Strunkenbold

Would be cool to have points only enabled for specific hardware generations. Running 3DM99 on TNT2 can be fun, why not give points for this? On the other hand, awarding hardware points running 3DM05 on a GF 3090 makes not much sense. IMO we give way too many points, I found it pretty overwhelming when I benched something 3D in the last days. So many benchmarks, so much to install and run. Every bench has it own clock limits. Looking for the best clocks for every benchmark can be very time consuming and frustrating. I mean, instead of soldering, flashing and clocking you do now run benchmarks for hours just too have them all. This feels very repetitive. There are now over 30 benchmarks to score hardware points. That is way too much. Sure, you will say no one forces you to run each bench, just run the ones you like. But ranking should be about who is the best tweaker not about the person who has unlimited time. Maybe we should focus on just 10 benchmarks for every generation if something like that can be implemented. Source of the problem is clear, new generation GPUs makes old benchmarks obsolete as they run pretty early in the CPU limit. Thats not the case for 2D benchs. Even with new gen CPUs, people hunt SuperPi 32m record. But with each new gen we enable another bench for points and suddenly you have simply too many.

Since the score of the best 2x result doesnt matter if there is already a better result with only one CPU and the ranking itself for 2x CPU is totally irrelevant for single threaded benchs, I wouldnt call that a bug. In the end its a unified ranking handling out points equally to all competitors.

Dunno if we still talk about the same thing? Why removing those points? There are long standing bugs, first one is not really a bug but could be made a little bit more elegant: 1. For single core benchmarks, it doesnt matter how many CPUs you have. So those "Single Socket", "Dual Socket tabs should be only visible for multi threaded benchmarks. Maybe we can group those benchmarks on the CPU overclocking records page differently? 2. If you click the benchmark ranking of single threaded benchmarks, Number of cores should be "Any" by default.

Yes thats right, although Im not sure if Timespy uses Tess at all? You can run timespy with disabled tess but vali will be invalid and score doesnt change at all.

IMO it was never a good idea to allow disabling tess. It made a lot scores not comparable to the real world. I also dont see how you can call it tweaking if you simply disable a feature via one click. Its not like 3dm01 where you have to find the best value for each scene. I hope next benchmark from FM simply refuses to run if tess got disabled.

I think I should now added all s370 from soltek and some s462 which I found from their homepage via webarchive https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/sl_65kv2_ct/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/sl_65liv_t/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/sl_65kv2_t/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/ep_8rgm3i/ But in general, if you dont have valids, please provide information directly from manufacturer. Maybe only available via waybackmachine.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/u50sa2/

Oh wow, AMD tries really hard to hide the real name of their cards. Its like every new driver can give you also a new card.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_r3_graphics_mobile_stoney/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/p7xxtm1/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/h310m_stx/

Already there even though someone misspelled it "AROUS", so here we are: https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/z390_aorus_master_cf/

Previously all GT2 parts were UHD Graphics 6xx. Now the mobile parts are just UHD Graphics, even though they are GT2. Good idea Intel! More chaos for the db. This should be now the best guess category for the above chip: https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/uhd_graphics_mobile_comet_lake_24eu/ @Antinomy We need to do a big clean up of those intel and amd stuff.

I think we have neither Could you post a GPU screenshot or validation? Im curios how GPU-Z identifies these parts.

Moved. For CPUs its enough to just post a link to the Intel ark. Please dont submit a result if there is no category for- it destroys our rankings in the long run.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/b550_pg_velocita/

No, I'm too lazy for this. https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/z490_dark_131_cl_e499_kr/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/z490_ftw_wifi_122_cl_e497_kr/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/z490_dark_kingpin_edition_131_cl_e499_kp/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/diskproduct/rocket_nvme_4.0/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/lm7w/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/exynos_9611/

Added: https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/hd_graphics_500_mobile_apollo_lake/ Official name from Intel is HD Graphics 500. Of course GPU-Z reads something else (probably because of the driver)...

I think there was a similar issue on 3850 and I simply solved it by flashing an already unlocked GPU bios. Dont know how the situation is with 2600XT though.

From pictures it looks like they really used new pcb revisions for those boards: 1.2 and 1.4. VRM looks indeed different. 8RDA3 range from rev1.1 over 2.1 to 3.1. 3.1 has really small mosfets and used some kind of "mosefet cooling on the pcb". The Pro boards seem to have the same but stronger VRM. Rev2.1 and under could give 2.0V to CPUs but newer revisions were a bit lower AFAIR. Nforce NB should be late 2003 or newer and might be capable of nice FSB.

Got response from CPU-Z now. They will now report Raven for the Athlon 3000G in the next version. No word on LPDDR yet.