Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/21/18 in all areas

  1. 25 points
    Start date will be the 5th of August till the 31st of October. Frederik is adding the stages in the competition pages Hardware list will be available soon, so you can start scamming Ebay and co, we tried to keep it as cheap and accessible as possible. Verification rules will be expanded versus the regular standard offical HWBot rules: CPU-Z tabs for CPU, Mainboard and Memory (+SPD for the memory stage) Verification Screenshots are always full screen, no removal of taskbar, no clipping,... Retail hardware only (also for motherboards) Competition Background must be visible To avoid the drama of last year, picture(s) of the RUNNING OC setup has to be added with each submission For all 3DMark benchmarks the latest Systeminfo has to be installed (have verification files at hand) Competition will be split in DDR, DDR2, DDR3 and DDR4 based platforms: DDR Stage 1: Pifast socket A (3 CPU submissions) STAGE 2: Wprime 32 Socket 754 Venice Core (3 CPU submissions) STAGE 3: GPUPI 100M Socket 478 Prescott 1024 core (3 CPU submissions) STAGE 4: SuperPi 32M Socket 939 (3 CPU submissions) STAGE 5: 3DMARK01 S939 & Radeon HD 2000 series (3 GPU submissions) STAGE 6: 3DMARK99 S478 & Geforce2 series (3 GPU submissions) STAGE 7: Aquamark3 AGP only (3 GPU submissions) STAGE 8: CPU-Z Memory Frequency Dual dimm (3 Mem submissions) DDR2 Stage 1: Superpi 1M AM2 (3 x CPU submissions) STAGE 2: Wprime 1024 Socket 775 (3 x CPU submissions) STAGE 3: CBR11.5 AM3 (3 x CPU submissions) STAGE 4: X265 1080P LGA775 (3 x CPU submissions) STAGE 5: 3DMark2001 Geforce 6 (3 x GPU submissions) STAGE 6: 3DMARK05 AMD CPU & Radeon HD 3000 series (3 x GPU submissions) STAGE 7: Unigene Heaven Basic (3 x Geforce9 submissions) STAGE 8: 3DMARK11 PHYSX TEST (3 x CPU submissions) DDR3 Stage 1: CB R15 S1366 (3 x CPU submissions) STAGE 2: SuperPi 32M AM3 (3 x CPU submissions) STAGE 3: X265 4K LGA2011 X79 (3 x CPU submissions) STAGE 4: GPU Pi 100M socket FM1 (3 x CPU submissions) STAGE 5: 3DMark03 Geforce 600 series (3 x GPU submissions) STAGE 6: 3DMark Vantage Geforce 700 series (3 x GPU submissions) STAGE 7: 3DMark11 HawaI/Tahiti cores (3 x GPU submissions) STAGE 8: 3DMark Firestrike APU FM2(+) (3 x iGPU submissions) DDR4 Stage 1: Geekbench 3 MULTI for dual core CPUs (3 x CPU submissions) STAGE 2: Y-Cruncher pi-1B Quad CORE CPUS (3 x CPU submissions) STAGE 3: CBR15 divided per core (3 x CPU submissions) STAGE 4: PCMARK7 (3 x CPU submissions) STAGE 5: Aquamark3 AMD only (3 x GPU submissions) STAGE 6: 3DMark Vantage GPU Performance (3 x GPU submissions needed) STAGE 7: 3DMark 11 Extreme Dual GPU (3 x GPU submissions needed) STAGE 8: 3DMark Firestrike APU/IGP (3 x iGPU submissions needed) Remarks, feedback other thoughts are as always welcome
  2. 22 points
    Benefits of ASRock motherboards is continued support and with coffee this is no different. This mod and bios will actually will help them lose money. So make sure to thank Nick Mod point is below, connect both pads with tin/silver ink etc. Flash bios http://picx.xfastest.com/nickshih/asrock/Z17MOCF751A.rar with kabylake CPU, shut down insert coffee and go. XP working fine ASRock nor I take any liability for HW damage, perform at your own risk. Enjoy! (pic courtesy of HKEPC)
  3. 16 points
    Come on man, dont quit we need you. Make your decisions and stand by them. You are the mod not the user
  4. 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 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 on FM1 presumably all APUs calculate 64 bit integer divisions about 2,5 times slower than it could be. 😑
  5. 13 points
  6. 12 points
    As you could see already coffe lake cpu 's can run on the Asus Maximus IX Apex motherboard. Full steps required for making this happen : #1 Hardware mod Do the following modifications : Short the following pads in order to flash the bios file : Solder the following points: #2 Bios flash Download bios file from here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YbY993uzGtFBy3y-IBPtT_bLtYnF4H3T EDIT 16/10/2018 BIOS 0094 Added support for future processors https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XF59GuJbHDmCmc8JWZnZGTpzrMqhCBoI/view?usp=sharing Rename it as creative.rom , copy it on a fat32 formatted drive and flash it using USB Flashback method. NOTE! Do the bios flash after hardware mods are done !!! Soldering cpu pads is not needed . Known issue is that HT does not work currently on 6c cpu's hence it is disabled by default. After everything is set-up board will work with cofee lake based cpu's as well as with older cpu's without issue. Have fun !
  7. 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....
  8. 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.
  9. 12 points
    Already applied to all previous country cups not to redirect to oc-esports.io and use the blue scheme: http://hwbot.org/competition/country_cup_2017
  10. 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!!
  11. 11 points
    The 10 bucks debate has been done a few times over the years. Issue is that some just want to pay to keep the site alive, others think they bought a 50% share and start asking for removal of benchmarks, start to interfere with moderation/competition setups,... I need to dig up the thread where you can donate freely to Fred's paypal addy to reduce costs... At the moment the BOT is a ship with major problems and the 3-4 man crew is trying to keep first the boat afloat. Secondly steer it away from the incoming iceberg and last but not least in the mean time still find energy to save some out of the water... Everybody knows what the issues are, biggest problem is how to resolve all these in a short period as possible. Fixing is one thing, though the algorithm and co have become so complex as Strunkenbold explained, it looks more like fix one thing break two... Frederik is trying to get most stuff sorted after his daily job is done and keep this in mind we are all volunteers, doing this in our free time and totally for free... Thx to Michael for helping me out once in a while...
  12. 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...
  13. 10 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 9 points
    One single thing? Give ycruncher points, it's an interesting benchmark that can run on an extremely wide range of hardware with a validation system and a developer who cares about security. In a broader sense, the problem with insecure benches like aquamark or 3dmark2001se is not that they necessarily are cheated, but that when someone puts a lot of effort into finding legit tweaks and gets monster scores other people will accuse them of bugging the bench or cheating - often without any sense of irony from either group. It doesn't matter if anyone is actually cheating - if everyone knows you *could* cheat that alone is a salt mine. On the other hand if those benches lost points it would REALLY fucking suck because there's not much else you can even run on the kind of ultra cheap old-ass agp cards that are good for getting into competitive OC.
  18. 9 points
    A point algorithm which can be explained to a 5 year old, and not require a 37 page pdf.
  19. 9 points
  20. 9 points
    Frederik is busy with his daily work, Team cup will start mid July earliest
  21. 8 points
    I'm fully against any approach per year for members/teams/..., this makes about half of the members/ teams loose massive points, which makes motivation to continue to bench non existing... Only thing the bot will reflect who is still actively benching (probably the latest and greatest hardware) not about what they have ever achieved. Makes climbing the ladder even easier than it is now... Especially for the hardware masters, well just skip the category and loose it all..
  22. 8 points
    guys back to class plz... cleaning thread, damn Down Under benchers...
  23. 8 points
    Miss you too my best friend - mentor and TEAM CAPTAIN for ever W9 and Scotty. Best combination ever. My best years here at HWBOT. THANK YOU !
  24. 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.
  25. 8 points
    First post updated with newer bios that fixes pci-ex problems, please try, it's same version name so just reflash this file
  • Newsletter

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

    Sign Up