Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

max1024

Members
  • Content Count

    299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

max1024 last won the day on September 5 2018

max1024 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

63 Excellent

1 Follower

About max1024

  • Rank
    grunt bot

Converted

  • Location
    BELARUS

Converted

  • Interests
    Retroclocking

Converted

  • Occupation
    overclocking

Converted

  • realname
    Maksim

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. now 22 million views ))))
  2. 4-2-2 Place not Bad =) CRT monitor looks fresh and unique in the frame, harmoniously continuing the general atmosphere of 2019. Let's show everyone 1st place! Поздравляю :)
  3. Cib R20 works fine on Win7 x64 SP1 and Win10 x64 too. Download aviable from there: https://www.guru3d.com/files-get/download-maxon-cinebench,1.html https://www.techpowerup.com/download/maxon-cinebench/ Maybe immediately to the battle for points? Why wait, the developer checked.
  4. Thanks I fully understand your point, I just wanted to offer for more order and the least deviation of the results to get cpuz to read a number for all cores with the same frequency, and nothing else. I will not write more about this, I just wanted to draw attention to this aspect.
  5. Share your concept of essence. I shared my understanding.
  6. This is all clear, you can also set the CPU-Z priority to one core, but this does not negate the fact that ALL of the processor cores have reached the final one — the same frequency. It is rather a suggestion for a future revision of the HWBOT From my point of view this is the wrong result. All cores must be of the same frequency. TaPaKaH The software of this test can be oriented to which frequencies using different cooling, the processor is extremely overclocked. It is clear to everyone that there can be no talk of total stability, but since in the database there is now observed, in my opinion, chaos due to the disconnection of the cores, then very often the average frequency of overclocking differs by 20% or more. You have to look, and how many cores have reached the final frequency, you look, but it turns out that only one or two. I think the essence of what you understand my ideas.
  7. Yes, there are single-threaded CPU tests, but I also consider CPU-Z as an independent test. The essence is different, overclocking one or two cores does not mean overclocking the processor entirely. If the embedded CPU-Z test was used, then the first result would be the result with all the cores.
  8. Once upon a time, when the processors were single-core, the CPU-Z validation process was simple. But when the number of cores began to increase, one nuance arose. The essence of the nuance is that 1-2 active cores are left in multi-core processors and this means that the processor of this model accelerates to the X frequency. But in fact, not all Cores accelerates. Scrolling through the results of 8-12-16 and more cores processors, I often see that some overclockers disable some of the cores and others do not. But when sorting the result, this aspect is not taken into account. And they get a strange situation for many that the processor overclocked "entirely" to a certain frequency, but in fact 1/6 or 1/10 in general. Often, such results fall into the news feeds of sites and reading users naively believe that all the cores were able to overclock to the stated frequency, but when they click on the result link, they will be disappointed. I want to suggest changing the rules of this test, it would be more logical to see ALL processor cores at the final result. It would be honest in relation to oveclockers and to the processors as well. What are your thoughts on this situation?
  9. What happened? What is the reason and how to get it back?
×
×
  • Create New...