Strunkenbold
-
Posts
2209 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
39
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Strunkenbold
-
-
Ticket ID: 1747
Priority: Low
http://www.jetway.com.tw/jw/ipcboard_view.asp?productid=801&proname=NF98-QM57-LF\r\n\r\nCPU-Z validation available if needed, but no informations in it just \"to be filled by O.E.M.\"
-
The new global points algorithm doesnt apply to 5x cores, 1st still gets 60 points but there arent even 40 submissions.
-
Perhaps you misunderstood the reason I posted it, because I think its excellent that a dual core without a K designation can grab 60 globals. Is it so hard to see the progression from someone who has that dual core Ivy, wants to check out what HWBOT is all about, finds out his overclock is pretty good, moves onto other/better hardware because he is hooked by the fact he got some initial, first contact joy from his score?
+1
Grab an 960T, unlock it, make scores, have fun. Same goes probably to this i3 setup. These are really affordable possibilities in entering OC and getting actually some points.
Ofcourse getting 60 globals in superpi is a much harder job but we really take out diversity of the competition. Who will will fire up 4 Opterons for 10 points?
I just want to say dont make the bot too strict, too exact. Let mutliple ways to accomplish things.
I guess we cant change this now anyway as the patch seems to be about to be applied. So this was just my 2cents....
-
Ive compiled now a list for Sandy Bridge / Ivy Bridge and Haswell
These should be simple and accurate enough.
As performance also mainly depends from L3 Cache of CPU, categorys could be even more diverse to be 100% fair
-
Last attempt on this...
Desktop:
Model, Core
HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), GT1 Sandy Bridge
HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), GT1 Ivy Bridge
HD Graphics 2000, GT1 Sandy Bridge
HD Graphics 2500, GT1 Ivy Bridge
HD Graphics 3000 6Mb L3, GT2 Sandy Bridge //deviceid 0112, i5 2500k//
HD Graphics 3000, GT2+ Sandy Bridge //deviceid 0122//
HD Graphics 4000, GT2 Ivy Bridge
Server:
Model, Core
HD Graphics P3000, GT2 Sandy Bridge
HD Graphics P4000, GT2 Ivy Bridge
Mobile:
Model, Core
Mobile HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), GT1 Sandy Bridge
Mobile HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), GT1 Ivy Bridge
Mobile HD Graphics 3000 3Mb L3, GT2 Sandy Bridge //deviceid 0116, i3 and i5//
Mobile HD Graphics 3000, GT2+ Sandy Bridge //deviceid 0126, i7//
Mobile HD Graphics 4000, GT2 Ivy Bridge
-
Desktop:
Model, Core
HD Graphics (Haswell), GT1 Haswell //will be probably in Celerons, already exists in one server cpu//
HD Graphics 4600, GT2 Haswell
Iris Pro 5200 graphics, GT3e
Server:
Model, Core
HD Graphics P4600, GT2 Haswell
Mobile:
Model, Core
Mobile HD Graphics (Haswell), GT1 Haswell //will be probably in Celerons//
Mobile HD Graphics 4200, GT2 Haswell
Mobile HD Graphics 4400, GT2 Haswell
Mobile HD Graphics 4600, GT2 Haswell
Mobile HD Graphics 5000, GT3 Haswell
Mobile Iris 5100 graphics, GT3 Haswell
Mobile Iris Pro 5200 graphics, GT3e
I like the idea of consistent name scheming, although HD 4200, 4400, 5000 and 5100 have no desktop counterpart (yet).
-
For me it seems as if you simply like to act as kind of "hwbot cop", reporting tons of submissions just because you're not happy with the definitions of certain categories.
One more word to this; Im absolutely right to report subs if their are in the wrong categorys. As I knew that categorys arent correct I started this thread to make everyone aware of that. Im not a mod, I dont work for HWBot. So if you dont like the current situation, start bugging the mods instead of me. Maybe you have more luck.
-
Ok right, I changed my mind for a little time during this discussion. First I wanted to separate everything in mobile and desktop. Cause from my point, only this would be the only way to guarantee a fair competition. At this time I guessed everyone would understand aswell. Than people popped up and said same chip on desktop and mobile = one category.
I began thinking about again. As everything I said seemed to be superseded by arguments from the mods. At this time I already thought I fight against windmills. See my thread here. I guess this is the only thread that Turrican ever ignored completely....
So what to do now? I started to report subs as I thought I would gain attraction for this thread. Maybe other users start to discuss. Ofcourse nothing happend, besides other users started to report my subs (the usual game)...
And yes, your absolutely right reporting subs without correct categorys is a waste of time.
I waited and waited -again nothing happened.Ive been already reporting some of these but there are many and I hope that a result moderator can go through all of these.So that was the point I said lets just have the mods their way.
I reported everything what shouldnt be there as I was basically done with this topic. I had never imagined that we had to start such an epic discussion just to create some hw categorys.
Still, in post #32 I made a last attempt laying down all the facts I know and to my honest surprise it was successful.
I think that one that you dont get is that I if we want to make things 100% exactly, we have to create lots of categorys. I tried to explain this in post #34. Splitting Desktop and Mobile? Ofcourse! But also split HD Graphics and HD Graphics 2000? Its same hardware, on the same socket with the same possibility to alter clock speeds. The chip is 1000% exactly the same. I said lets find a more elegant solution...
But as Christian said this could irritate.
I wanted to finish a list but still waiting for answer to post #39.
-
Thx for confirm. Seems to be still not fixed...
-
Did you actually red the whole thread? I guess you didnt. Cause else you wouldnt have come to the conclusion that I want to mix desktop and mobile counterparts in one category.
Actually I "fight" for over 5 pages now to alter _exactly_ this situation!
Dont know whats the current situation now. Whats the next step Mr. Ney?
-
Somehow the links in the "Hardware Details" of any submission arent working anymore. Tested with Chrome and IE.
Anyone else, or its just me?
-
Oh thx! Im not on XS so I missed that thread.
-
Incredible result! Nice to see some AMD superpi performance.
It seems Im the only one who dont knows the app "The Plow of Bulldozer"? I cant imagine a 2-3sec increasement in sp1m by just manually alter some pstates so it must be the app, or whatever kind of magic you apply here...
...and why did the little bulldozer lost its plow? Sorry for asking Im just curios
-
impossible on air, must be bugged...
-
Another crazy result, didnt want to know how much time you spend on voltage tweaking to receive such an high htt...
-
Outstanding... What chips? Winbond?
-
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?
-
Im missing some kind of checkbox window, where I can select on which cores I want to run the bench.
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.
-
Hum, I will ask if such a thing is possible without the need of extra coding time.
But I think it will mess up things like this, because people will report scores like: hey this is GT1 ranking and not GT2 and I don't want mods explaining over and over how/what/why.
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.
-
Maybe I have an idea to make it even more easier for both members and moderators: Device ID
Yaye, 3'308 results to moderate, it will be fun
Device ID would work, although it doesnt look that good. Wouldnt exact GPU-Z name not enough?
And better take some days vacation.
Feature requests : mobile core iX hw db fixes
in Support
Posted
Ticket ID: 1748
Priority: Low
Move:\r\nIntel Core i3 330M\r\nIntel Core i3 350M\r\nIntel Core i3 370M\r\nIntel Core i3 380M\r\nIntel Core i5 450M\r\nIntel Core i5 460M\r\nIntel Core i5 480M\r\nIntel Core i5 540M\r\nIntel Core i5 560M\r\nIntel Core i5 580M\r\nIntel Core i7 620M\r\nIntel Core i7 640M\r\nIntel Pentium P6000\r\nIntel Pentium P6100\r\nIntel Pentium P6200\r\nfrom socket 1156 to socket 989. Source\r\nOptional: Rename socket 989 to 988A, though CPU-Z reports different here it should be more correct.\r\n\r\nPlease add CPU:\r\nIntel Celeron P4500, source\r\nIntel Pentium P6300 source\r\n\r\nNext move;\r\nCore i3 330UM\r\nCore i5 U470\r\nCore i7 620UM\r\nCore i7 640UM\r\nCore i7 660UM\r\nfrom socket 1156 to bga 1288 source\r\nAlso move,\r\nCore i3 380M\r\nfrom socket 989 to bga 1288\r\n\r\nAdd CPU:\r\nIntel Core i3 330E\r\nIntel Celeron 4505\r\nIntel Core i5 430UM\r\nIntel Core i5 560UM\r\nIntel Core i5 520E\r\nIntel Core i5 520UM\r\nIntel Core i5 540UM\r\nIntel Core i5 560UM\r\nIntel Core i7 610E\r\nIntel Core i7 620LE\r\nIntel Core i7 620UE\r\nIntel Core i7 640LM\r\nIntel Core i7 660LM\r\nIntel Core i7 660UE\r\nIntel Core i7 680UM