MrGenius
-
Posts
68 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by MrGenius
-
-
WHAT?! That's false advertising then.
I'll sue their ass!!!
Not really...but I might try contacting them to tell them they need to fix it. Because...I'm not sure I could mod the BIOS(not my strong suit). And I can almost guarantee it's not a hardware limitation. Well...it might be. But I can fix that...
. Pretty sure it wouldn't need fixing though. It's 3 phase(like just about every other P4 board). And unless they used the absolute weakest MOSFETs on Earth...it'll handle 103W-115W just fine. Even if they did...like I said...I FIX EASY! ??
-
Dude...the site is so fucked up now after the latest update it makes me wanna kill people. Too much shit to list...
"If it ain't broke...keep fixing it until it is!"
-
On 8/31/2019 at 10:43 AM, max1024 said:
Ha-ha, if you want know something about IBM Pentium IV clcick this my new story
One glaring omission from that article would be the CPU cooler support for the ASRock P4i945GC. Or...rather...the lack thereof. The way they offset the socket SEVERELY limits what kind/type of cooler you can use. Luckily I had an older style OEM/stock Intel aluminum HSF with a flat base that worked for mine(running an SL7Q8). What also sucks is no feasible way to run processors bare die on it(which I do with all my other s478 boards). I guess none of that really matters much when the board can't/won't OC for shit anyway.
But still...why TF did they do that? Sideways was bad enough. But then put the socket off to one side like that? So you can't use just any old s478 cooler? WHY?! I'm tempted to switch to the G31-M4 just for that reason alone. Which has Prescott microcodes in the
latestBIOS(and specifically the F41 needed for the SL7QB/8). So they should run on it. Not sure why you think they won't.
On top of the fact it mentions EMT64 support in the manual. You obviously know all 64-bit s478 processors are Prescott...right? The fact that the specs page states "Maximum CPU TDP : 95 Watt" probably(nay...almost certainly) just means they didn't update that to reflect support for up to 103 Watt CPUs(like the SL7QB/8) with the laterBIOS. And the 115 Watt models are likely supported too(microcode in thelatestBIOS for those as well). Wait...what the hell am I talking about? That BIOS is supposed to be the "Initial" version. So it's always supported Prescott. If that's true...Anyhow...now that I'm thinking about it...I'm almost certainly going to grab a G31-M4. Just to experiment with. Can't be any worse than the P4i945GC. Which is a total POS IMO...
EDIT: Hold up...just now reading the next article. Maybe there's hope for the P4i945GC still? I need to try that OC Tuner 1.54 and mess with the "1.5V"(didn't know what that was all about...feeling like a complete idiot ATM for not knowing). I'll tell you one more thing...or rather show you. BRB...
Ok...so the OVP mod is bunk. Doesn't do shit. HOWEVER...the OCP(OverCurrent Protection) mod is VITAL!!!
I haven't done the VDROOP mod yet. Which might help a little.
Next...VTT is the termination voltage for the RAM. You need to up it if you overvolt the RAM and it's not stable. Since you asked.
Oh...and G1 RULES!!! No idea what you're on about there. Just know it's BULLSHIT!!! You're just pissed you can't find one...
-
1
-
-
I would want something like that if it were more "finished". With features like...
Terminals for wiring, instead of having to solder wires to it. Possibly spring loaded clamp, friction fit(pins), or screw type terminals. So you could just plug/unplug wires to it. Makes it more easily usable and reusable. Actually...terminals for everything. Make it so everything can be plugged/unplugged. Except things like the caps, resistors, switches, USB connector and the LED. Which should all be preinstalled. It would be cool to be able to swap trimmers and add or remove voltage meters plug and play style(without soldering). I'd also like at least 2 more circuits on the board. Just 4 is too limiting(I don't want 2 boards, I want 1 that I can have my mobo and GC wired to). I'm sure this would all add considerably to the cost. But I'd be willing to pay extra for the added convenience.
I mention this because that's basically how I wire all my volt mods. Everything gets wired with bullet style disconnects. Wire soldered to board/IC > female bullet disconnect > male bullet disconnect > wire soldered to trimmer. I don't use switches because...disconnects. My boards all have leads with female disconnects, and my trimmers all have leads with male disconnects(and are never glued to the modded device). I love it like that. Everything is easily plug and play usable/reusable. And as far as the little voltage meters, I don't use those either. I just solder a wire to the voltage read point with a female bullet disconnect on the other end. Then use my DMM.
-
I'm not accusing you of anything. Just confused how that's possible. If you compare it to the other 2 subs with this processor...it just doesn't make any sense. Maybe it's the adjusting priority(no affinity with 1 core/thread). That never seems to make a significant difference for me when I mess with it though. So I never bother. I'll give it a try with BH4 and see I guess.
EDIT: I'm running the same processor, same memory timings(+ 2 more GB), and XP. Priority set to Realtime just hangs the system. And setting it to High does absolutely nothing compared to Normal.
Anyway...the more of your BH4 scores I look at...the less sense it makes. You seem to be consistently scoring WAY higher singethreaded than anyone else with similar hardware/specs. You would think you'd notice that. Maybe not acknowledge it...or explain exactly why. But whatever. It's not for points. So I don't really care.
-
Hmmm...nope. Wouldn't do me no good. Not the worst idea I've ever seen though.
-
Yeah...that one works too. But I can only get it to work with compatibility mode. The one I mentioned works with or without it. Anywho...both are in that folder I attached. Which it looks like everyone is afraid to touch. Oh well...just trying to save ya some time. Download them all yourself and check them against mine. You'll find they're all bit for bit identical(aside from folder names...which I added numbers according to which came first on a few of them).
Here's the list of what's in there:
3DM 2000 Framelock Fix
3DMark 99 Compatibility Fix (1 & 2)
3DMark 1999-2001 Patch Pack
3DMark 2000 mmx check switch
3DMark 2000 Video Memory Error Fix
3DMark 2001 SE
3DMark Startup Hang Patch v1.01
3DMK 2000 patch (1, 2, 3, & 4)
-
1
-
-
How? That singlethreaded score is INSANE for 2267MHz.
EDIT: Those volts too?! W T F over...
-
21 hours ago, l0ud_sil3nc3 said:
You still need a license to use any version of Geekbench whether you're on using it standalone or integrated through Benchmate, so saying that Benchmate is "taking steps towards subverting Geekbench's licensing code." seems like fake news.
True...ish. You won't get a score to submit under the BenchMate rankings without the latest version(0.9.3) AND/OR a paid version of GB though. Not sure how/if that applies to GB's "licensing code". It shouldn't. Also not sure what you mean by "need a license to use any version of Geekbench". So far as I know...the "tryout" versions are all "unlicensed". Using their own definition of "licensed" anyway(which would only apply to the paid versions). Since the "license"(their words) is what you're buying from them to use the "unlimited" version.
-
@ozzie ?
@avalanche My points being...a free benchmark is better than a paid benchmark. If for no other reason...because it's free. And the point of doing anything for anyone...for free...is a thing called altruism(or just plain old generosity). It might be nice to get paid for every little thing you did that benefitted someone besides yourself. But that's a pretty shitty world to live in IMO. Case closed.
-
There's a specific patch that works. For me anyway. I've attached a conglomeration of 3DM patches I've rounded up(all from posts on VOGONS). In the folder named "3DMark1999-2001PatchPack" there's another folder named "3DMark 99 Max". Uninstall any previous patches you've applied(if necessary clean install 3DM 99 Max again). Then copy the files in that folder to C:\Program Files\3DMark 99 Max, overwriting all the existing files. Then it should work in compatibility mode or not.
Oops...looks like I just got ninja'd by Mr.Scott. Or wait...maybe not. That looks like a different fix that I haven't seen before. Cool! Now I've got another for the collection.
EDIT: I need a patch for PCMark 04 if anyone knows were to get one for that. Just hangs at startup with the versions of XP I use. I've had it work in the past with other versions of XP...or something? Doesn't want to work with any SP3 versions I have. Disabling systeminfo doesn't do anything. Maybe there's another trick I don't know about? Whatever...probably runs better on 7 anyway. Which works perfectly for me(no extra effort required).
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, marco.is.not.80 said:
How can you have a name like MrGenius and come away from this with the idea that someone is charging for benchmarks? Please elaborate.
1. Not a genius IRL. But I play one on the internet...?
2. It's the same old "monetarily support the developer or you're not cool" argument.
3. Which is a slippery slope to all benchmark developers demanding to be paid for their work(or at least for the "full" version).
4. Which eventually leads to more and more, or perhaps even all, benchmarks being P2P(whether "demo/trial" or "full" version).
5. Which is bullshit.
6. I that what you want? Really?
7. Not me. Like I said...better things to spend my money on than this. I feel bad enough about all the money I've already wasted on it.
-
Cheat all you want...I'm not paying for benchmarks. Well...that's the general idea anyway. Though I have been known to pay for one or two in the past. I really hate to though. A whole lot more than I hate turning a blind eye to cheaters. So if it comes down to I have to pay to play...just so cheaters can have a more difficult time cheating...I'm out. I've got plenty of better things to spend my money on.
-
Hmmm...am I missing something?
- BM dev freely distributes free to use version(s) of GB.
- GB dev says "Stop! Or I'll sue".
- BM dev stops. And no one is sued.
- Community finds out about it and expresses much disdain for such behavior on the part of the GB dev.
Which is pretty much the same situation that happened with the recent release of CB 20. Except for the part where the "complainant" dev eventually sees the error of their ways, and drops the ridiculous shenanigans.
Listen...I'm not trying to trivialize it any more than it already is. The bottom line is we're pissed at the GB dev for being unreasonable for no good reason. I think we're all in agreement with that.
.I have been enlightened..Side note: What happened with CB 10? Why did that one get skipped? Is there any reason we shouldn't be doing that one too?
-
1
-
The Cinebench fiasco all over again.
"I'll sue you if you freely distribute my software that I'm freely distributing. Because...reasons(even though I'm going to change my mind about that when I realize how stupid and pointless the idea is)."
Just a bunch of pointless stupidity for the sake of pointless stupidity. Fact is...other than causing unnecessary aggravation...it doesn't change anything. If we want to use GB with BM, that's what we're going to do. Where we got GB is totally and completely irrelevant and inconsequential. Makes no difference whatsoever.
-
1
-
-
If this is a Pentium M 750 score you need to delete it from the Pentium M 780 rankings.
-
-
It's a known issue. You need to have a paid/licensed version for them to work with BM. The developer is fixing it so you can use the tryout versions with the next release. He's also recommending that all GB scores submitted with the current release be invalidated(lose their point values). Since he's discovered some kind of timer flaw inherent to GB. Which he's trying to correct with the next release as well. So...since those scores would be invalid anyway(for points in the compo)...you really haven't lost anything...yet.
-
-
14 minutes ago, TerraRaptor said:
Benchmate won't detect superpi running if superpi window is minimised.
Then don't minimize it. Or is that some obscure tweak I've never heard of? ?
-
Well...there's 3 things funny about that.
1. I posted that. And my name isn't mr.wulten. Nor was it my first post. BTW...I was using an older version that didn't have the "Make Datafile" option. And trying to submit scores using "Submit to HWBOT!" was not working. I eventually got that figured. But anywho...
2. There's no need for obtaining a screenshot of any kind(using whatever functionality) when the datafile already contains one. IF the datafile saves itself properly. I keep getting datafiles that are missing the screenshot. So I try submitting them first to see if it's there. Then resave it until it is...if it isn't. Learned that lesson the hard way...
EDIT: Ok...now I get it. You HAVE to use the integrated screenshot functionality FIRST. Or the datafile won't have a screenshot. Which is stupid. It should take the screenshot automatically when you click "Make Datafile". "Take Screenshot" is worthless/pointless, and only adds unnecessary complexity. Everything else, not struck through, I've said below is still valid.
EDIT 2: Wait...you can point the app to whatever screenshot(via the "Screenshot Path"), obtained using whatever functionality, and have the datafile contain that screenshot when it's made. So...unstrike everything I said below...IT'S ALL VALID!!!
EDIT 3: Evidently the screenshot needs to be named using the specific numeric naming scheme. YearMonthDay-HourMinuteSecond. Might need to be a PNG image too(but I doubt it).
Don't know...don't care(see EDIT 4). But you most certainly CAN use ANY PNG image with a suitable name and have it work just as well as the one obtained with the integrated screenshot functionality.EDIT 4: It does NOT need to be a PNG image. JPG will also work(as will many other formats I presume).
3. In actuality...it's a just PNG image. One PNG image is the same as another PNG image. There's nothing special about it. Thus I reiterate...if a screenshot were to be required...THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY IT MUST BE OBTAINED USING THE INTEGRATED SCREENSHOT FUNCTIONALITY. Because, if it's a full screenshot in PNG format, there's no way to tell if it was or wasn't obtained using the integrated screenshot functionality(or some other way). REGARDLESS...that clause needs removed from the rules. As it DOES NOT APPLY when the datafile is required. As the datafile SHOULD already contain the mandatory screenshot. Just having the screenshot obtained using the integrated screenshot functionality(or any other full screenshot in PNG format) is not proof enough for validation of a score. And, in fact, will get you nowhere if that's all you have to submit. Nor can it be submitted under "verification", when submitting your score via the datafile(since that isn't available when supplying the datafile...see note below). You can only add it as a "picture of your system"
Also of note...if you do submit a datafile without a screenshot...it will say "Using supplied data file. No further verification is required". And there is no place to add a "verification" screenshot(like I said...it can only be added as a "picture of your system"). So...what also needs fixed is that. If we're going to be fussy about requiring a verification screenshot. As in make sure the datafile contains the required screenshot before it can be verified. How can it not tell if there's a screenshot in the datafile or not? And/or...does it really even matter? I like the idea of requiring the screenshot. But I shouldn't be able to submit a datafile that's missing one and have it be verified. Which I've done numerous times just to see if it would work. And every time it has. Don't make me prove it...
-
2 hours ago, iLoveOC said:
Hello I am new here. Do I have to use this BenchMate for everything? Why is windows 10 banned for like 95% benchmarks on rules page. Do I really have to buy win7 to bench new hardware?
You don't have to buy W7. But you do have to use it(or XP or Vista). A "licensed" version is not required. They're convenient. But not necessary for HWBOT scores.
Speaking of rules...you need to familiarize yourself with the General Rules. Wherein you'll find the answer to your question.
-
If that's how it is...that sucks. I'm having the same problem with it BTW. Might just have to slap on the eye patch and go rogue. Because I ain't payin' for that shit. Not even remotely worth it.
EDIT: Sure enough. That appears to be exactly how it is. I just ran it with a "licensed" version of GB4 and it recognized the score. Ummmm...that's BULLSHIT! NO PTP!!! ?
About that "Benchslow" comment(which I know was a joke)...so far I'm finding it to be the opposite. With all the Cinebench versions it supports, they're all scoring slightly higher for me with it and W7. Which I assume is because it's forcing HPET. Which I don't do for Cinebench. Since that's not under the allowed optimisations for it. But I'm sure everybody probably does anyway...
-
That makes sense. I get it. And I'm fine with it. I was more worried that I'd broken some new rule I'd never heard of until just now.
Since, if I've ever been able to just take a screen clip, that's what I've always done. And only when I couldn't I've used TPUCapture or Screenshot Captor to get a full screenshot. I'll just do that from now on. No biggie. 
Benchmate 10.6.8 is out!! NO MORE SUPPORT FOR GEEKBENCHES!!
in HWBOT News
Posted · Edited by MrGenius
Yeah...but we're talking about BenchMate. And no...you don't need a licensed version of GB to run the 64-bit benches...or to get a valid datafile. With BM v0.9.3 anyway. Jesus...pay attention people. It's not that complicated.
EDIT: Forgot to mention...GB5 also runs on 7. Despite them claiming it doesn't.