important info in one, call it „benchmark view“ or whatever. But if it brings nothing new to the table we might just get rid of the necessity to include it in many screenshots/validations where Benchmate is used that in contrary manages to include all info in one tidy little window, simple, easy and compliant with judging requirements. Listen I love hwbot and XOC and it’s not a secret that it has issues attracting new users and interaction over a long period of time. It is kinda hard to see things from a new user‘s perspective after doing this for a long time but I remember at the beginning of my hwbot endeavors all the different benchmarks and their rules - it was all a bit overwhelming and intimidating eventhough I rly wanted to do it I guess at least I‘m still here right. So working in a global hardware/software company I get the impression that hwbot needs to get a whole lot more accessible to increase the adoption rate. As we can see from the recent Corsair comp: great prices are not enough to make ppl play by our rules. Holding back highscores can’t be the solution either. Ppl these days want it easy without annoying obstacles, that’s why zoom was king over Webex and MS teams at the start of covid, that’s why ppl use windows over Linux, that’s why ppl use Apple over PC… you’re mileage may vary but I hope you get the point. So for hwbot to stay relevant we need to attract more user’s, that might not be as hardcore. These days I’m certain the guys in charge of hwbot rely on their great connections within the industry to get us competitions with prices. We can make their lives a whole lot easier and our overclocking a whole lot more rewarding (comps with prices) a whole lot more often if hwbot managed to get more user to play the game of overclocking. Hence I encourage you to evaluate how we can make the experience here a great one. Knocking off a new user because he forgot or didn’t know what extra windows to open which I bet happens all the time is not motivating. Or imagine you have been sitting there for hours and finally got the score you've been chasing there on the screen but CPU-Z bugs out and won't open for you to take the correct screenshot, man that sucks! The goal should be to streamline the benching process and I feel like we have the right foundation today. If it means to get rid of irrelevant bulk of tools/rules and even benchmarks that are unpopular, to make hwbot slimmer and more accessible heck then let’s stop being stubborn think outside the box and take necessary steps.
    8 points
  4. From HWBot perspective I'm fine with either way, but I think we are at a point where things are already so complex that we're shooting ourselves in the foot on a daily basis. We have so many different plattforms and benchmarks that it's simply not possible to have one unique way of validation. I'm also not a friend of changing things retrospectively. For example we could start "BM only" from Alder Lake and also ban WinXP with Alder Lake but not change older generations. Yes, yes some will hate me when I talk about ban for the good old WinXP. However I'm with CENS, that things are very complex for new people and if they see that a 20 year old OS is required which might be older than themselves - could talk about how we handle this in future. But again - I'm very open for changes as long as the majority of the community shares the view (same goes for the WinXP example).
    7 points
  5. If 12900k has 16 cores, treat it as a 16-core cpu. Period. If Intel decides to make 8 of them stronger and 8 of them weaker, have HT on one and not on the other, thats then Intel's decision. From what you hear it even performs like a "true" 16-core 5950x. So what's the big deal. Also 12900k is monolithic. For example the 5950x isn't even monolithic and has chiplets. Can I disable chiplets and make it join the 8- or 4-core category? No I can't. So if you have a 12900k you can join two categories and essentially gain double the points in some way, that's just weird and complicated. Allowing disabling part of the chip so it can joins a different category so it looks stronger is contradicting previously made statement regarding disabling cores for frequency validation. ppl can disable all they want it is still an 16-core chip, and therefore it should get treated that way eventhough some cores are stronger than others, some are more efficient than others. It's the overall performance that counts. Regardless of the amount of threads right? When Intel comes out with with quad HT, what do we do then? It's still X amount of cores but 4-times the amount of threads. The way I look at it is the individual cores just got more powerful/efficient. But plz don't make it more complicated with dividing CPUs into multiple categories. Please correct me if I'm wrong but we do we differ between a 6-core with HT and one without?
    7 points
  6. I actually wasn't trolling and my point couldn't be more relevant to this discussion. AMD is doing this already but the cores just match. Makes it even more relevant when you clock the cores separately like we will be with alder lake. None of the top 5950x scores using matching clocks, I know because I have them. Close the thread if the decision is already made. It seems to be giving the false sense of value to other opinions than the already chosen decision. The people that run the show should decide anyways as there is always a spilt in what should be done. ❤️
    7 points
  7. Treat it as it is, 16C is still 16C doesnt matter slower core, faster core, or different clocked between core, core count is still same. If 12900K/KF lose to 5950X/10960X, leave it as it is, because actual multithreading performance is slower, they still have single core performance advantages anyway. No need more complicated rules, now is already complicated enough.
    6 points
  8. Smal derail on the thread, HWBOT stalling? I think the rules set has moved along quite well and are as easy as it gets. If you can't get the hang of it, this is not for you. The Site is more responsive than it was ever before , many bugs have already been fixed. Yeah still tons of work to do, but 2021 is not over yet. Tim is discovering more and more abundant code and deadlocks and is understanding the reasoning behind some "weird" stuff. ... The "with BenchMate" benchmarks will be merged once Mat is ready with an updated version, so users can choose to use the security and easier autofill of BenchMate or submit the traditional way. That would be a nice step forward. If opening 2 CPUZ tabs is a frustrating or non-usefull experience than I guess one needs to look for another hobby. Especially after tinkering for hours/days/weeks to get the software platform and efficiency right. Previous owners had opted to go for non screenshot subs with TImeSpy and rely on a verification link only, I guess that worked out well too right. Who broke TimeSpy? We did, not UL. One made a comparision with vacination. Example: If you enter a venue where they require a particular app on your smartphone, but you show your vaccination card or PCR test result, you might still get refused the entry. Are you vaccinated? yes, but can they refuse your entry? yes. Relying on BenchMate alone will put an ever bigger strain on Mat and his Team if someting doesn't work, not compatible hardware/certification delays or Windows 11 that allows users to mess even more with software emulation and more crap we really don't need in our hobby. BenchMate requires constant updating and hundreds of manhours and if needed rapid fixes/updates. It is something to think about all. I'm a Patron, who else is supporting Mat's great work? Honestly I'm tired of these users that exploit software to get an advantage, they are the reason once more we have this re-ocuring discussion over and over again. Even though they are well aware what they are doing and bending/breaking rules, they always will defend their acts as it's a new found tweak. We need to impose new rules, discuss and in the end people will bring up the same stuff a year or such later.. My 2 cents on OC: It is the complexity of competititve benching, requiring diferent OSses (mainly the pain to get more efficient aka older OSses to work on modern platforms), the search for the correct drivers or enhanced 3rd party software to make a benchmark run faster or to unlock additional features, these are the reasons that really limits newcomers to join our ranks. It is not the opening of 2 CPUZ tabs that puts them off. Running benchmarks and pushing hardware is our passion but it is not entertaining enough to keep a crowd focussed for hours like with gaming. Running a game benchmark might make it more interesting, but we need to rely on raw clocks instead of lowering graphical image quality or other nifty software hacks to boost the ouput score. Game benchmarks could be comparable what the gamers run daily, they can compare their setups to ours. That is for me the only way to boost attractivity, not watching SuperPi loop and seeing it crash while being a tenth of second faster. That is for non OCers pretty boring to monitor. OC is niche and will remain a niche experience, previous owners tried many formats to make it more attractive, we all know how that ended. You understand that the ruling set and such has been evolving over the years thanks to the let us call it again the "creativity of our own community". Loopholing and the egocentrical mindset of some renown big shots is what brought us to this point and are also one of the reasons some vendors pulled back from supporting OC. I find it entertaining that the OP mentioned the Corsair compo, it is running great with nice participation. My Question: why the newcomers don't participate? Answer: if you run your daily setup and get 40K and someone immediately at the start of the compo does a place holder of 83K I guess the game is over... People want to enter to win, there was no chance and not even the prizes would get them over here. They even might label it as cheating or vendor supported, we can't touch these guys so why even bother. It was not the rules nor the verification screenshot requirements that limit participation. Life has rules, so does HWBOT, do we all need to like or agree on them, nope... if you mess up or break them you will have to accept the consequences. Am I the ignorant braindead child still living in the past guy now, yep. Do I care about the previous, nope not anymore...
    6 points
  9. I was asked to make the result window smaller to fit the CPU-Z windows. We can make it as big as needed!
    6 points
  10. I managed to add BIOS options to a AMI BIOS. My ASRock NF2 BIOS mod now has more DRAM settings. I would like to share a few words about AMI BIOS modding and my main problems I had. 1.0 AMI BIOS AMI BIOS modules are divided into module IDs: The modules we want to mod is 1B (System module) and 21 (language module). 2.0 Language module The first bytes of the language module should be the same as in most AMI BIOSes. Offset 08h and 09h indicate the start of the first address to the lables. This is also the start where the counter begins. Addresses are written down in little endian (offset 06F6 --> F606). Special note to the (red) offset 14h and 15h. This bytes are crucial. Wrong values will cause a crash in AMIBCP. I have no clue what they mean. The last address follows with the first lable F606. No further addresses can be added here. To solve this problem I added 200h free space between the last address and the fist lable. Then I had to correct ALL (!) addresses by +0002 (little endian, +200h offsets). Then I was able to add a lot of new lables! I filled the whole 200h with addresses. Important! I also had to change offset 14h and 15h by +0002! Now, lets have a look at our new lables in AMIBCP: Looks fine now. Lable tokens are important fo find the BIOS strings and menu in the System module. 3.0 Edit System module. The 1b module consists of several parts. The part that I need is called here: SETSVR_CSEG (sometimes other names). You can easily find it with this sequence: There is a tool (ami_1b_utilz) to split the 1B module to its parts. Many thanks here to Antinomy! Now you have to search for the lable tokens. This can help to decrypt the BIOS menu and the BIOS items. Here is some help to find it easier. BIOS items (begins with 01 ….) should look like: (pics from Polygon) BIOS menu code should look something like this: My second problem was to find empy space for my code. There is usable space before the code starts and some space in between. AMI BCP finds this new added code, but the BIOS (after a flash) showed an empty screen with no items. My conclusion is that AMBCP and probably some boards will find this new added code, but my board is not able to use the code from the empty spaces (maybe not addressable area?). To solve this problem, I deleted unimportant and unused BIOS options and moved some code to create empty space for my new option. Well, this worked. My BIOS mod works finally! One sidenote: Moving menus in AMIBCP can cause problems. It seems like AMIBCP moves also the menu in the BIOS code. The BIOS mod now sets correct CMOS values. The next part should be to create a PCI option rom, that changes all BIOS settings in the System part. As far as I know, AMI BIOS is not able to add a ISA option rom. So, exchanging existing LAN boot rom to our modded option rom is the way to go. LAN and LAN Boot has to be enable in BIOS! edit: There are still some points to improve in this BIOS (hidden RAID menu, more settings...). If I find the motivation to do so, I will improve the BIOS mod. ami_1b_utilz.zip K7NF2_DB2_R2.zip K7NF2_DB3_R2.zip K7NF2_DBA_R2.zip
    6 points
  11. should we consider that AMD 5950x is 8+8 even though they are matching cores, and 8+8+8+8+8+8+8+8 etc for thread ripper? Where do we draw the line.
    6 points
  12. Now that mainstream CPUs from both sides get 16 cores, wouldn't it be the right time to ask ourselves if we actually need to split CPU globals per number of cores? Back when the split was introduced, there were maximum three relevant classes (1,2,4) with a HUGE difference in between. But these days you have at least fourteen (1/2/3/4/5/6/8/10/12/14/16/18/24/32) and it doesn't look like it's going to get any simpler with all the 'exciting' ways that manufacturers can customise their CPU layouts. It's starting to get very similar to situation with GPU rankings: CPUs have 2/3-digit core count, GPUs have 2/3-digit ROP count Given core count can be achieved by 1 or 2 cpus (or even core types), given ROP count can be achieved by 1 or 2 cards It's very rare that nVidia and AMD release graphic cards with the same ROP count (or even at the same price point) to avoid direct comparisons, Intel/AMD will likely eventually get there too ...and I don't see anyone discussing splitting GPU ranks per ROP count "to give guys with GTX3060 a chance and make it more affordable"
    6 points
  13. Special LS bin G.Skill memory flying on OC Formula 5200c15 1.96v all air cooled with fairly warm ambient temp. Timings are as set in profile and haven't had a chance to start tightening them up but initial results look great. Also freshy XP courtesy of @Splave
    5 points
  14. I don't see any rule change. *shrug* Been the same since it started.
    4 points
  15. Joining again with new memory, much improved quality vs previous all DJR that i got.
    4 points
  16. CPU-Z Vintage 1.03 is bugged and is showing a wrong memory frequency. If you disbelieve in the 303-MHz I also got a 301-MHz with 1.97.0 thnx to the high load of the newer versions it's impossible for now to validate any higher. https://valid.x86.fr/4wxe0q
    4 points
  17. Im pretty sure Ln2 switch does nothing, only there because ASUS has one
    4 points
  18. ROG MAXIMUS XIII Series 1102 BETA BIOS 1. Bug fix 2. Microcode Update ROG MAXIMUS XIII HERO BETA BIOS 1102 ROG MAXIMUS XIII APEX BETA BIOS 1102 ROG MAXIMUS XIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 1102 ROG MAXIMUS XIII EXTREME GLACIAL BETA BIOS 1102
    4 points
  19. What do you guys say about when you can finish a threaded benchmark, and then cpuz crashes your score? Or 5 minutes of pi then cpuz wont open? How is that fair to the bencher that is doing all the tweaks and days of pretesting to be killed by the validation software? We like to use metaphors here so that would be ummm like Usain Bolt beating the 100m dash record but sorry one the judges was taking a piss so it doesnt count. Better luck next olympics.
    4 points
  20. Well said. Leave legacy alone, new stuff choice is up to user if they use benchmate alone or with cpuz. Score subject to review by mod either way if out of line. Should be nice to not have to delete any new users scores lol.
    4 points
  21. All this wouldn't be possible without the overclocking elders (OskarWu, Tictac, Polygon) which did the groundwork for this. Also the openness of recent socket 462 overclocking and sharing all findings and infos was key. So a true team effort And let's not forget about the new NF2 Xtreme tweaker made by @I.nfraR.ed. His work makes this a lot easier to clock NF2 and set timings in Win. I also believe there is more to gain, especially on 1:1 dualchannel. I'm still stuck at 263Mhz for 32M runs.
    4 points
  22. So many good scores lately thanks to all the work you and other guys (Tzk, digitalbath etc) did.
    4 points
  23. Who's up to some auto overclocking and validating https://github.com/irusanov/nForce2-xtreme-tweaker-vcl/releases/tag/beta-12 This includes Auto Validation Bot and some initial code for configurable INI files. settings.ini is included in the archive, but you can only control "minimizeToTray" - 0 means false, 1 is true. There's no GUI for settings yet and nothing is implemented regarding profiles, but getting there. None of the settings of the Auto Validation are saved, you have to configure them on each launch of the tweaker. For now, there are some limitations I haven't been able to fix regarding of the detection whether cpuz has fully loaded. So, in order to try the "bot", you need to first configure settings: Path to CPU-Z -> select path to cpuz executable Wait for CPU-Z -> time in milliseconds to wait for cpu-z launch 1s = 1000ms Sleep -> time to sleep between validations. It is needed, so we give time for cpuz to save the file, recent versions are very slow in this regard, so you might need to even increase this value Step -> tweaker will try to find the next FSB which is currentFSB + step. 0 is for auto and will take longest time. Ultra -> this won't update CPU frequency and FSB in the tweaker, should be lightest mode When configured, click "Run" and don't touch anything anymore. CPU-Z window needs to have the focus, so the validation works. You can manually switch to another CPU-Z tab and validation should still work. Not sure if that would reduce the load though. To stop it, click on "Stop" and close CPU-Z window manually. PS: I think it is obvious that this feature would lead to a BSOD at some point when the limit of some component is reached - whether it is CPU, RAM or FSB. It goes until crash/BSOD or manual stop. Also not sure if that would allow a higher validation compared to doing it manually, but I think it should, since it eliminates clicking on buttons and switching between windows. Either way, it's a fun experiment .
    4 points
  24. New Corsair Vengeance RGB RT and RS only allowed for Stage 2 and 3
    4 points
  25. In my humble opinion i would go with : ( We simply list the 12900K as a 16C CPU. Might sound like an easy option for now but I see that this would make it very difficult for the future years especially thinking about that AMD will eventually also use different performing cores on one single chip. ) . Then wait and see how it goes from there. Best bet is to wait for the cpu to be out and available and see where performance lands , then we can make a propper informed desision. No need to rush things or get ahead of it ,let's wait and see , meanwhile listed for what it is a 16 core cpu.
    3 points
  26. Ok, company that builds benchmarks has no idea of competitive benchmarking.
    3 points
  27. Not the only difference, the 940BE is AM2+ and will NOT work in an AM3 board. The 555BE on the other hand is AM3 but is backwards compatible with AM2+. The comp calls for AM2/AM2+ so any AM3 CPU is out.
    3 points
  28. On Ebay https://www.ebay.com/itm/124443425899
    3 points
  29. "If competing vs. high scores is frustrating or non-usefull experience than I guess one needs to look for another hobby." And if you can't manage to open a couple of cpu-z screens then..... haha.
    3 points
  30. Let's just talk during the next days/weeks to get back on what we planed Just too much stuff going on and too much other things we had to fix on here first
    3 points
  31. Perfect. Throw out all the old guys that started this place in favor of the young guys that only want to push one button and run XTU and are never heard from again.
    3 points
  32. Agreed. Just a few things to consider: does BenchMate work with legacy systems? (talking WinXP and much older) does BenchMate require external dependencies that might hurt performance? does BenchMate cause a higher CPU load than CPU-Z? (opening the latter can sometimes be harder than passing Spi 32M)
    3 points
  33. Bit of fun but time to warm it up , put MOBO in oven and relax 🙂 My fingers are freezing lol. I don't like the clean up afterwards , pain . That was only 20L 😂 X265 really goes through this stuff.
    3 points
  34. Stage 2: Memory Frequency To avoid detection problems with Cezanne CPUs, usage of CPUZ 1.97 is MANDATORY for this stage Screenshot matches the validation link, no % tolerance Stage 2 OC care package, to be downloaded at this link or via the attached file Stage2.rar
    3 points
  35. Unbelievable this is still here. I know many of us are old enough to remember spending $2k on a mainstream cpu for dem goldz and all the boints ttt
    3 points
  36. I guess eventually it might make more sense to split globals in few categories such as Mobile, Desktop, High End Desktop and Server similar to what Rauf already suggested. I'm very open to such solutions but as I already pointed out we will need quite a lot of time to make this happen. Regarding AMD FX I have no problem changing this to 4 Cores if this makes the community happy. Probably won't change anything tho?
    3 points
  37. Cool! Shall be giving my 8320 another run out very soon, so be interesting to see how we get on
    2 points
  38. 32m is challenging, but isn't that why we still love it. Take this picture below, this is TestMem5 Extreme1@anta777.cfg, HCI MemTest 7.0 and LinX 0.9.11 stable but I can't pass 32m with these settings. It needs higher DRam V, IO Mem V and SA V to pass
    2 points
  39. I've sorted out most of my datasheets. Here's some nice VIA package: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tGgb4Qpt74xXC6u522FBY0nSmA9ur0Ur/view?usp=sharing
    2 points
  40. No XP, there were some issues with timers in older hardware even on win7. So legacy should stay as it is anyway (too many things to fix/implement in benchmate to make it okay-ish for many benchmarks). See no problems if benchmate will make things easier for "no xp support" systems. Just another change in rules to allow it.
    2 points
  41. Actual 4066. Slot machine. Just keep pushing the button. Eventually you'll get a low time. Took me about 10 runs. No science involved here.
    2 points
  42. But if you think about it, if the next Intel 12th generation can only use DDR5 I don't see the point.
    2 points
  43. Always conspiracy theories here... I'm sure hwbot points are extremely important to intel... Big.little makes so much sense from a practical point of view. First generation with something new is not always super, we'll just have to wait and see. but I'm sure this is the future. So we can either stick our heads in the sand and compare performance in an irrelevant way, or adapt to something that makes sense. For now I think the best way would be to create all new categories, like 8+8, 6+6 or something. Then see how everything goes and make a bigger overhaul when there are more facts and there is time for development.
    2 points
  44. Great LoVo kit, I guess it can take 2.1+ vdimm btw what SA and IOmem at 5200?
    2 points
×
×
  • Create New...