yee245

Please add Asus B85M-G R2.0 https://valid.x86.fr/l66q7s

An alternate/second version the Xeon E3-1225 v3 should be added to the database as something like "Xeon E3 1225 v3 (HT)". There is an early version of this processor that shipped with hyperthreading enabled, and Intel disabled it on later chips. https://valid.x86.fr/8me9kh Additional details seem to be available on the LTT forums, including Intel's Product Change Notification: https://linustechtips.com/topic/47244-4-threads-or-8-threads-8-threads-version-of-xeon-e3-1225-v3-is-available-in-japan/

You can look at the OC Esports page. The bottom "half" of the page is all the submissions in the order they were subbed: https://esports.hwbot.org/#!/round/country cup 2023misc/5759/aquamark_dogpile_-_max_60_subs

Please add Dell 0TP412. Thanks. https://valid.x86.fr/gle8g4

For that Night Raid iGPU stage (https://hwbot.org/competition/country cup 2023GPU/stage/5732_3dmark_-_night_raid_-_igpu_amd), are laptop chips intended to be allowed to be allowed (e.g. the FP5, FP6, FT6, FP7, etc socket chips)?

Please add the Ryzen 5 5600X3D. https://valid.x86.fr/kdc3vq https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-5600x3d Thanks.

Please add Asus PN63-S1. Thanks. https://valid.x86.fr/y0iuwv

I think it was about 13.5 hours.

Here's my submission for lowest score for the competition. Benchmark set to run with affinity set to only 1 core, with the CPU-Z stress test running concurrently for most of the run.

I just didn't know if they needed to go into the database as two different options, given that they're different core configs (because, as you said, they're harvested from different cores, basically one with the L3 and one without). I was requesting the Phenom II X4 B55 to be added to the database, so I can submit my scores with it for Matt's quad core comp (as well as the X4 B40, even though I won't be subbing those scores to the comp). I figure I'm not supposed to submit it as either the X3 455 or the X2 B55. I can provide my own CPU-Z links as well: B40: https://valid.x86.fr/uwxc0e B55: https://valid.x86.fr/m2swm0 edit 2: ah, I see, I guess i haven't subbed unlocked core CPU stuff. it just goes under the original CPU type, just with unlocked core settings, which then show only in the filtered rankings individual score listings

Another one of the unlocked core CPUs... Phenom II X4 B55 It's the quad-core that's unlocked from an Athlon II X3 455 Looks like there are two different revisions (again, if it matters for the database) BL-C3 (Propus): https://valid.x86.fr/fhk8el RB-C3 (Deneb): http://valid.x86.fr/60x7b2

Phenom II X4 B40 It's the quad-core that's unlocked from an Athlon II X3 440 Looks like there are C2 and C3 steppings as well with different core specs (if it matters for the database) C2 (Propus): https://valid.x86.fr/bhtimc C3 (Deneb): http://valid.x86.fr/fsb79f

Nice job!

A final score (of any given benchmark) with "special" numbers, like all sequential 123, 123456, 6543, 345.678, etc., or all the same number 1111, 33.333, etc. Any timed benchmark that ends on an exact multiple of a second (e.g. 5.000s), or score-based ones that end on nice round numbers (e.g. Cinebench scores that are like 1000, 2000, 5000, etc).

It came up over on Discord and the more I was looking at some of the categories, the more I was curious what direction should be taken with regards to how the Nvidia professional/workstation/server GPUs should be categorized in the HWBOT database. As it is now, there are several categories/families that are sort of dedicated to these cards, including the NVS series, Quadro NVS series, Quadro RTX series, Quadro series, and Tesla series. Currently, there is a little bit of a mix of how the Nvidia "professional" cards appear to be categorized. Sometimes they are in their name-appropriate category (e.g. a Quadro RTX 5000 being in the Quadro RTX series), but other times, they are in their Geforce counterpart/equivalent category (e.g. the Quadro RTX 4000 is in the Geforce 2000 series), and other times, I think the GPU just has incorrect info about the specs/core and is thus placed in the wrong place entirely (e.g. the RTX A6000 being listed as having a TU102 core and put in the Geforce 2000 series instead of a GA102 core in either the Geforce 3000 or Quadro RTX families). I guess my question is which direction we'd want to take in regards to what the "right" place to categorize these GPUs. Do they get separated into their own Quadro series families (potentially similar to how TechPowerUp categorizes them with regards to their generations), or do they get moved back over with their Geforce "equivalent" (i.e. by core and/or architecture) families? I'd lean a little towards having more separated Quadro groupings, potentially even by architecture (which then gets into kind of not-as-nice naming separations, like how a potential "Quadro Kepler" family has some cards that are actually Maxwell cores because of cards like the K1200 and K2200, or by naming "conventions" (i.e. the letter before the numbering) the Quadro 410 and 4100 "should" be Fermi, but they're actually Kepler, but don't have a K with the number), but then that kind of just makes a potential ton of new separate GPU families, which then could just get unwieldy overall compared to just having one main "Quadro" family. But that said, it could at least shrink the overall "Quadro" family down if we separated off the Quadro FX family GPUs from the Quadro family GPUs (I think there are ~80 Quadro FX's out of the currently ~160 Quadros in that family the current database), and then I guess it would also be a matter if we wanted to separate off some small categories like the Quadro2 and Quadro4 series and potentially any other stragglers. And, also, I don't know if there are any other thoughts on the Geforce 1000 series grouping together both the Pascal (1000 series) and Turing (1600 series) GPUs and whether people would want to separate that into a 1000 series and a 1600 series, given how Country Cup was basically 16 series GPUs for that one GPUPI stage. But, that said, things are then treated differently on the AMD side. The AMD GPUs are separated just by their generation (GCN 1st/2nd/3rd/etc), where the Pro/workstation cards are just grouped in with the "consumer" parts. The AMD GPUs categories don't distinguish FirePro vs FireStream vs Radeon vs Radeon Instinct vs Radeon Pro vs Radeon Sky in the same way that the Nvidia ones are separated in the Geforce/NVS/Quadro/Tesla. Granted, it's just a difference in how they're (currently) categorized overall, where Nvidia's side is separated by their series and branding, but AMD's are just purely by architecture/generation (partly because of the difference in naming consistency across the generations (moreso on AMD's side)), and converting them both to having the same type of categorization could just be kind of time consuming for little gain. I do still think that, at least on the Nvidia side, there does need to be a little cleanup and shuffling of things, just given a couple things that I think are errors or are just in the wrong place or separating the Quadro FX off into its own separate category from the "normal" Quadro series (and maybe even potentially merging the "NVS series" in with the "Quadro NVS series"). I'm not sure if there are/were any specific reasons they are separated the way they are (NVS vs Quadro NVS, Quadro FX as part of Quadro, etc), or if it's just how it was and things were added over time and the category just gre large. I'd imagine we don't want to separate out the AMD categories into essentially consumer and workstation/server/compute categories/families given the likely time consuming nature of going through them all, but at least with the Nvidia ones, they're kind of already separated out a bit and would require a lot less shuffling. Somewhat related to the families of GPUs is also how they're separated out for competitions, but I think there's generally the "no workstation/server cards allowed" for most comps (at least ones for the GPU categories, since I don't think most people would care if I'm using a Quadro as my video output when running like superpi, especially if I don't even *have* to list it in the system hardware in the submission), but I feel like a lower end Radeon Pro, like say a WX3200, would go under the radar for a general comp, but people might be quicker to point out a Quadro T600 (even as "bad" as it would likely be for a given comp) as not being allowed because it's a workstation card compared to the Radeon Pro. For comps allowing by architecture, if workstation cards aren't allowed, it may be a little more ideal to have the Quadros off in their own categories (which still potentially "allows" AMD workstation cards to be subbed with, given they're grouped just by architecture, without manually setting competition limitations (based on my limited understanding of the comp engine)), but it would still allow for some of them to be used for those specific comps like Cheapaz where often times it's just picked by the core, which would then allow for random Quadros. But anyway, yeah, I figured I'd just see what other people's thoughts were, but also list a couple GPUs that I noticed/think are out of place (below). - Quadro FX 350M is listed in the Quadro NVS series, but should be in the Quadro series (or potential new Quadro FX series) - Quadro RTX 5000/6000/8000 are listed as RT102/104GL cores, but I think should be TU104/102 cores - Quadro RTX A6000 is listed as having a TU102 core, but I think it should be a GA102 core - Grid K1 is under Quadro series, but Grid K340 is under Geforce 600 series, but perhaps they should both just be under a new Grid family - NVS 5100M is under Quadro series, but should be under NVS Series - NVS 810 is under the Tesla series, but should be under NVS Series - Not sure how the Pascal/Turing/Ampere Quadros (both Quadro and non-Quadro branded) should be grouped (i.e. stay with Geforce 1000/2000/3000 or move over to Quadro/Quadro RTX) - Tesla T4 is under Geforce 2000 series, but perhaps should be moved to Tesla Series - Quadro FX Go1000 is under Geforce 5 series, but maybe should be moved to Quadro series (or a new Quadro FX series) - Geforce GTX 780 (2880 Shaders) is under Geforce 600 series, should this be under Geforce 700 series? - Geforce 830A is under Geforce 900 series, should this be under Geforce 800 series?

Yeah, I went for the lucky draw for the DDR4 draw because I figured I had slightly higher odds than the not-DDR4-only lucky draws, but I was under no illusion that it's still just random luck. There were what, like 10 users eligible for the DDR4 draw prize? If only the Strix D4 had an external clockgen... maybe RageBone could have BCLK'd that Pentium, but alas, it doesn't. I tried to convince some friends to make hwbot accounts and to just sub literally *any* scores (even if they're literally just running stock JEDEC) for the like 1 in 25 chance of winning free RAM, but I couldn't actually get any of them that had eligible hardware to actually do it. Would it have been any worse for the regular hwbot benchers who actually made an effort if some random drive-by user (that may never even log into hwbot again after the competition) won one of those kits instead? Anyway, thanks for hosting the competition. G.Skill.

ROG STRIX Z790-A GAMING WIFI D4 BIOS 0502 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zfp-G6p617hafuB3Yomj-TpVOBp_NNo9/view?usp=sharing The bios I happen to have on my board.

Your move. (:

The UL link for the full run (graphics/physics/combined) appears to already be on the submission. I had forgotten it initially, but I had edited the submission to add it within a minute after posting it, according to the submission history.

Same ROG SLI bridge too (the logo is covered up by my pikachu thing)

Nice

Yeah, might be a little more ideal to just limit to 6 cores maximum. If someone wants to take a dual socket board with dual dual-core CPUs (e.g. dual E5-2637s) and try to beat the various overclockable native 6-core options, I'd be fine with that, but if it's just limited to 6-core CPUs, I feel like Yos is going to just go source some E7-4809 v2s and/or some E7-8893 v2s or something and triple-socket or quad-socket them to compete with like 18c36t and 24c48t. While I'd kind of enjoy seeing something fun like that, I feel like that also is not in the spirit of "fair" competition with 6-core processors. Could be interesting, though, seeing some SR-2s competing though, even if they were allowed to go dual 6-core. Just throwing in my two cents.

Yeah, my original suggestion about this sort of stage was to try to get people to use 1, 2, 4, 6 as the core counts for some benchmark on DDR3 (i.e. needing to use X58 or X79 to get the 6-core option via an i7), but reduce the weird cheesing of the "optimal" configuration just being like a 9900K on a ddr3 board, e5-2696 v3 on one of those weird "X99" boards that supports DDR3, and some 2011-1 15-core Xeon or something. I guess Sky/Kaby/Coffee Lake with DDR3 is still on the table, though, so a 9900K on DDR3 will probably be the top score, which might be a little harder to acquire/do than most teams/people getting their hands on a 1680v2. Just kind of related, but would it make sense to limit it to maximum of 8GB of memory, rather than it needing to *be* 8GB? Not that I think it would necessarily be an optimal submission, but someone using X58 might prefer to use 3x2GB rather than some weird monstrosity of a ram configuration to get 8GB. Could the stage just be limited to being 6-core max, rather than only limiting it on Xeons, or just excluding 1151/1151v2? As the stage is, I think it's still potentially requiring a 9900K on DDR3 in order for a team to be competitive in the stage. Just looking up some of the CPUs I'd imagine will be "competitive" in this stage and their approximate peak performance on X265 1080p, but like a 4790K looks like it might be able to do about 40fps on LN2, a 3770K at just under 30fps, a 6-core SB/IB on X79 about 35fps on LN2, a 6-core Westmere on LN2 about 30fps, and a Skylake/Kaby Lake i7 probably about 50-55fps. While I don't think we've seen any 9900K/KFs on DDR3 for this bench yet, it looks like upwards of 5.5GHz is possible on a 9900K on DDR3 (e.g. Dim0n527's R23 at 5800MHz (https://hwbot.org/submission/4823752)), which could potentially put it it up at 80+fps, or at least in the 70+fps range (since I'm not sure how much the extra bandwidth of DDR4 benefits over DDR3 for X265), or heck, even just 60-65fps at "stock". 8-core on X79 seems to only be around 40-45fps, so, it seems like a 1680v2 would at least be less of an advantage than just a team just having a 9900K (or potentially even an 8700K/8086K) on DDR3. Sorry of that was kind of incoherent rambling, but was just trying to convey how it seems like allowing 1151/1151v2 on DDR3 on this stage (because hwbot will recognize them as being different sockets, right?) effectively means a team needs to have one of the few compatible boards with the BIOS mod to even have a chance on the stage, since it seems like having that board means that a team with that one board could run both a 9900K and a 7700K to potentially just have 20% more combined fps from those two scores as a team with a 4790k, 4930K/4960X, and Westmere 6-core, which is more of the "spirit" of what I think I was originally trying to have the stage be. Just feels like a 9900K tips the balance far more than allowing 8-core Xeons.

Here's my input. While I kind of like that the Intel DDR3 stage is a relatively uncommon LGA 1156 socket stage, could an alternative option be some sort of benchmark that is something like "4 submissions with different core counts", potentially excluding Coffee Lake and/or Xeons? You have the plenty of common dual and quad core CPUs, but then you also kind of force the need to use one of the HEDT platforms like X58 and X79 for their 6-core i7 options, and then for the 1-core, teams would then need to just source a G440/G460/G465/G470 (they're not particularly expensive or hard to find). Or, perhaps, something similar in one of the TBA stages for DDR3 Memory stages, rather than AMD DDR3? Perhaps something like a "4 submissions from different Intel sockets" or something, again possibly excluding Coffee Lake. I'm not sure if there's some benchmark that scales nicely with memory bandwidth, such that the triple and quad channel configurations from X58 and X79 would be beneficial over the standard dual channel configurations, while also not explicitly requiring them (because there are enough different Intel sockets using DDR3). I was just trying to think of ways to maybe try to get the older Intel HEDT platforms into the mix.

Didn't realize the pictures could be hidden like that. I did some more testing. I did not see any of the BCLK settings on either the TUF Z690-PLUS WIFI D4 or the Strix Z690-A D4. Tested BIOSes 0601, 0807, and 0809 on the TUF (didn't realize there was a 1001 beta as well), and 0707, 0807, and 0901 on the Strix (and again, didn't realize there was a new 1004 beta as well (though Jumper118 in another thread mentioned that the 1001 one does not add it either)). One thing, which I don't think will necessarily work, but I might try at some point is whether it's possible to set the BCLK setting in the BIOS as a favorite when there's an unlocked CPU in it, and then have it still show up and/or be functional when swapping to the locked CPU. My guess is that it will just get hidden in the favorites menu when the option is not available to use, but still worth a test at some point.