Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Strunkenbold

  1. Strunkenbold

    Please add HW

    Its really great that you are still trying make the database as correct as possible. Really didnt know about this.
  2. Strunkenbold

    Please add HW

  3. Seems you already found the correct category: https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/mobile_radeon_r7_graphics_wani_ddr4/ There were just some people submitted results with desktop parts, sorry I dont have time to move those over, please just report them.
  4. Might be a good idea to get in contact with the boys from CPU-Z. I guess they would be quite interested to get some information from those rare systems. https://www.cpuid.com/contact.html
  5. I think he meant that the first post of this page needs an update. @richba5tard Could you fix the first post? (and hopefully take this forum thread on someday to the main page)
  6. Its already there. Even it might be a little bit hidden. https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_r5_m330__m430__radeon_520/
  7. Damn I could swear I catched all of those K10 CPUs. But hey, there was also the 615e missing. https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/athlon_ii_x4_610e/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/athlon_ii_x4_615e/
  8. I was always looking at this list: http://holicho.lib.net/wcpuidv3/wcpuidv3.htm I saw some special made boards and they used TurboPLLs on Tusl/Cusl and ST6. https://web.archive.org/web/20020613021345/http://isweb32.infoseek.co.jp/computer/atomoc/mb_st6.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20030829142535/http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/ha/id25302/cusl2.html https://web.archive.org/web/20021016083001/http://holicho.lib.net/ But youre correct. Using this on boards which cant run bus speeds asynchronous just dont make sense. So after looking into this today, I think the only fixed input from the pll is for the clock / system time and they used the pll ic to remove the limit of the onboard pll ic. And some have fixed frequency for usb an ps/2. I think I got this wrong for some years now. So today I really learned something. Now you and other achieved over 260 Mhz without any pll mods. So this makes me wonder why the japanese boys were so keen on those turbo plls if its actually possible without.
  9. Didn't some of them did a pll mod for their boards? I guess that should completely take out the problems with the PCI/agp bus. Thanks for your suggestions. Wish I had time to overclock those systems again.
  10. I used many IDE drives in the past and every of them managed to let me achieve over 200 MHz FSB. If you struggle at 155 MHz, it's most likely your CPU. Only a few CPUs manage over 200 MHz on air. Most need at least SS to achieve this. But for some it's just impossible. I appreciate all those great tips in this thread. I really never thought that those cheap IDE to SATA adapters are able to handle the high PCI clocks very well. Even though I own such things, I was always too lazy to try out.
  11. Ah now I see this. Yes this is an old bug. Appeared already multiple times in the past. IMO it's a problem how the bot handles name strings. For some reason the bot isn't able to handle exact strings. If there is something similar, it just chooses this It's like the search engine had always a bug if you search for users. Like you search for submissions from user "blablabla". If there is also a user "Blabla". The bot just shows subs from him. But the are no results from the actual "blablabla" query.
  12. This is correct. Raven CPUs are Zen gen1. AMDs Marketing Team decided to give them 2000er numbers. Zen+ aka Zen gen 2 will have 3000er numbers BTW.
  13. Well the problem of global and wr points is that they are really big. While you just can get maximum 50 hardware points, it is possible to receive over 160 points for globals and 170 points for worldrecord points. In other words an active bencher which posts some high quality scores with big points can be #1 in career ranking and in seasonal ranking at the same time and he can achieve this in some months (hypothetical). I think the career ranking should reflect the effort made over some longer time and not just some months. Currently those 30 slots for hardware / global / WR fill up too quickly with current made results because global / WR points have a so much bigger influence. Regarding comp points: I think its sad that the effort made in previous years diminishes. Seasonal ranking gives the chance to see the current level of a bencher while career shows what he did over the time. Its 10 slots for those points. If we shift up hardware point slots it should not have a too big impact anymore.
  14. Well the point is that I didnt see too much constructive criticism in this thread. Just complaints. If you want that Frederik does change something in your direction you have to give him something he can work with. I mean it should be clear if Frederik just receives negative feedback of his work, he probably doesnt see the point to spend time on hwbot. Which ultimately means that hwbot close his doors forever.
  15. Well I think AMD had actually the intention to release it. At least it was rumored and I really thought it gets released. However, I think AMD did not introduce another marketing name for it when the powercolor nano got released, so I guess it can be deleted from our db.
  16. So the culprit is just the seasonal team ranking? I think this can be easily changed back to an all time ranking again. I dont see why this needs to be seasonal. Actually first I thought the seasonal ranking just add more complexity but the more I think about it the more I like the idea. The seasonal ranking idea has the advantage to attract new benchers to easily climb up. I mean hwbot is over 10 years old, if the ranking would be static for all times, newcomers see those thousand and thousands of points and give up early. Cause it makes a difference if you had 10 years time to bench those gazillion hardware / benchmark combinations or just some months. However the current approach to calculate the career points needs to get tweaked. As currently, if you have benched a lot of current gen hardware, you are way too good in the career ranking which pisses people who are here for a long time. As we all know, there is a new hardware generation coming each year, and each year world records gets beaten by new hardware. If I take a look at the profile of splave http://uat.hwbot.org/user/splave/#Points I see that his seasonal ranking doesnt differ much from his career ranking which leaves the question why having two rankings if it acutally doesnt look much different. So my proposal is to remove global points from career ranking and increase the submissions taken into account for the ranking, maybe to 50 hardware and 30 competition. Just to make a difference between one year and 10 years contribution to the bot. The seasonal ranking is a nice idea. But you also have to see that points get zeroed every year. So it might be also a good idea to create new achievements like best overclocker 2017 or something. And introduce rankings or leader boards for the last years. So we all could see who was the best of 2010 or something.
  17. Well that is something unique for sure. However if I understand correctly, those Co processors can just work with a main CPU. Is any program able to detect those combos? I mean, I dont know if it makes sense to add co processors at all to the db, probably need another opinion from Antinomy here.
  18. Dead links on uat. Is anywhere else a description how those points come together (for the users)?
  19. Okay misunderstood the focus then. As no one replied after your RFC, I should say that it was just my personal impression that we should make the point algorithm easier. As I thought that the many broken rankings are because of this too complex algorithm. My personal motivation has been always the points I got in a ranking. I never cared too much about my ranking in a league. So thats the reason my focus seems to be different from the other guys. If rankings could get fixed and work more reliably, plus the socket ranking pages, I would be very satisfied.
  20. hmm and I thought changing the point algorithm to something better understandable and simpler is all about this new rev... I mean, I understand that you have to keep those percentages for lower server load but I think the biggest problem of the current rev are strange and broken rankings. Youre right, I was wrong about the percentages, mixing hardware and global, but IMO the percentages should be really reverse. 50% for the globals, means like 4Ghz scores get global points where the 75% cliff for hardware points makes Air and Water benchers unhappy...
  21. It would be very nice if this longstanding bug could be finally fixed. I think this is the reason for some serious problems on the website.
  22. This all looks very promising, great job! Some small additions: Im not a big fan of the 50% cliff for the hardware points. I often see very weird rankings because of this. And its not good to build up rankings because user on air have no motivation to post results once a LN2 score got uploaded. If we want too keep the cliff I have the following ideas (not sure how hard it would be to implement): 1. To feed the ranking with results, award the first 25 results always with points regardless of 50%. If possible visualize those 25 places with another color or something else so people get the idea. 2. Draw a red line or something in the ranking page to illustrate where the cliff begins (So people know why place 36 get points while place 37 doesnt). 3. Calculate 50% of the current first place and show the number in the ranking page so people know which score they have to beat to get points.
  23. +1 Would be very very cool to have this on the regular page instead hidden in the forums. I think this should be possible without too much problems, I mean I can search for SuperPi results for Socket 478 too and those get sorted by the best result. Why shouldnt it be possible to create a page for this?
  24. http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/am386_sxsxl_33/ Dont know if I should go with this name scheme though.
  25. Just want to say that we mostly rely on data from CPU-World and TPU GPUDB. I know that CPU-Z as GPU-Z have problems showing the correct code name for recycled or castrated parts. That often happens if the vendor doesnt change the IDs of those parts. Thats the reason why CPU-Z /GPU-Z doesnt match our db in some cases. On that FM1 performance issue: I put an answer already in the _mat's thread where he examined the issue. But in case you didnt read yet... The reason why older bios versions are faster is that AMD turned of a feature of those CPUs because they found a bug which can cause the CPUs to hang. GPUPI makes heavy use of division operations. Llano CPUs actually have a unit that can do those division operations very fast. But because of a bug, AMD decided to turn that unit off. Those operations need to go through other units of the CPU now which are a lot slower. In case you ask now why nobody in the last 7 years bothered, the reason is that division operation seem to be just not that important under normal workloads, yet GPU-PI makes heavy use of it. If you want to re-enable the performance, without downgrading your Bios or your OS: https://www.passmark.com/forum/performancetest/3705-amd-llano-a-series-benchmark-and-cpu-bug?t=3656 Cbjaust already confirmed that it works.
  • Create New...