Strunkenbold

Quick solution would be to just automatically launching those two CPU-Z windows when you click on save result in BM. Guess this would be no big deal for @_mat_ to implement, wouldnt it?

If we choose the option where the user needs to disabling cores, I would only let the performance cores result count. It would be unfair for a CPU to have the possibility to obtain 2 times global or hardware points. Also we need to consider that if we change our decision at some later point and decide that those processors can make use of their full native core configuration, all core disabled results are getting pretty useless. So we might want make some conservative decision now like the 16 cores are 16 cores approach and better implement something smart when there will be time for. An, probably, over-complicated approach would be to create benchmark categories for the individual core configuration. I just took a look at the Snapdragon SoCs and there would be four possible combinations for 8 cores: 8P 4P + 4E 2P + 6E 1UP+1P+6E So that means there would be an additional 4 + 4, 2 + 6, 1 + 1 + 6 Cinebench ranking for instance. Every user could compare apples to apples then. However, I would not give global points for each config as would be an insane inflation of points because of dozens of new categories. Instead we should group those configurations in an unified ranking. The easiest way would be to just count all existing cores again. So in the above example all those configurations go into 8 cores ranking. IMO that would be fair. No one tells that you have to win with a CPU featuring 50 % efficiency cores over a CPU with 100 % performance cores. However if we want to change something, another approach would be to divide the amount of efficiency cores by two. 4 + (4/2) = 6 cores ranking (for Intel this would also mean 12 threads vs 12 threads, doesn't matter for ARM however) 2 + (6/2) = 5 cores ranking 1+1+(6/2) = 5 cores ranking Wouldn't be to hard to configure those new CPUs with some cores less in the db. So really a quick and dirty solution. Biggest concern is when efficiency cores are getting better than Rocket Lake and Zen3 because of architectural improvements or changes like added HT or Quad HT. To pick up the idea with splitting categories into low, mid, high and high end we might could come up with grouping existing categories in an unified global points ranking. Like 1 core 2 cores 4 cores (consisting of 3 core ranking and hybrid variations) 6 cores (consisting of 5 core ranking and hybrid variations) 8 cores (also including possible 7 cores and hybrid variations) 12 cores (anything from 9 to 12 and hybrid variations) 16 cores (anything from 13 to 16 and hybrid variations) 24 cores (anything from 17 to 24 and hybrid variations) 32 cores (anything from 25 to 32 and hybrid variations) 64 cores (anything from 33 to 64 and hybrid variations) Low core count categories are kept for historical reasons. 3 and 5 cores are getting killed as they are only Phenom and doesn't qualify for globals anymore IMO. Anything from 64 is server stuff and hasn't much to do with oc. It shouldn't be awarded just because someone works in a data center.

I can understand the confusion and suspect a CPU-Z bug. VT8368 is the part number of KT400. CPU-Z correctly shows KT400 but also VT8377 which would be wrong, as its the part number of KT600. If the problem is still there we might need to report this to Franck.

I've digged a little deeper on waybackmachine and while it seems that EVGA was not very creative with names in the beginning, Ive finally came up with this: https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/nforce4_sli_edition_uatx_131_k8_nf44_ax/ Ive cleaned all EVGA boards while I was at this.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/g513qy/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/ultra20_m2/

We might want to wait till official benchmarks appear. If 12900k is barely faster than any 8 core we might should consider a change. But I could imagine that architectural changes will make the gap you might see today disappear with next gen anyway. And in 1-2 years hybrid categories might be superfluous. But if the leaks are true, there is nothing to worry about, except you know already more...

This got already added yesterday by some really kind person (not me): https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/snapdragon_439/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/adreno_505/

Do you have the wrong bios on this board? There is the T810B-CU and Instant 810C-SE as well. Added both but please only submit in one category: https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/instant_810c_se/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/t810b_cu/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/tech_t3_mrd/

I think those were just erroneously listed as dedicated as other Tiger Lake GPUs were integrated too.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/grid_k1/

Probably it just got flashed with a Vega 64 bios. Thats one of the reason why a screenshot with GPU-Z is still required (and which is missing here)

https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/rtx_a4000/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/25002lg/

Added and fixed your sub.

Do you have a link to the specs page or screenshot from a tool in windows showing your disk? We already have the Phison E18 as a controller in our db. B47R seems to be the used Nand chips, so whats the name of your disk?

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/helio_p22/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/rogue_ge8320/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/diskproduct/870_evo/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/ak37gt/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/ak37gtr/ Has your board a KT400A?

You realize that we dont have all available hardware on this planet in our database? If something is not there, plz make a request in the support section instead of simply submitting. Added your disk and changed your result ?

someone already added this yesterday but didnt post this here: https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/dopey_il/

Shouldnt it be available on your profile page on 3dmark.com?

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/helio_g80_mt6769t/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/mali_g52_mc2/