Strunkenbold

Wow, that's very unique someone creates linux tools. Gonna try this out in some weeks once I build my new system.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/p4p8t/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/meg_x570_unify_ms_7c35/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/meg_x299_creation/

I did a mistake configuring your SoC only as single core, instead of octa. That's now fixed. But thats just one part of the story. The other problem is, that mobile stuff isnt maintained anymore. There are many bugs and no one is fixing those for years. Maybe things get better in the future, but for now I dont waste time on this. And thats also the reason I dont add devices anymore.

Can you share some details, maybe have a picture of the CPU? These were never retail available. Just want to avoid adding something which never really existed.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/mali_g76_mp10/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/kirin_980/

It wasnt me who added it but both are for some time now in the db: https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/snapdragon_855/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/adreno_640/

all added

Feel free to submit: https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_threadripper_3990x/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/x570gt8/

All added + all of MSI MAG Series

So we probably need to think about making it mandatory for new platforms and still allow the old method for the old schoolers.

I just thinking of making it as user friendly as possible. So the question stands, is CPU-Z still needed for a valid submission? Benchmate benchmarks have no rules on the page. If required, make the user aware of it. Either by automation or with a message box. In most situations, it's not needed to be "super cautious" about crashes. So the automation would be nice. Why not let user simply deactivate that behavior in the options? In this regard, it would be nice to let the user edit options of CPU-Z.ini in benchmate.

I've just used benchmate for the first time (yeah kinda late) and I'm pretty much amazed of it. Makes things so easier! Just some small things: 1. Isn't still CPU-Z needed for proper verification screen? I might missed the discussion, and I'm sorry if I was decided to not being necessary anymore and I don't know about it, but if its sill needed, do we can launch CPU-Z main & mem tab automatically if the user press "save result"? Right now your system information comes from HWinfo, right? The bot actually relied since the beginning on CPU and GPU-Z and still would find it useful to include them. 2. Make Status "Action needed" a little bit more user friendly At first time I didn't instantly know what to do here now. Turns out I need to right click the result and select "View it on HWbot". I was actually a little surprised that it showed me the submit form and claimed that it wasn't able to find the correct CPU. Maybe we could make this a little more intuitive, like opening the browser automatically, so the user can see whats wrong right away. The problem of unmatched hardware will unfortunately stay, especially for user with new hardware, so this will be a thing for many users. Some background (you probably already know this); there are hardware database entries, which I or someone else usually add to our database and there are name strings coming from external programs like yours communicating to hwbot. Because there was some serious problems with hwbot prime, automatic matching strings and db entries got deactivated. But now the problem is, that we need to do this manually. Unfortunately, I guess no one touched this for over one year and now we have over 900 unmatched CPUs, 250 GPUs, 7000 motherboards and almost 10k mobile phones or other small devices. I'm currently in the process of adding a lot new stuff to db but as always time is the limiting factor. 3. CPU affinity for selected cores You can set either to one core of your choice or all cores. But it would be neat to make it possible to select 2 cores of 4 for instance. 4. Screenshots Especially on old systems, jpg is sometimes too much for a system running on the edge. I've seen it more than enough that a system finished SuperPi but failed to save the screenshot. I mean you could bench, downclock to safe values and try again but maybe you could give the user a choice to configure that? Something like an ultra low resource mode. Overall I'm extremely happy with what you created and looking forward that this will be our one and only tool for submitting subs to the bot. I probably need to test this with old systems, btw. does this tool work with Win2000 or 98 ? If so, could you integrate that new oldschool CPU-Z?

Sorry, actually missed your request in the thread. https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/6x86l_pr200_plus/

Done

This should be now fixed. Also added other MSI MPG boards.

Have to add all Comet Lake CPUs, thx to bring this to attention. https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_10210u/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/x299_pro/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/x299_pro_10g/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/creator_x299/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/d2179_r1/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/proliant_dl360_g5/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/ga_ep43_ds3lr/

I'm honestly not really happy with that move. Depending on who you ask, the definition of IGPs are sometimes GPU integrated in the CPU die or / and CPU and GPU die on the same package. So the Polaris GPU is on the same package with the kaby lake CPU. They are connected via a pcie bus, but it shouldn't be too surprising that they don't use something super fancy given the fact that a Intel part talks to an AMD part. Anyway I remember clarkdale having a GPU and CPU die. They were on the same package. Would anyone argue that it's not an IGP? So I fail to see what makes the difference here. Of course those parts are much faster than all before existing IGPs. But that can't be the criteria, right? If you agree, I would move them back to integrated and disallow the usage in this stage.

It's good to have this clear now, before someone makes a sad face at the end of the comp.

I red now through the 8 pages of the design thread. Yeah, you didn't really receive any answer to your question. So I think the intention was, to only allow non eDRAM devices. I guess Alby wanted to see a high megahertz competition between different gens of k processors, and he especially wants to see some haswell action. So that's why, no broadwell allowed because they share the same socket 1150. But Intel integrated stuff is really complicated, having tons of different IGPs with strange names and CPU sockets. I remember the the i7 4770R, which is by definition of intel a desktop CPU, but bga and quite rare and expensive. I think properly tuned this can maybe eliminate the need of a ivy bridge score. And also other high end iris plus laptop parts could possibly see an advantage over ivy. It all depends on how much you can push ivy IGP under LN2. Back to my initial question, based on my theory above, the Chinese CPU creations aren't allowed in the comp, correct?

Got a link to this discussion?

I ordered such a CPU earlier this year, cause I have friend working in China, and luckily received a non ES one. Granted half of those ordered CPUs are ES chips.