Strunkenbold

I think this is going in the right direction. But that still would have the problem of not knowing if someone downclocked his cores. If I got it right, this discussion is about showing if someone overclocked all of his available cores to a specific maximum frequency, right? So what if Tim codes a script, which reads out the page from the provided CPU-Z verification link and IF 100 % of x cores are active AND frequency between them is within a reasonable deviation mark them as all core max frequency and call it a day. This way you could filter them too like in your above example. Im twisted about the possibility of separated ranking. I mean CPU max frequency is not really a bench. Its simply the take whatever it takes to maximize your clock game. If you want to have all of your cores at the same level, youre simply not playing it right.

Specs more or less unknown. But its enough to make a category: https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/a14_bionic_gpu/

Do you have a link from benchmark? Im looking for specs and a name.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/snapdragon_865_sm8250/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/adreno_650/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/helio_g90t_mt6785vcc/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/g73_mc4/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/adreno_618/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/a14_bionic/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/nl40_50cu/

Ive splitted them, P45 version here: https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/lenovo_p45/ Hope its okay this way?

Thx, changed the result to the correct category.

Yes, correct. Fixed that thx!

Should read more carefully: https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/kemx_4005/ Also added

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/j4125m/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/kemx_4000/

Also fixed

Fixed

https://hwbot.org/hardware/diskproduct/a2000/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/d1534/ Its Fujitsu-Siemens though, or is this a bad reading by CPU-Z?

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/tangiz/ Im excited to see results ?

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/760gx_m/

This is a long standing problem. This list doesn't show enough items. Another way to show less is entering KT133 in chipset.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/x556uq/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/chiefriver/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/x541na/

For me the line is when you change the way of the intended benchmark process / calculation. I remember PCMark05 was crazy, because all subtests were changed in a way that the calculations the CPU / GPU had to do were actually way fewer than intended by altering files making them basically free, processing wise, or using newer programs like Media Encoder or newer browser. Even good old LOD "tweak" and 3D Overrider was used. And actually we could discuss here if LOD and disabling Tess were ever a good idea because in this case, they absolutely change the way a calculation was intended. But the thing is, that the bot wasn't stringent on this. Changing graphics to a state where you can only see blur is okay but using media encoder or some kind of cache is not. For me its obvious that we lived for years in a grey area where people were confused whats wrong and whats right. Thankfully Alby is cleaning all this mess now. And PCM05 relied too much on external files. When they developed the bench, the relied on a specific version of the browser or the media encoder and settings of Windows without checking them before the launch. I mean, what's the point of disabling settings in Internet Explorer and you get awarded by receiving a higher score? The concept of this bench was just plain wrong and it actually has to get wiped from the bot. As _mat_ already said, benchmarks relying on external files could change their behavior just because you install update for program xyz and receive other vb runtimes and you just don't even recognize. But just because you use an dll file where some functions are just a little better optimized, the calculation itself stay the same, so for me thats legit. And when I look at the rankings, I see big differences even with very old results with the same clock speeds. And no, thats not because they use older wprime. Its nice that he now implemented showing which dll file you used. Even better would be to have something similar for GPU-PI. Because there its also only necessary to put the opencl compiler dll in the folder. Installed driver doesn't matter.

Not to mention, benching with Benchmate under Win10 makes things a lot easier. You get all the tweaks and uploading results to the bot is one click as benchmate already fills everything for you.

The reason for my proposal were bugs with Rage 128 cards, basically GPU-Z always identified wrong specs. Its showing wrong bus width, means 32 bit vs. 16 bit and sometimes detected DDR Ram. While all cards have sdram or sgram. Also clock speeds weren't detected. The difference can be seen here, although I would need to recheck with a new version of GPU-Z https://hwbot.org/submission/2974796_strunkenbold_3dmark2001_se_rage_128_vr_(64bit)_792_marks A VR cant have more than 64 bit or having DDR Ram. GPU-Z was simply completely bugged and ruined our rankings. Its hard to tell if they changed something in between or if if they were correct in early versions. Rankings look strange, results varying from 500 to 2000 points in 3DMark01 in the same category.

Good you did not. I think you saved the bot, atleast for benching AMD. The separation was tricky. Difference between old and new was a bit too much. However, half part of benching GPU-PI is finding the right opencl dll. I actually now found a very old one where a difference between 3.2 and 3.3 is not there and seem to be quite efficient. Scores are here: https://hwbot.org/submission/4665246_strunkenbold_gpupi_for_cpu___1b_ryzen_9_3900x_1min_36sec_681ms https://hwbot.org/submission/4665253_strunkenbold_gpupi_v3.3_for_cpu___1b_ryzen_9_3900x_1min_36sec_569ms https://hwbot.org/submission/4665260_strunkenbold_gpupi_for_cpu___100m_ryzen_9_3900x_6sec_719ms https://hwbot.org/submission/4665256_strunkenbold_gpupi_v3.3_for_cpu___100m_ryzen_9_3900x_6sec_663ms