Strunkenbold

That's great, thx!

Shouldnt this score then get completely removed? As the third doesnt get the points for his actual 2nd place, or is this just a bug?

Back in the days without any wrapper we used prioaff.exe tool to manually assign on which cores AQ3 should run. Genie, would that be hard to implement? There are some OS's outthere where you need to run the bench on atleast 2 cores before full performance is achieved.

I tried to tweak a little bit but I dont even come close to Hondacity... 6:35:407 is all I got.. Oh, and eng.ahmedhelal's run is at 5300Mhz

Try to run on all cores. AM3 shows huge bumps in performance running with at least 2 cores. Im missing some kind of checkbox window, where I can select on which cores I want to run the bench.

Ok I see that things probably becomes complicated. Still, apart from clockrates its same hardware. Maybe we can add a description somewhere?

yeah but shouldnt mods handle older results based on cpu and device id? When once everything is sorted, new submissions should get correct category by users.

Device ID would work, although it doesnt look that good. Wouldnt exact GPU-Z name not enough? And better take some days vacation.

This will be a more complicated list. Good would be a consistent name scheming but GPU-Z doesnt do us this favor. Maybe some things to discuss before we start: Probably merge of 82852 and 82855 category to 82852/82855 GM/GME as GPU-Z doesnt distinguish between those two anyway. Same for GMA 4500, X4500, X4500HD to GMA 4500 (B43, G41, G43, G45, Q43, Q45) and GMA 4500M and 4500MHD to GMA 4500MHD (GL40, GS40, GS45, GM45) There are different chipsets but gpu core is the same. Also doesnt we always enter the codename as Core? Currently there are mostly the chipset names.

IMHO, creating too much categorys for the same hardware aren't the way to go. Its like example with IS7 mobos. I would rather see them merged. So e.g. GMA HD (Sandy Bridge) and GMA HD 2000 should stay one section. I had one proposal for a more elegant solution. What about make something like a symbolic link between these categorys? Lets say we create a section for GMA HD (Sandy Bridge) Corename GT1 and GMA HD 2000 Corename GT2, but instead of having a ranking for each section alone we would unite these. So both GPUs would appear in one ranking sharing points and cups. This would have the advantage that we could keep exact names, so users wouldn't get irritated and submit to wrong categorys. I try to compile a list: HD Graphics (Clarkdale) Mobile HD Graphics (Arrandale) HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) --> HD Graphics 2000 Mobile HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) HD Graphics 3000 --> HD Graphics P3000 Mobile HD Graphics 3000 HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) --> HD Graphics 2500 Mobile HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) HD Graphics 4000 --> HD Graphics P4000 Mobile HD Graphics 4000 I think this would be a good choice, just to keep a consistent name scheming. Also as per wiki the Codename of the GPU (both desktop and mobile) is Ironlake. GPU-Z seems to report things incorrectly.

monthly bump...

It astonishes me that you say something like that after 4 pages of discussion. Right now your arguments are: Mobile and Desktop CPUs feature the same gpu in any aspects so no new extra separated sections. Also Intel says that there are no differences. If we handle things like that Im fine with it. But as I saw in the database we create categorys in another manner: -same chip different socket --> new section -same chip but gpu-z/cpu-z reports different code name --> new section Some examples: -Thunderbirds and also Coppermine CPUs where available for Slot and Socket systems ---> why extra category? Arent they same chips? The user could always choose the more advanced Socket Mobos, no one would even bother running a Slot system. -Intel GMA 950 has a code name for mobile and desktop variants, but where is technically the difference between those? Aside clockrates, nothing! Im sure, just write Intel an email and ask... So my conclusion is: Mobile Sandy Bridge and Clarkdale chips should get their own section, desktop and mobile have the same codename but from what we learned now, Intel gives out Codenames like they want. It has nothing todo with technical differences. But what we know is that every socket brings new boards, new cpu's and other aspects that make these not 1:1 comparable. I mean we have e.g. categorys for Abit IS7, IS7-E and IS7-G. We award points for what? One has a extra raid controller? And we make such a fuss about creating a category where you can actually measure performance differences? Aside from that, I had to report 10+ submissions to clean the GMA HD (mobile) section again. And this in only 3 months!

Are there any news here? Is there atleast a suggestion?

bump. Please add Callisto and Heka to the list. These are all Denebs with just one deactivated core. And these were Highend chips because they were all BEs. When you allow Athlon II budget cpu's with deactivated cache, you should also allow cpu's with deactivated cores. At least this is what makes sense to me....

I need this RAM! nice job!

I was referring to this: Or am I wrong here?

I think I saw some bug fixed in the release notes which could affect this. Could you try again?

Impressive cpu

Source???

Thx, this is indeed very lucky. Best out of 5 chips. The other one's cant even do 3 GHz.... @ObscureParadox No just WinXp, there shouldnt be much difference between those two anyway... Oh and sorry, I just didnt read this earlier.

Wish I had a cpu like this. Absolutely outstanding result. Ram freq is just crazy on this platform....

Dont know if this has reported before, but anyway it should be a quick one. On every benchmark page (like wprime 32) with "Overclock record overview", the displayed position of the personal best is the position of the user in the specific hardware ranking not in the global ranking.

Congrats on result! But according to the new rules you need to display result.txt and picture of storage. So please resubmit. thx!

Ongoing discussion? Something to add. As you added earlier today a K6-2+ 400, we might want to add the whole product line. #1 the link you posted for the k6-2+ 400 doesnt work, it leads to the normal, non plus version #2 Rename K6-2 570Mhz to K6-2+ 570Mhz #3 add K6-2+ 350Mhz #4 add K6-2+ 475Mhz #5 add K6-III 333Mhz #6 add K6-III 350Mhz #7 add k6-III 366Mhz #8 add k6-III 380Mhz #9 add k6-III 433Mhz #10 add k6-III+ 366Mhz #11 add k6-III+ 475Mhz #12 add k6-III+ 500Mhz #13 add k6-III+ 550Mhz #14 rename all K6-3 cpu's to K6-III #15 rename all K6 cpu's from "mhz" to "Mhz" more info: http://www.amd-k6.com/cpu-specs/

I guess the bot does automatically removing the zero... Would be different if he scored 27.08 and fills in 27.8 then he actually gave time away.... Is there any reason why you dont fill in 27.78 according to your screenshot? edit: nevermind bobnova already said everything...