havli

The first Pentium 4 - introduced at Nov 20, 2000.

Can you please add the release date to the Athlon 64 FX-51 (23rd September 2003)? http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon%2064%20FX-51%20-%20ADAFX51CEP5AK%20%28ADAFX51BOX%29.html Also I noticed some CPUs have wrong release date assigned, for example: http://hwbot.org/submission/2740777 -> P4 3.0 Prescott was introduced 2nd February 2004 (11 years and 2 month ago is wrong) http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium_4/Intel-Pentium%204%203.0%20GHz%20-%20RK80546PG0801M%20%28BX80546PG3000E%29.html http://hwbot.org/submission/2739954 -> A64 3400+ release date is unknown, however I'm quite sure it was launched in 2004, not 2003. http://hwbot.org/submission/2737301 -> P4 3.4 GHz Prescott was launched at 2nd February 2004, not in late 2004 (as the "10 year and 1 months ago" suggests) http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium_4/Intel-Pentium%204%203.4%20GHz%20-%20RK80546PG0961M%20%28BX80546PG3400E%29.html

There are many many interesting HW platforms (mostly old pre-IMC), but only few of them are actually viable for using in the current system. For example SDRAM - only Asus CUSL2/TUSL2 (i815EP) is competitive, no point in using other boards or chipsets. In my opinion it would be nice to move "Memory Clock" plus both "MaxxMem" and "MaxxMem Read Bandwidth" to the Motherboard benchmarks. Sure - the RAM clock and performance mostly depends on the chipset used, but the actuall implementation - MB layout and BIOS affects them also. As for the IMC-equipped platforms - it is a little more difficult here... both motherboard (BIOS options, VRM, PCB layout) and CPU (IMC capabilities) affects the score. To keep things simple I guess it would be best to sort these scores by the MB as well. Perhaps the current memory sorting (SDRAM, DDR, DDR2, DDR3, etc.) could be used for global poins. What do you think?

Oldest hardware with best score is good idea for sure. But how exactly is the best overall score determined? For example - single-core CPU from 2004 finish the benchmark in 1 hour. Dual-core from 2005 scores 30 minutes... which one is better?

If SSE2 is required, then the oldest supported CPU would be Pentium 4 1.4 and 1.5 GHz Willamette socket 423. Both introduced in Q3 2000. Also - Windows 7 runs on this platform just fine, if necessary. Its time to dust off my Abit TH7 RAID.

No problem. I have checked my teemmates scores and they are all fine - default UCBench settings.

I deleted all my bugged results except this one - http://hwbot.org/submission/2306844_havli_ucbench_2011_pentium_e5700_%283.0ghz%29_465.1_mpt_score The delete button is missing, can someone of the hwbot staff remove it, please? And I am not sure about this one http://hwbot.org/submission/2569757_havli_ucbench_2011_xeon_3.2ghz_%282mb_l3%29_55.9_mpt_score It is done at default settings but still seems to be bugged.

up

Please add this MB: ASRock H61MV-ITX Thx.

I like UCbench very much - it has wide support of CPU instructions and thus scales well with many CPU generations. There are not much (multithread) benchmarks working on stuff like dual socket 5 Pentium and newest Core i7 at the same time If default settings is 100% bug-free, it would be best to keep it. I personally have no problem rebenching all my stuff to to meet the new rules.

Well, if Ucbench will be removed from HWbot, we should get some other benchmark (with HW points) as a replacement. It shoud be capable of running on Pentium class CPU (without MMX / SSE).

I just noticed this thread... and I am not sure I understand the issue completely. 1. So the "Pwds. Checked" column must contain all the numbers strictly in ascending order - i.e. the lowest number is first in the list and the highest one is last. No high numbers "in the middle". 2. The thread count could be like this? dual core CPU -> 2, 4, 8, 56, 60, 64 quad core CPU -> 4, 8, 56, 64 and how about single core CPUs? Does this bug apply for them as well? For example this score is done on single core http://hwbot.org/submission/2367371_havli_ucbench_2011_duron_1.0ghz_24.3_mpt_score Is it considered as bugged because of the Pwds. Checked number?

Antinomy: Well said, thank you. ludek111: I am not really sure. I don't have cusl2 at the moment, so I can't test this mem propertly. Last year I tried ECS P4S5A/DX+ and maximum validation was somewhere around 180 MHz as well. However SiS chipset is incompatible even with Aida64. I could only estimate RAM speed by FSB clock and memory divider. This SDRAM module is Infineon 256MB, PC 133 CL2, BX compatible (16 chip). I assume its not that good compared to modern high-density modules. Maybe BGA chips are the best.

This "wrong speed" issue only applies to the KT133 chipset (and perhaps few other VIA sdram-based chipsets using other than 1:1 mem:fsb ratio). Intel 440BX, 815 and 845 RAM speed detection works just fine in both CPU-Z and Aida64 (and therefore shows the same value). I am the only one using this platform, so I don't see a problem here. This score is 100% comparable with others. Anyway... only i815 or i845 based MB can score high enough to win this stage. I have neither of them, so I try to score as high as possible with A7V133. If mods say this score is invalid, then I will remove it and buy some CPU-Z compatible board.

Same as 1.59.

It seems CPU-Z detects wrong SDRAM clock on VIA KT133 chipset. CPU-Z states FSB + 33 MHz. 132 + 33 = 165 on screenshot below. However the real mem clock is FSB + PCI (Aida 64 shows this correctly)... In this example calculation is: PCI = 132/3 = 44 MHz FSB = 132 MHz Mem = 132 + 44 = 176 MHz So the question is - can I submit the real clock (Aida 64) or stick to the (incorrect) CPU-Z value?

Wrong... Celeron Mendocino (PPGA 370) - PII Deschutes based, 250nm, 128KB L2, no SSE. This is the one I use, see the screenshot. Celeron Coppermine (FCPGA 370) - PIII Coppermine based, 180nm, 128KB L2, SSE. Not allowed here. Celeron Tualatin (FCPGA2 370) - PIII Tualatin based, 130nm, 256KB L2, SSE. Not allowed here. //edit: Sorry, wrong again. http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium-II/Intel-Mobile%20Pentium%20II%20366%20-%20KP80524KX366256.html Cache location and speed doesn't change architecture of CPU. Another example is PII Xeon - it has external full-speed L2 cache.... and still is member of PII family. http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium-II/Intel-Pentium%20II%20Xeon%20450%20-%2080523KX4501M%20%28BX80523KX4501M%29.html

Covington is PII Deschutes without L2 cache. Mendocino is based od the same design, but instead od external half-speed 512KB L2 cache there is 128KB on-die full-speed. Celeron has exactly the same architecture (P6) and instructions (X86, X87, MMX) as the "full PII" has. All Covington and Mendocino Celerons are on the list of CPUs suitable for this compettion. I even asked explicitly whether is ok to use Celeron and the answer from Massman was "yes". No grey area here. Cache size doesnt really matter. How about mobile PII Dixon with 256KB on-die full-speed L2 cache? Thats almost the same CPU as Celeron Mendocino... only cache is twice as big. All these CPUs belong to the Pentium II family, like it or not. Anyway, in wprime cache has very little impact on score.

No it isn't. However PII-based Celeron is on the list of allowed CPUs http://hwbot.org/hardware/processors#key=intel_pentium_2 (approved by Massman) So I don't see a problem here.

Well, Celeron Mendocino is part of the PII family. It is allowed to use it in this stage - http://forum.hwbot.org/showpost.php?p=292635&postcount=32

Yes, I know. I think the best benchmark for voodos is the 3Dmark 2000. Most of them can run it at default settings - V2 SLI and up. 3Dmark 99 is bit too much CPU limited. It would be nice to have some competition with voodoos in the future.

Actually Voodoo4/5 can run GT1... however it requires some sw hacks via 3D analyze... http://www.3dfxzone.it/enboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1129&whichpage=64 As for the hardware - I have everything except the GeForce GT610. Maybe I'll buy one.

The Pentium II stage says : Is it ok to use PII based Celeron (Mendocino)?

I can't find any log file in c:\Program Files\HWBOT\Aquamark3. The "logs" folder is empty. The only log.txt file is in documents and settings (included in the zip file I linked before).

I just tried the lastest version (2.53) and it still doesn't work. Aquamark runs fine, score is visible in the wrapper... but can't be saved. The "Save to desktop" button doesn't work. This time the testing system was: 2x Opteron 252 FireGL X1 256MB (similar to R9700 pro) MSI K8T Master2 (K8T800pro) 1GB DDR Win XP SP3 CZ - no mods, no updates, clean install Logs and everything else generated by the wrapper is here: http://hw-museum.cz/pom/Aquamark3.zip