Strunkenbold

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/a7u/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/8331/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/i_45c/

Yes, me also thinks its simply in the wrong category. PCI ID: 95c0 = RV620 PRO [Radeon HD 3470] Its just too bad he already has subs with a 3470, which looks like to be exact the same card, except he used the standard WIndows driver which correctly shows 3470 as name in GPU-Z. This is probably also the source of confusion.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/ms_5184/

http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/01c1y7/

After I stumbled over over a Toshiba DDR PC2100 stick on german ebay, which had exact the same looking of the typical Winbond IC, I think Winbond are actually Toshiba. The ICs were labeled with production year 2002 in Japan. In December 1995 Toshiba and Winbond started their first technology transfer agreement and over the next years 3 other generations followed. They mentioned in April 2000 that they were the first manufacturer in Taiwan who successfully offered 0.175µm 256Mbit DRAMs. And me guesses that this was the start of the BH chip, even though the birth of the holy BH-5 should be somewhat later. Anyway they also agreed to develop 0.130µm 512Mbit DRAMs for the first time together with Toshiba engineers and hope to start producing by the end of 2001, later mid 2002. However in the meantime Toshiba decided to exit dram market and Winbond lost its technology partner. This article states that they also ended the production at Winbonds fabs for Toshiba. But apparently they were still allowed to use Toshiba technologies to produce chips as claimed in February 2003, that the share of 0.130µm DRAM chips of the whole output should reach 33% in the first quartal. I think this makes also clear, that BH-5 and CH-5 were produced parallel in different fabs. Me guesses that they developed the 0.130µm process but didnt reached the goal of 512Mbit chips, as CH-5 were still 256Mbit. This forced Winbond once again into action and as result they decided to sign a contract in May 2002 with Infineon to use their 0.11µm process. In 2004 they signed another contract for 0.09µm process. In both contracts, Infineon gained access to the produced DRAM chips. It is very well possible that Winbond gave them some chips from their older fabs as well. I have an AT-6 as low as week 33 year 2002, so I think this matches. I also own a BT-5 "Winbond" week 36 year 2003, so this is probably the CH-5 equivalent while AT-6 should be BH-6. Anyway Winbond decided to focus on special ICs and virtually exited DRAM market, becoming just another manufacturer for Infineon. Which is probably also the reason there was no successor to their BH / CH chips. Taiwanese manufacturers simply had not the resources to develop their own chip designs by that time. The plan was to earn money by manufacturing chips for partners but they never had enough market share and revenue to start R&D by themselves. Also DRAM manufacturing was not the healthiest business. In the nineties were a lot of companies but most vanished. The ProMos Ram definitely got no Winbond IC on it. When Infineon left the joint venture, they made a new arrangement with Elpida. Also if you desolder any other IC, you probably will see those two flat dots on the backside. So its all about which machines were used for production.

I just cleaned the category and hope that I caught all subs. As always with those old stuff, there is a lot wrong and you stumble from one bad category to another. Anyway, in the end this resulted in a pretty big cleanup for all X1650 cards. I just would like to bang my head against a wall when I think about all those other wrong stuff still lying around... @Leeghoofd The following categories can be deleted but the problem with those is, that there are either subs which I cant edit or subs which cant be found with our search page: https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_x1650_ddr2/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_x1650_gt/ Maybe you could take a look?

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/1808/

AFAICT the submission is in the correct category but the category itself is wrong, as a X1650 Pro should be always a RV535 core. https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-x1650-pro.c449 Cards with RV530 and GDDR3 are either X1600 Pro or XT. But it seems that vendors recycled old cores and named them X1650. https://web.archive.org/web/20080526161246/http://www.sapphiretech.com/ge/products/products_overview.php?gpid=173&grp=3 Sapphires Ultimate X1650 Pro clearly states 90nm instead of 80. So RV530 instead of RV535. When I look over existing categories, I see that we probably need to merge some as they are nearly identical and GPU-Z cant detect them properly: https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_x1600_pro_rv530_gddr3_128bit/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_x1600_xtx1650_rv530_gddr3_128bit/ They do however differ in clock speed and PCI IDs. Clock speeds for Radeon X1600 Pro should be quite low. However, does this qualify for a new category? Seems that they hardly match clock speeds of a XT or 1650 Pro. Even though, in regard of memory speed this could be very well because of tighter memory timings. Means loosen them, could probably match XT speeds (just speculating). 71c0 RV530 [Radeon X1600 XT/X1650 GTO] 71c1 RV535 [Radeon X1650 PRO] 71c2 RV530 [Radeon X1600 PRO] 71c4 RV530/M56 GL [Mobility FireGL V5200] 71c5 RV530/M56-P [Mobility Radeon X1600] 71c6 RV530LE [Radeon X1600/X1650 PRO] 71c7 RV535 [Radeon X1650 PRO] 71ce RV530 [Radeon X1300 XT/X1600 PRO] Proposal: Rename Radeon X1650 Pro to Radeon X1650 Pro (RV535, GDDR3, 128bit) and move all RV530 subs out of it Rename Radeon X1600 XT/X1650 (RV530, GDDR3, 128bit) to Radeon X1600 XT/X1650/X1650 Pro (RV530, GDDR3, 128bit) @Leeghoofd @Antinomy Ideas?

https://hwbot.org/hardware/memoryproduct/hyperx_fury_rgb/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/memoryproduct/hyperx_predator_rgb/ I changed the vendor from HyperX to Kingston Technologies, also added the prefixed HyperX everywhere it wasnt there yet. Though it looks like someone made this intentional. Dunno why. Maybe there was to much HyperX? Anyway I renamed Kingston HyperX to Kingston HyperX (classic) like we did with Crucial Ballistix. I think its too confusing for the users to have the vendor named "HyperX" instead of Kingston. Wouldnt be surprised if someone comes around the corner and revert all changes though.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/2525ng1/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/stego_ba/

Well its actually already there: https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_v1605b/ How did you tried finding it? (just collecting some informations for making searching hardware items better on hwbot)

https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/rage_iic_pci/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/mach64_vt/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/cl_gd5430/ I renamed all existing Rage 128 categories to 128 GL now. But those cards stay mysterious. There are sadly no proper tools to detect those specs. 64bit should be actually VR cores but some of them are AGP 4x which is actually Pro Core. If you submit a score, make sure to provide some info with AIDA or similar as GPU-Z isnt reliable with those cards.

This was already there, maybe a little hard to find? I just renamed it, so you can find it when entering RS780. https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_hd_3200_graphics_rs780/

There is probably not enough information implemented in CPU-Z, as those CPUs are really rare. https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/media_gxi_166/

Already seen in admin panel, someone tried to submit with one before seeing this thread- added: https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_9_4900hs/

It was added yesterday too. But you already have seen it...

Just in case: https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/ga_6ox/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/ga_6oxc/

Link to vendor page? Or picture of board?

Yeah I actually meant that there are two chips with the same name with different specs but only one category can be created in the db for the reason already mentioned here. This results in the fact that some specs of this entry are always wrong. See that 35W vs 59W issue. So better just to list the common ones (IMO) Ideally we could create an entry for both in the db, but later have a unified ranking. Maybe something for the devs (would help with the rebranded stuff a LOT, also de-uglyfy some category names).

https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/6326_pci/

Dont know what it was before but according to CPU-World there is also a 35W version of that CPU: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Sempron 64 3000%2B - SDD3000IAA3CN (SDD3000CNBOX).html But it doesnt matter anyway.

There is an official product site which also states z3700 Series: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/de/de/ark/products/81071/intel-celeron-processor-n2830-1m-cache-up-to-2-41-ghz.html But I never encountered this product name before. And the last GPU-Z screenshots Ive seen named it "HD Graphics". So do you have any screenshots of programs showing you something else? As you already said https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/hd_graphics_mobile_bay_trail/ is the correct category.

Nice one: https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/aquanta_hs6_10140/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/nvs_5100m/ Thread doesn't actually matter. Its just I didn't saw the requests in the other thread for some reason.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/b450m_s2h/