Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MrGenius

  1. Yes, 10.2. And I already submitted a couple bug reports. Anything more than .02MHz BCLK OC with RTC enabled = QPC Skewed = unable to Save Result. Why is GB 5 gone all the sudden? Like I don't already know why.
  2. Butthurt ridiculousness. Enough is enough. Get over it. So you can execute your little vendetta? You know what? Leave me, and the rest of us out of that. To that I'll add...the more I run BM the more I hate it. Bugs bugs bugs. One gets squashed...another pops up. I'm starting to strongly doubt it will ever work fully as intended. Making your pipe dream of having it be the standard for all HWBOT submissions just that. Might want to get off your high horse...before it bucks you off. Just sayin'... Oh yeah...what I originally came here for. The bugs. It keeps spitting errors about a skewed timer with RTC enabled on W7 and any change in BCLK. So we can't OC with BCLK unless we use HPET? Is that the story...or what?
  3. I'm not saying they aren't interesting. What's ridiculous is to have a competition stage including/requiring them...due to their rarity. Like I said...I doubt any country is going to be able to get a top 5 average score. Which makes stage 8 pointless. Or...even if they do...it makes stage 8 less a benchmarking comp...and more a rare hardware collecting comp. Which is...stupid. To say the least.
  4. Ahhhh...I see. So United States is still missing PCI. Hah...PCI...Hybrid...what a joke! Soooooooo...pretty much NO country is going to be able to get a top 5 average score. Since PCI and Hybrid are ridiculous...
  5. What's the deal with the number of scores for 3DMark06 LEGACY GPU? It says "TOP 5 AVERAGE". But no country has any more than 4 scores yet. And when I subbed my score for United States, which already had 4 scores, it kicked @jpmboy's score off the list. Leaving 4 scores still. So how does a country ever get 5 scores on the list? And...NO...his score was with a GTX 1070 Ti, my score is with an RX Vega 64. So that's not it. This makes no sense. Am I missing something?
  6. Hi. I responded to your comments/questions on my wall. I explained everything in great detail for you. I would appreciate it if you would delete this submission, as it is not a legitimate Creo subtest 11 score. And apparently the mods don't care about that. But I, however, do. Since, as it sits, you are robbing me of my hard-earned 1st place score. Thanks!
  7. Not really. Since there are no official rules for CB20 yet(no requirement to show the fully rendered scene), and it will still render at the same resolution regardless of the screen resolution. So the score will be unaffected.
  8. That score, with that hardware/clocks, makes no sense whatsoever. I have a WAY better GPU(RX Vega 64 1690/1190), faster CPU @ 5.2GHz, faster SSD(560/530), and my best score is ~1000 points less. The only thing you've got on me is 100MHz faster SDRAM(my timings are the same @ 1200MHz). https://hwbot.org/submission/4299957_mrgenius_pcmark_7_core_i7_4790k_8330_marks You got WAY lucky and caught a MASSIVE scoring glitch....or cheated. Either way...those hardware points are mine.
  9. This is not a Creo subtest 11 score. This is a composite Creo test score. Reported.
  10. What? No. This is not a Creo subtest 11 score. Your Creo subtest 11 score was 3.36 FPS. Reported.
  11. Well...I still subscribe to what I was told by @yosarianilives(in the thread linked above). Which effectively equates to it being a "non-unlock" BIOS mod. And, as such, scores should be submitted under the original hardware. I commented as having done so with my RX Vega to Vega FE BIOS Specviewperf 12 Creo subtest 11 score. I did that to let people know how a seemingly impossible score was achieved(you ARE NOT going to score that high with ANY RX Vega with an RX Vega BIOS, not even with LN2). I didn't reveal the entire secret(mainly having used the Radeon Pro drivers). But that's really something that should be inferred(why else would I flash a Vega FE BIOS?). And said BIOS is publicly available(and overclocking with the SoftPowerPlay mod is no big secret either, search and ye shall find). So it's a fair game. And no "double dipping points" was done(not that there's currently any hardware points for that bench anyway...but you get my drift). Also...as far as GPU-Z...with older drivers you can force GPU-Z to show the card name as whatever card you want(via the INF). And with older/moddable BIOSes, you can insert whatever Device ID and/or Subvendor ID you want(plus just about any other thing that GPU-Z will show...if you're crafty enough). Which GPU-Z will incorrectly show too. So, for the most part, GPU-Z can't be trusted. Which is why you should comment about having done so when you submit scores under the original hardware.
  12. Yeah right. I know exactly how all of it works. It's not rocket science. And no, you don't need one of those to do any of it. Need more volts? Wire to the 3.3V or 5V rail. Need more amps? Replace the MOSFETs with better ones. Need better capacitors? Better coils? Replace those too. Trimmers in a box with a fancy digital voltmeter/display. Whoopty do... It's unnecessary because what's already on the board is likely plenty to do whatever you want to do as far as OC the shit out of your RAM. RAM isn't a high power device that needs epower...EVER!!! You're trippin' with that comparison. And even if you needed to replace some MOSFETs or whatever(not likely)...they're a hell of a lot cheaper than that thing I'm sure. Hence why those things never caught on. They're pretty much good for nothing. Meaning they do nothing that can't be done just as easily and/or more cheaply without them. And that's a fact. Or maybe you can point me to an instance of one being used to break some kind of RAM OC record that could never have been achieved without it. I'd love to see that...
  13. Looks like a little dedicated(and pretty much totally unnecessary in most cases) PSU for your RAM. With some built-in volt mods and a digital voltmeter. In other words...nothing...that can't be accomplished without it.
  14. I presume that means fixing GPUPI 3.3.3. Since it is supported by GB. Yet doesn't work with MANY early processors. Like anything IVB or earlier...so far as I can tell. Which I know you know. But don't seem to give a rat's ass about. For some reason... So yeah...I just made the jump to Z97 here recently. Tried 3.3.3 again with that....and what do you know...it does actually work! Who knew? Not I anyway. I coulda swore it was a totally broken POS. 🤨
  15. LMAO!!! Well...like any sane person these days...I have 2 step verification on EVERYTHING that matters. Hackers can go ahead and have my email address and all my passwords if they want. I seriously DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK!!! What are they gonna do? Send me more spam email? Steal my HWBOT account? OH NOES!!! What will I do then?! 😂
  16. Smells like a pile of bullshit to me. I mean...is that all I have to do? Make a thread saying so and so told me HWBOT maybe got hacked...and everybody pushes the PANIC button. I'll remember for later...
  17. Point taken. And for the record...I've come to find out running GB4 compute without BM on W10 gives me a similar +50000 point score(compared to W7). So it's not BM with that at least. Anywho...well...whatever I guess. There's something going on with it and GB4 on 7. Whether that's worth looking at might not have anything to do with supporting GB anymore. Maybe it would provide incite in general. I mean...it's broken pretty bad...whatever it is. EDIT: I appreciate the correct usage of "couldn't care less". Really irks me that no one says that right. "Could care less"? Then DO! Nobody's stopping ya! 🤣
  18. Seems to be something going on with GB4 compute and BM on W7. That is trying to run it with my Vega 64. For some reason it will barely run the compute test @ stock(1663/945). Yet I can run it @ 1700/1200 on W10 with BM. And @ 1735/1215 on W7 without BM. The score with lower clocks and BM on W10 is also RIDICULOUSLY higher. ~50000 more points on W10 with BM and lower clocks? Seriously? Is it that messed up? That doesn't seem right. And not being able to run it overclocked at all on W7 is DEFINITELY not right.
  19. Yes, rebooted afterwards. Here's that... Windows Boot Manager -------------------- identifier {bootmgr} device partition=D: description Windows Boot Manager locale en-US inherit {globalsettings} default {current} resumeobject {65541ec8-d19b-11e9-bd1b-d40162ba09a9} displayorder {ntldr} {current} toolsdisplayorder {memdiag} timeout 5 Windows Legacy OS Loader ------------------------ identifier {ntldr} device partition=D: path \ntldr description Windows XP Professional Windows Boot Loader ------------------- identifier {current} device partition=C: path \Windows\system32\winload.exe description Windows 7 Ultimate locale en-US inherit {bootloadersettings} recoverysequence {65541eca-d19b-11e9-bd1b-d40162ba09a9} recoveryenabled Yes testsigning Yes osdevice partition=C: systemroot \Windows resumeobject {65541ec8-d19b-11e9-bd1b-d40162ba09a9} nx OptIn debug No
  20. Bug report sent. Pentium 4 1.8GHz Willamette 256 ASUS P4P800-VM Tried... bcdedit /set debug off bcdedit /set testsigning on Still won't run.
  21. I've been unable to get any version of BM to run on W7 Ultimate 32 and any s478 P4/M. So that's where I'm coming from. I suppose I'll send you a bug report or 2(pretty sure I already did). Maybe you can fix it... And yeah...it's the coherent English I speak. Nobody understands that these days...
  22. So…let's just run it like we run 3 & 4. Like I said...it runs just fine on 7. What's the problem with that? Other than the obvious problems. Like not being able to submit scores without a datafile(that can only be had via BM). And having the compute scores going under the processor used...instead of the graphics card. Simply....get over all your pissing and moaning, make a rules page, fix those things so we can submit scores properly...and let's play ball. Oh...and do you want to know 1 good reason why GB should NOT be run with BM? Because that precludes all the 32-bit systems that can't run BM, but can run GB 3 & 4 just fine. Like systems running EVERY 32-bit processor ever made(maybe not all...but a HUGE number of them CAN run GB 3 & 4 but CANNOT run BM). And that's a stupid thing to do. Artificially limiting things so only modern hardware can be used that is. Which is exactly the case with BM and GB 3 & 4 anyway. I know it's a little off topic(since GB 5 is strictly 64-bit). But I feel it needs mentioned here.
  23. Western Digital WD Blue SSD KLEVV URBANE DDR3 Intel Extreme Graphics 2(integrated graphics), Speed: 133MHz(Stock) SYNTAX S651M(motherboard), Chipset: SiS 651, Socket: 478 https://hwbot.org/submission/3917269_mrgenius_cpu_frequency_celeron_2.0ghz_(northwood)_2666.05_mhz
  • Create New...