Strunkenbold

Im facing a little strange problem with GPU PI 3.3.3: This doesnt complete even with stock settings. However version 3.2 has no problems. I also dont see whats wrong, since it states that "calculation finished successfully". As there are zero Vega 64 cards with 3.3 32B ranking but 15 competitors in the 1B ranking, something looks wrong here. My Vega 56 got flashed to a Vega 64, so the problem might be name handling. But otherwise no clue, I tried different opencl dlls but that made no difference. Next is trying with the stock bios to confirm my theory.

Fantastic news if the guy could fix this!

Yes thats the way it should be done. According TPU GPU-DB: 7800 GS (G70, 16 Shaders) 7800 GS (G70, 20 Shaders) 7800 GS (G70, 24 Shaders) 7800 GS (G71, 16 Shaders) 7800 GS (G71, 20 Shaders) 7800 GS (G71, 24 Shaders) outch! ?

Late reply to this but if it helps, yes all strings coming from external programs have to be matched manually to a specific hardware db entry. I usually do this once in a month but the first user with new hardware will always face a problem. And there is some hardware which is just cant be identified by name. Like "Radeon Graphics" or "Athlon XP", "Athlon 64 3200",... Those stuff get ignored. Dont know how you handle this. But I would prefer not to submit directly to the rankings but to give the user the possibility to enter his hardware manually on the submit page. There are other things like cooling, motherboard and ram which can be only added by editing. I can only encourage all users with detection problems to start a new topic in the support section. Maybe you could alter the error message in those cases accordingly.

Had the same issue yesterday. Result didnt appeared in the ranking and keeps telling "its not the best submission". Very confusing for users. Should it detect when its not yet ranked, instead of saying its not the best one? Apparently the bot needs extreme time to sync for GPUPI 3.2 CPU 1B CPU subs. All other GPUPI stuff werent a problem. Also ranking is way off, recalculating didnt helped immediately, might be also a factor for the syncing prob.

Well, actually no. If specs are different, we usually create a new category. I remember that GeForce 9800 GT Ultimate debate. For example all Renoir IGP are "Radeon Graphics" but range from 320 to 512 Shaders, would it be fair to have it all in one category? On the other hand, this has been like this for so long, that while a split would be good for consistency of the database, it also may produce a rage between users relied on old behavior. The thing is always to find the point where we overdoing this separation of hardware parts. Like different CPU revisions. Dividing something because one rev is C0 and one is E0 would be completely useless, because its usual development of a CPU over the time to get better and better. But a card which one vendor decided to put a higher tier GPU on a card with lower tier name is something different. The vendor made something unique and out of the specs nvidia intended for it. Making it in the end actually a new card outside of the usual naming scheme. @Antinomy Your opinion?

Splitted categories and moved some results over. GDDR2 vs GDDR3 wasnt that much more speed it seems. Likely they had very low memory timings though, so that the newer chips couldnt shine.

Would be interesting if hwinfo can show us the s-spec everytime. In that case we could try to ask Franck if he implements something similar for CPU-Z.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/s431/

Despite it has only half memory, rest of the specs are the same. So no, its the Mobile category I already mentioned. We decided on some point to not create extra categories for new hardware with different mem sizes. IIRC even TNT2 categories got merged at some point.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_hd_8280_mobile/

Whats the CPU ?

Yeah its this one: https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_1060_mobile/

Interesting stuff, a little bit more info about specs would be appreciated. Dont know if socket FT3 is correct, was best guess. https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_350/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/a9_9820__rx_8120/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/amd_bl2/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/mt50in1/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/prime_a520m_a/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/p8sct/

All hardware is allowed to to compete in our rankings. In general, you would just look up CPU-World to see if these are known S-Spec codes for any production processors and then submit in that category. These CPUs however don't seem to be in their database, CPU-Z also fails to detect them and they are so special that I think we just add individual categories to our db. Even though some might be matched to something knowed, I just went ahead and created categories for the CPUs you mentioned: https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/qqlt_es/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/qqls_es/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/qnct_es/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/qtj1_es/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/qtj2_es/ As always, you have to proof which hardware youre using. So either you provide photo verification or use hwinfo in case it reports correct info.

Sadly missing GPU-Z sensor tab, could you rebench?

The ranking is by socket. Bullshooter already made an AM4 result which is better than yours. Look here for coordination of the german team: https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/threads/hwbot-country-cup-2020-nationaler-thread.1281202/

Pilu uses same validation link for all variants of the Asrock board. I dont know which he actually uses. Maybe we should simply block those results.

WUT? That simply cant be right.

Should be all merged to one category in my opinion. But we dont have the technical possibilities at the moment. Moved diaboliks sub for what its worth...

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/f8d/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/hdama_i/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_5_pro_3400g/