Strunkenbold

A rule of this years old school competition was to show the CPU with the used motherboard because there are lot of CPU pictures in the internet. So those pictures become a little bit more unique. Slot A CPUs also have a sticker on the backside of the PCB. Even though I currently dont remember if its about the core or the model name or both.

For me it was always important what the community thinks. Hwbot lost a lot of users. For instance my whole team is not active anymore. The feedback I got was mostly around everything is getting too complicated. Ranking, rules, hardware categories. Everything gained too much levels of complexity and in the end its no fun anymore. Now, while you can't make everyone happy, you also gain nothing if you spend time on an website which has no users anymore. And since its a dance between correctness and happy users you have to listen what the people say. The last feedback I got was because of splitting 9800 GT category which I heard made many people upset but none of those said something as they were already too frustrated of the whole situation. Of course I was thinking about if that was worth the trouble, if it was worth the thing to upset people. Back then I believed it was necessary to keep a fair competition alive and was somehow logical as the rest of hardware db had the same scheme to separate categories also by Shader count. Since you are one of those which were affected Im actually quite surprised by your statement. While its very important to know for me if the community still in favor of my work, there are also some other points which made me decide to leave. Most important its my family. I just cant spend so much time anymore for hwbot. And the other thing is the question how does the development of hwbot evolve. In the moment I see just to many bugs and no indication that something will change. I wait for a response from Frederik and how he visualizes the future of the bot. And if there is a reasonable plan, count me in again. Even just for some light tasks. About Order: Those are very good suggestions. And now thats why I think this will not happen: Over the last years I made the experience that even if you say there is a broken link, there is bug on the website, there are duplicate categories in the db, there is no one who fix your reported stuff. Or it takes months up to years (Im not exaggerating). On top of that I think this needs some kind of coordination. Someone who assigns tasks like PJ did before he left. But that would usually need someone who works full time for the bot. And I guess the bot raises just enough funds to keep itself running. Its not like the bot could pay someones salary. That leaves two options. Either Frederik agrees to work at least one day in the week for the bot just to do the maintenance work, fixing small bugs, makes additions to the db which I cant do, talks to the team makes suggestions to important topics and and and... Or as this will not happen, theres only the possibility to distribute the work to more people. Which would mean someone is moderating competitions, one or two deal with the reported stuff, one for the hardware db and one who has some control over the website and post news can edit the rules etc. About Democracy: I know the bot made many people unhappy because of decisions which discussed somewhere in the forum and where never announced in the news. I guess thats why some people lost the confidence in this website. And I absolutely agree on this. But I wonder how should democracy work for this website? I remember we had polls. I remember the majority was always about to give more points, more benchmarks, equal points for same positions,... But there were very good arguments against. Yet always the greedy faction won. I think its good to hear different opinions. And the decision should be made on those opinions, but in the end stuff decides. Because they need to run this service. Thats absolutely true. The question is always to what degree we accept submissions which are flawed. I can accept when the CPU-Z memory tab is missing for a score which is somewhere in the middle of a ranking. But when I think of those Win10 results, I really begin to ponder what the best approach would be. Either let every submission in the ranking which doesnt look suspicious. But then, arent we de facto allow Win10? Doesn't we punish user who read the rules, especially because Win10 performs better than Win7 in some benchmarks? Or be strict and remove anything, causing many frustrated users. And when we dont remove Win10 results we make the people angry who obeyed the rules. If we would decide to let those Win10 results in the rankings because 90% of them are probably correct, how do we distinguish a tweaked run from a RTC bugged run? In my opinion, this is the door to meaningless rankings. Given that Win10 becomes more and more the standard OS in the world I guess that many users must be frustrated. It is a disaster. But everyday more and more of those results come in. And I dont think that the users actually even think of that there could be something wrong with their result. How many do really look in the rules. And even if they do, they see there is someone else having a result with Win10 for two years in the ranking, so it must look like the situation has changed and things are allowed now. In my opinion users need to get warned, they need to get aware of the situation. But that doesnt happen. I talked about this problem in our internal forums to no avail. It is just really frustrating. This was a common thing I heard from some people. First announce changes and then, let people discuss. I must admit, I really underestimated that the removal of those results would cause such a misunderstanding. I really thought that things would be clear. Instead I think many people are confused. But probably discussion is needed to help people understand the issue. So I think it should be a common thing to announce every change in the news section of the website. Its just too bad that we lost our news writer and no one from the team has access to the news section of the website. The only exception is Frederik but since he variously visits the forums, the time when such an article could be published could range from one day to several months. And thats just way too unreliable. However its not only hard to publish those announcements its also hard to actually write such an article. Sometimes it is just simply hard to explain the decision itself. But given that the result in this particular case wouldnt be any different, I went ahead wrote a small article trying explaining the problem and removed the scores. So maybe this was a tiny bit too hasty. But my feeling from the discussion was that many people didnt really tried to understand the problem. Instead they tried to convince me that their result wasnt affected by the bug or tried to express how evil the bot has become. Which doesnt matter at all in this case. So in my opinion those discussions will always end up the same. Its just about "please dont remove my points". And probably all good suggestions end up with much more work for the mods. And thats the reason I say we can do this, we can announce decisions and give time to talk but people should understand that for the most cases the decision was already made for good reasons. Id like to thank you all for your kind words.

Okay guys I restored now all of your results because its simply not worth it to discuss this any further. If you would provide a minimum amount of fairness: Please write down your actual FSB / multiplier combination in the comments section and correct your score accordingly. If you dont know it anymore, please be honest and delete your score. If you dont, its also okay as whole result db is already a mess with or without those scores doesnt matter anymore. BTW, as these were almost _all_ Air or Water based results (except one SS) despite someone claiming Dice and LN2 in the time you write lengthy essays, contact your lawyers (zu viel Tagesfreizeit?), try to explain why possibly any CPU-Z result can differ up to 20% on those old systems and explain why no one never faced this bug despite everyone continual claiming how much time they invested on those old systems, you could simply put back your air coolers on that systems and make a new validation with current CPU-Z. Its really funny to see how creative people can get when they need to find excuses. Somehow I feel that you guys miss entirely that it just was just about the CPU frequency scores. Its not like we moderated SuperPI scores or something despite these scores also show wrong frequencies. Or in other words these were 'just' 37 submissions with old hardware which you can get for free from scrapyard or for very little money on ebay. Of course I know its still hard work and its not a great feeling when this work disappears over night. But what really makes me thinking is the fact that some of you still dont understand that this is something which needs to be done to provide a fair competition. But everyone just look what he looses. No one sees what the community gains by clean rankings which can be trusted. About the screenshot issue: If you would mind to take a look at rules section of the Cinebench benchmarks, you see an example image how your result screen has to look like. And there you see that the render scene is always completely visible. Thats the red line around the CB window btw. So this is no new rule. The only thing which changed was the way how we enforced this rule. In the past we just approved those scores despite we knew that they were actually against the rules. After it came to our attention that some people altered the rendered scene we changed our behavior and moderated all submissions with overlapping windows or similar. Because we dont have the men force anymore to reproduce suspicious results, we are stricter now for good reason. Old subs stay in as we dont have the time to went through every category and clean results but if we are in doubt about the correctness of a score we moderate it too without thinking too long. Because you agreed to the rules, it is your duty to obey them. Edit: In fact it seems Christian Ney changed the example screenshots in February last year. I have to admit that there wasnt any news about this which is shame. On the other hand this rule is now over one year old. Actually time enough. To quote our general rules: So clear speaking we have the right to approve your submission. But its not that you have the right to say we must. This is not democracy, we have no democracy on hwbot. Keep in mind that this is a service where you agreed to accept its rules. It is a free service, we don't get any money for this. You _can't_ compare this to a government who needs to care for his citizens. And that is the reason why we need to make decisions which no one likes but are essential to keep this service running. As I said already before we are a very small team and need to take for thousands of submissions and its hard to keep up just with the reported stuff and competitions. How do you think this all ends if we need to permanently think about which submission with a verification issue we approve or not approve? Especially all those discussions afterwards "Why do you accept submission from member A and moderated submission from member B". This is just nothing what a free service with a small team is able to provide. I have also big headache just when I think about those numerous issues the bot has. Lots of unresolved smaller and bigger bugs that exists for years, a single developer left that you need to beg just to fix at least the high priority ones if at all, the Windows 8/10 issue where no one found a proper solution yet, cheat apps for benchmarks, bugged benchmarks, users finding bugs and marketing it as a tweak and and and... If there will be ever again a strong team behind hwbot trying to fix those issues, it wont be possible without cleaning the result database, it wont be possible without removing buggy benchmarks, it wont be possible without people loosing points or results, I wont be possible without making some people angry but if it helps to consolidate the bot, it needs to be done. But if its already a problem for such a crystal clear case and such a low amount of subs like this one I see no future for the bot. And that is the reason I retire today from hwbot duty. There is simply no point in spending any more time on this. Id like to thank all the guys who have the understanding how a community works and how its necessary that the rankings arent a chaos and stay meaningful. I would advice the wise guys to write an application to Alby for volunteering as HWBot admin. After all those years I'm out, sincerely yours, Gregor

Yes its really a shame. Its a shame that this bug could last for 4 years without anyone, except me, contacting CPU-Z authors. Its a shame that nobody stands up when he faces those bugs. You guys say all the time how experienced you are with old hardware. Yet when boot screen says 280 MHz and CPU-Z says 300 MHz you keep calm because its an advantage for you. As you are all so "experienced" you dont think its strange when you set an FSB of 124 but CPU-Z says 100. You dont think its something wrong when old Pentium MMX CPUs have high multipliers? You open AIDA and CPU speed differs, you dont wonder why? I really wonder how I could spot this problem with my "non-existing competence". What a shame for you. And thats the real problem. You guys have the experience with those old platforms. So none of you can tell me that you didnt stumbled about this problem in the past. Yet none of you started a thread here in the forums or contacted CPU-Z. There are and there will be always software bugs. You have to understand that it is your responsibility as community to help to fix those bugs. But you just did nothing. A now you are starting a rant why hwbot is so evil because we removed those subs. How could we dare without asking you? It makes me sad that some of you fail to see the bigger picture. Its not that I had fun when I removed those submissions. It makes work. You have to understand that results which cant be trusted because of a known software bug cant stay in the ranking even if it was made with motherboards stock clocks. It also makes no sense to ask for further proof as the rules ask for a CPU-Z validation. They dont ask for an AIDA screenshot. So no trusty CPU-Z validation no score. Period. I cant tell how Turrican would handle things. I just want to say that in the last years many things have changed. I just say Windows 10, EVGA SR-2 timer bugs and we currently face a lot of similar issues with buggy benchmarks. And sadly a lot of users who thought they found a "tweak" while it was just bug using. Your reactions is making me really sad and I don't know what it justifies to spend a lot of time in such a toxic environment. This makes me understand why the whole moderation team is basically gone.

I dont know why you are thinking that you are not affected by this bug? Your link says that you were running this CPU with 124x4 resulting in 496Mhz. Yet your score on hwbot is 500Mhz with multiplier of 5 (correct me if Im wrong but this multiplier is not possible with this CPU). Now just think about someone who tries to beat your score with the current (bug free) CPU-Z version. If he just do the same like you did (124x4) = 496Mhz he would be always second place. Yet he scored actually the same. Wouldn't he deserve to share the first place in the ranking with you? I would really recommend to read twice the quotes of Antinomy. He perfectly describes how changing the FSB can result in bugged scores. The variance between the actual clock speed can be 0.5 MHz up to 40 MHz. In any case its bugged. And as I dont have the possibility to check what your actual speed was, the scores got removed.

There where some subs from old school competition which needed to be removed but those werent final scores. Thank you for your offer, we need every help we can get.

Its added. The manufacturer page is just not working due website problems.

We unfortunately encountered a CPU-Z bug beginning from version 1.69 which was released on March 19th, 2014 until version 1.84 which was released March 20th, 2018. Basically the detection mechanism of CPU-Z for old Socket 5/7 Pentium's, Cyrix, Winchip, K6 CPU's was broken and produced wrong results. Antinomy digged a little bit deeper, so here is what he found out: I experienced this bug already 3 years ago and reported it to the CPU-Z bug thread here in the forums. When I checked results for the Old School is Best School competition I stumbled about the problem again, so unfortunate the bug wasn't been fixed in the last years. I contacted Frank Delattre from CPU-Z and he finally fixed the bug. One minor disadvantage is that we have now no longer FSB detection on these old chips. If you want to submit Motherboard frequency results, you have to use at least a K6-2 from now on. I went through our db and saw some results which are affected by this bug. Too keep the integrity of our db, I will remove the following submissions: http://hwbot.org/submission/2951225_chentinox_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_75_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2965665_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_75_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2965715_trodas_cpu_frequency_k5_pr75_75_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2970113_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_82.5_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2969709_trodas_cpu_frequency_k5_pr75_82.5_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2963206_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_90_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2965660_trodas_cpu_frequency_k5_pr75_90_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2983806_marquzz_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_99_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3389115_stingeryar_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_99_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2964194_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_99_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2950923_deadthings_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_100_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2953470_deadthings_cpu_frequency_k5_pr166_100_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3017463_michaelnm_cpu_frequency_k5_pr133_110_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2962672_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_112.5_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2933960_johan45_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_166mhz_120_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3635152_remarc_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_125_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2970031_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_90mhz_125_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3689830_iphone_bomgi_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_132_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2925263_mr.paco_cpu_frequency_k6_233mhz_(model_6)_132_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3686726_omega_man_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_132_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3635045_remarc_cpu_frequency_pentium_100mhz_150_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3688388_omega_man_cpu_frequency_pentium_133mhz_198_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3688332_omega_man_cpu_frequency_pentium_120mhz_198_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3635048_remarc_cpu_frequency_pentium_133mhz_210_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3016927_trodas_cpu_frequency_pentium_overdrive_mmx_200mhz_225_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3372942_max1024_cpu_frequency_2x_pentium_mmx_233mhz_231_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3764884_kotori_cpu_frequency_pentium_166mhz_250_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3801697_macsbeach98_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_166mhz_250_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2508087_antinomy_cpu_frequency_winchip_2_240_250.12_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3339373_max1024_cpu_frequency_embedded_pentium_mmx_266mhz_264_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3797837_jurin1388_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_200mhz_297_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3340202_max1024_cpu_frequency_embedded_pentium_mmx_266mhz_297_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3787426_griff_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_166mhz_300_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3802171_macsbeach98_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_166mhz_300_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3789220_macsbeach98_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_233mhz_300_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3794507_hyve_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_233mhz_330_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/2931993_mr.paco_cpu_frequency_6x86mx_pr300_332_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3399763_michaelnm_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_166mhz_350_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3331215_max1024_cpu_frequency_pentium_mmx_233mhz_350_mhz http://hwbot.org/submission/3457688_max1024_cpu_frequency_embedded_pentium_mmx_266mhz_500_mhz I know that some of these score are perfectly valid, CPU frequency wise. But keep in mind that we are a small team and I we dont have time to discuss every single result. If a result cant be trusted, it will be removed. It took 4 years to fix this bug and another half year to clean the db.

http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/68852e1/

Some of you may already noticed that for some sockets the possibility to submit with more than one CPU disappeared. The background is that we had a lot of subs with incorrect core count. Some users probably got confused by the field and thought they have to enter their core count in the first field. Of course our Hardware Database already knows which core count your CPU has (except the maintainer made a mistake), so you dont have to do this. This resulted in dual cores appeared in quad core ranking or quad cores appeared in 16 core ranking. Like a Core i7 4770k entered as 4x was suddenly making a appearance in the sixteen core Global Points ranking for Cinebench R15 and of course, scored a gold cup for the hardware ranking. To solve this we implemented a function to prevent selecting multiple CPUs once you choose a CPU which only works with single socket systems. The only exceptions are sockets like LGA2011, LGA2011-3 which can host single Desktop CPUs as well as Dual Xeons. If you spot such submissions please report. Frederik ran a query to automatically move all wrong results back to their actually meant ranking, which affected almost 10k results. Unfortunately due to a bug not all subs got catched. I still see a lot of XTU results appearing in the wrong ranking. But I think its still a step in the right direction.

Well GPUDB have this card too: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/3011/geforce-gts-450-oem Maybe Chinese but as long as the specs get properly detected by GPU-Z all is fine. http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gts_450_gf106_144_shaders_128bit/

Whats the real name of this board?

http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/0g254h/ http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/22c1/

Tried writing vendors themselves? Once I wrote Gigabyte about the same issue and they actually repaired my board for free. Great service from them.

I could finally fix this. Thanks richbastard for finding the bug and fixing it.

Quick look at the submissions, all good. Added the Biostar M6VCG which was Jurin using to the db. In future- please drop a message in support section! And somehow we have the MSI 694D / MS-6321 duplicated in the db. Looking forward for next years round.

We already had a discussion before and in the end, I changed the name to whats written on CPU World. Im not very happy with that though as CPU-Z doesnt detect them properly and users now will have a hard time to find the exact category. But I really wonder what this stage is all about. If its planed as quad core competition, unlocked Zosma will destroy this.

Ah okay, didnt knew that. IMO this doesnt change anything. We still need to stay consistent. Either we allow all platforms on Win10 or we dont.

I cant imagine it will be much different from other AMD platforms... RTC timer, see discussion in the other thread. IMO not very bulletproof, easily cheatable, yet another requirement for a valid screenshot and the question how long should the timer run and what we accept as tolerance. --> in other words way too complicated for what a small moderation team can handle and not safe either. As those monster can run on Win7 too, all Win10 results need to get moderated. But well the chaos is already there. I really give up on this.

Can those monsters boot Windows 7?

Sure here it is: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/x299_dark_151_sx_e299_kr/ Just for the next time, please fill you requests in the Support section.

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/kirin_658/ http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/kirin_659/

http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/kn8_ultra/

You can do this yourself, just enter the cursor in name of the CPU and the other (hidden) fields appear.

QX9775 will also be allowed. But I don't think that matters much.