Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Strunkenbold

Crew
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2209

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Strunkenbold

    A7N8X-E Deluxe as an alternative for socket 462

    in Mainboards

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Tzk said:

    However even Infineon made D Revision Chips (DE-5) which are quite unknown. Same as Samsung ZCCC (BGA) or Qimonda CF-5 (also BGA).

    They are rare but actually you can still find them today on ebay. AFAIR my DE-5 stick was better than all my CE-5s but nothing too phenomenal. Also I've never tested the single Qimonda DF-5 I own, can't even tell if it is working but also never saw one again, so these are actually ultra rare. I also guess those revisions, at least for Infineon, means a die shrink. 

    Samsungs also had different revisions. Most, if not all TCCD are rev F. from 2004. But honestly dont know much about them. ZCCC can also be at least Rev F. However, I dont know how they overclock.

    PLEASE ADD OTHER HARDWARE THREAD:

    in Support

    Posted

    On 7/20/2020 at 10:14 PM, Sir_Nobs_of_rone_II. said:

    There seems to be a Problem with AMD RX Vega 8 mobile results.

    There are two different igpu.

    One is a raven ridge, the other a Picasso.

    https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_8_mobile/

    For the Picasso igpu there is no possibility to upload it in a different thread.

    The raven ridge thread is totally mixed.

    Screenshot_20200720_215836_org.mozilla.firefox.jpg

    Screenshot_20200720_215759_org.mozilla.firefox.jpg

    No question, they should be separate because we did the same thing with similar hardware. And not even Vega 8 also all other Vega IGPs needs this treatment. I try to add stuff before release but especially those IGPs are somewhat mysterious so I don't know the specs. And even more important is what GPU-Z shows, which I just don't see till someone makes a submission. Unfortunately nobody comes here with his shiny new hardware to request a new category, it's always after we have the problem of moving a couple of some hundred subs. I saw this problem already some months ago but I usually have not the time to spent hours for hwbot and forget about it. Will try to create those categories tomorrow anyway.

    A7N8X-E Deluxe as an alternative for socket 462

    in Mainboards

    Posted · Edited by Strunkenbold

    The problem is that those 4 metal dots on chips side are very common. Also Infineon BT and PowerChip have those metal dots in this arrangement but first one is usually not rated at CL3-4-4 and the later are quite rare chips and afaik nobody did OC them. Hynix however made several revisions of its chips, so OC behavior could improve over time because of better manufacturing process. If the GEIL were late produced, maybe you are just lucky. :)

    It's actually not quite correct to speak of "D43" as its just the speed bin. The actual chip depends on chip density and revision. Anyway this is most likely a Hynix 512Mbit late Revision D4 IC. D4=CL3-4-4 DDR400.

    I think when the party with DDR ram was over, because of the appearance of DDR2, interesting ICs appeared on the market but little is known about their OC potential. Even though I dont think there is still a chip out there which would be able to beat TCCD or BH to be OC relevant. But its an interesting field nonetheless as new DDR1 ICs were engineered till 2010. For example the successor of Infineon CE, the DE IC was available in 2008. Also Qimonda DF BGA ICs were introduced in 2009 and I saw results from someone with CF-5 already reaching DDR-600... You can find basically nothing about ELPIDA or Powerchip but who knows if a late revision of them is something interesting for us. ;)

    Also Elixir is something like Kingston, they don't have their own chip design or even a fab. They just buy untested chips and place them on a pcb. Most Elixir chips I saw looks like to be Infineon BT. ProMos and Mosel are IMO also Infineon BT. Edit: Later ProMos and Mosel chips should be Elpida as Infineon left the Joint Venture and Elpida jumped in.

    • Thanks 4

    PLEASE ADD OTHER HARDWARE THREAD:

    in Support

    Posted

    On 7/20/2020 at 6:59 PM, moi_kot_lybit_moloko said:

    please add mboards

    SuperPower SP-V586B (VIA VP3, Socket 7) - link

    A-Trend ATC-5220 (VIA MVP3, Socket Super 7) - link

    Lucky Star 5MVP4 (VIA MVP4, Socket Super 7) - link

    Zida Tomatoboard 5SVA (VIA VPX, Socket 7) - link

    PCPartner MVP3BS7-954 (VIA MVP3, Socket Super 7) - link

    Chaintech 5AGM3 (VIA MVP3, Socket Super 7) - link

    Acorp 5sis22 (SiS 5571, Socket 7) - link

    Gigabyte GA-586T2 (Intel 82430 TX, Socket 7) - link

    https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/sp_v586b/

    https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/atc_5220/

    https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/5mvp4/

    https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/5sva/

    https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/mvp3bs7_954/

    https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/5agm3/

    https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/5sis22/

    https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/ga_586t2/

    • Like 1

    PLEASE ADD OTHER HARDWARE THREAD:

    in Support

    Posted

    On 7/15/2020 at 9:12 AM, Strunkenbold said:

    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. 

    Moved all his subs to 3470.

    PLEASE ADD OTHER HARDWARE THREAD:

    in Support

    Posted · Edited by Strunkenbold

    On 7/15/2020 at 7:50 AM, Antinomy said:

    GPU clock says it's 3470.

    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. 

    • Like 1

    A7N8X-E Deluxe as an alternative for socket 462

    in Mainboards

    Posted

    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.

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 6

    PLEASE ADD OTHER HARDWARE THREAD:

    in Support

    Posted

    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? :)

    • Thanks 1

    PLEASE ADD OTHER HARDWARE THREAD:

    in Support

    Posted

    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?

    • Like 1

    PLEASE ADD OTHER HARDWARE THREAD:

    in Support

    Posted

    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. :P

     

    PLEASE ADD MOTHERBOARD THREAD:

    in Support

    Posted

    On 4/19/2020 at 4:39 PM, Omega-man said:

    Video:

    ATI Rage IIc PCI    http://www.vgamuseum.info/index.php/cpu/item/101-ati-rage-iic-pci
    ATI MACH64 VT   http://www.vgamuseum.info/index.php/component/k2/item/93-ati-mach64-vt
    ATI Rage 128GL (128bit)   http://www.vgamuseum.info/index.php/cpu/item/107-ati-rage-128-gl
    CIRRUS LOGIC CL-GD5430    http://www.vgamuseum.info/index.php/cpu/item/139-cirrus-logic-cl-gd5430

    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.

     

    • Thanks 2
×
×
  • Create New...