DrSwizz

Disabling cores did not help very much; I probably only gained 50-100MHz or so.

Thanks :)

Thank you * 3!

Thank you!

Turrican, please the add the Embedded Pentium MMX 266 to the database.

Turrican, could you please add these graphics cards to the database soon?

I already have a picure somwhere on a HDD. I'll dig it up for you. Huh? You mean people will post results in the wrong category? I very much doubt that would be a large problem since these particular CPUs are rather unusual. Edit: Have uploaded the picture here: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/840/intelembeddedpentiummmx.jpg/

Well, that is what I thought too until I ran benchmarks on them. The differences are larger then that. The drivers treat the GPU differently and their performance are are differnt.

Sorry, I have not tried to use everest to identify the CPUs so I do not know.

Yes, only those. and btw. can the tools (everest) etc. show the difference between those cards? (ATI 3D Rage II and ATI 3D Rage II+DVD) Well, in those screenshots I actually included three programs for identification: Rivatuner & CPU-Z only shows whatever that the drivers presented to them. Powerstrip shows GPU type + memory type & size.

Is there any chance that you might add these old graphics cards to the database? I've had benchmarks ready to be submitted for over 1/2 year now.

So you acually replied to this, I never never that until now! Anyway, it is a different CPU: there are both mobile & embedded versions of the Tillamook CPU. http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium/TYPE-Mobile%20Pentium%20MMX.html http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium/TYPE-Embedded%20Pentium%20MMX.html The one would like to have added to the database is the embedded version of the Tillamook.

Thanks!

Okay, I will run this benchmark again then and use Powerstrip to shown the clock frequecies. I cannot do this right now though as I have disassembled the rig that I used for the benchmark being discussed here, but I will do it some time in the future. That being said I have submitted several other benchmark results in past where I was unable to use GPU-Z & where I have not showed the clock frequencies since I was not aware of that this requirement. I also have a few old benchmark results that I have not yet submitted (still waiting for hardware to be added to the HWBot database) that where rather difficult to run. I really would not like to be forced to rerun all those benchmarks too as it would require a significant amount of work (old, oddball hardware is easily 10X more time consuming to benchmark than new hardware). Also please update the rules so they do excplicily state that clock frequencies must be included in the schreenshots, otherwise how are people supposed to know about this requirement? Especially considering that for many of the combinations of hardware & software where GPU-Z fails, Rivatuner does not work 100% either and it is not possible to view & adjust the clock frequencies from within Rivatuner.

Yes, but those features are only available when Rivatuner supports the GPU & the drivers that you are using. With unsupported hardware & drivers Rivatuner does not show much more information than I have made available in my screenshot.

Well, Rivatuner does not report that. Yes, I have tried a few older versions + I tried using different settings for kernelex. The problem with GPU-Z seem to be that it want to install some sort of driver that is made for WinXP. Anyway, since the rules clearly state that Rivatuner can be used instead of GPU-Z when GPU-Z does not work, is there any reason why my result should not be accepted?

Hello! One of my benchmark submission got reported as lacking information of what graphics card I was using for the benchmark. However I did clearly show the graphics card information using Rivatuner in my screenshot (I hade to use Rivatuner instead of GPU-Z as I was running the benchmarks using Windows 98 SE and GPU-Z does not work with that OS). Could someone please look into this? I tried to explained all this in the "comment" entry box for my reported submission, but nobody seems to care. This is the benchmark result in question: http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2248068_drswizz_3dmark2001_se_rage_128_pro_1852_marks The type of graphics card + the device ID of the card are clearly visible in the screenshot.

@Turrican: As you appear to able to add at least some hardware to the database. Could you please add the hardware I listed above?

Awards: completely useless measurement Last year I was considering buying an Asus 890G motherboard (I forget which model). I did some googling, but found very little information about the motherboard as it was a relatively new product. On the official Asus page for that particular motherboard there was 2-3 awards given by some obscure hardware websites. I decide to take a look at those sites. It turns out that none of those websites had actually reviewed the motherboard in question. On one of the websites there was a review of one motherboard with similar sounding model name, but with different hardware. On the other site(s) I found no review whatsoever of any motherboard even similar to the one I was considering buying. I never bought that Asus motherboard

@Massman One of the reasons there are so few benmchmark submissions SiSoft Sandra is probably because the rules specifies SiSoft Sandra 2007, a version which does not seem to be available for download anymore. I did some googling for it a few weeks ago, but could not even find it on any third-party websites.

Ticket ID: 1316 Priority: Low Is it only the memory read score matters or are the other scores important too? Will the memory read score always be the final score or is that only a temporary fix for the Geil competion?

Ticket ID: 1315 Priority: Low Please fix so that UCBench works on CPUs that lack support for CPUID.\r\n\r\nThe benchmark itself works just fine (it runs the generic 386 computation core), but the CPU detection fails and no output file is produced.\r\nHere is a screenshot of what it looks like when I run the benchmark on a Texas Instruments 486 class CPU:\r\nhttp://img688.imageshack.us/img688/2177/ucbenchoncpuwithoutcpui.png\r\n\r\nUCBench is rather well suited to run on old & slow CPUs that lack CPUID because it does not take hours to run the benchmark, so this is a bug that is worth fixing imho.\r\nYou might also want to add one more number after the decimal point to there score to add some more granularity (from x.y pwds/s to x.yz pwd/s).\r\n\r\n\r\nAlso, please do not forget this:\r\nhttp://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=27348

Sorry, I didn't know.

HWBot broken, data corruption? Please forgive me if this is an issue that the HWBot crew already is aware of, I have not actively been following this thread. I was idly browsing the results database and I have seem to have come across a serious bug or possibly database corruption. I was viewing CPU-Z results of old CPUs and when I clicked on the validation link for one of Christian Neys results the validation link was for a the wrong result. I figured he must have made a mistake and I made a mental note to send him a PM later. Then I came across another CPU-Z result that he had made with a link that also was wrong, in fact both links where to the same result. This made suspicious; Perhaps v4.x of HWBot has broken something? So I started browsing his CPU-Z results and it turns out that plenty of them have links are wrong (all Pentium-class CPUs?).

Alright, I'll I just have to be more patient then.