havli

Hmm, so far everything with more than one socket and anything caled Xeon / Opteron / Quadro / Firepro was considered "server". This doesn't apply here?

Broken points here https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cinebench_-_2003/rankings?start=0&hardwareTypeId=processor_4260&cores=2#start=0#interval=20 and most likely here (17.5 points for 1st place out of 3 doesn't sound right) https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cinebench_-_2003/rankings?start=0&hardwareTypeId=processor_857&cores=1#start=0#interval=20

Well, I have two PPGA (black) P166 MMX and they are both unlocked up to 3.5x. I also have one ceramic 166 MMX and that one is locked at 2.5x. If you don't belive me it is really 166, then it is your problem... I don't care. And I certainly won't be wasting my time just to prove you're wrong. This competition has cost me enough effort as it is.

Some MMX have unlocked multiplier up to 3.5x. I believe the PPGA models are unlocked, while CPGA are locked.

Yes, the new version is already allowed to submit scores. And if there are no problems with v2.2.0, it should be made mandatory after some time.

Version 2.2.0 is ready for release. http://hw-museum.cz/data/hwbot/HWBOT_X265_2.2.ZIP What is new: 1. there was a mistake in HPET detection of V2.1.0 - on systems that require HPET only error message was shown but the Run button wasn't deactivated... Therefore it was possible to run and submit the benchmark even without HPET (such results can be still recognized on screenshot - they contain red message "HPET timer not active"). This issue is now fixed. 2. Coffee Lake added to the non-HPET whitelist. Currently the list contains: Skylake, Skylake-X, Kaby Lake, Kaby Lake-X, Coffee Lake. 3. added option to select CPU name to submit. The first two options are 1) name like CPU-Z detects it 2) BIOS string. The third options leaves the field empty - this should solve the problem with unlocked AMD CPUs that are misdetected and can't be edited later. 4. increased the score precision to 3 decimal places. There is is a catch however. It seems HWBOT doesn't support it properly after all. Internally there are 3 decimal places - as they can be seen on the pre-submit screen... and also later when editing the submission. On the score page there are only two and how the rankings are calculated I'm not sure. Let's see if better precision can be implemented on the HWBOT side at some point in the future, x265 is now ready for it. http://hwbot.org/submission/3793276_ 5. updated CPU-Z to version 1.83.

Good news - GT200 is working very well with legacy version of GPUPI 3.2 http://hwbot.org/submission/3789091_havli_gpupi___1b_geforce_gtx_285_8min_15sec_997ms

Broken points here as well http://hwbot.org/benchmark/3dmark2001_se/rankings?hardwareTypeId=videocard_1103&cores=2#start=0#interval=20

Ok then - 3 places it is. Other than G470 it should also make benchmarking of very old HW more interesting. With the legacy mode even PIII / first gen K7 should be able to run. Who is brave enough to run 4k on slot A Athlon?

At the moment, I'm finishing my work on small update of x265 bench. Not so long ago there was some discussion concerning the granularity of the score. Since the beggining there were (and still are) just two decimal places. For most systems this is good enough to reflect even very small change in the performance. But not all of them - and since the attention is shifting more towards the 4k preset, maybe it is time to consider adding 3rd decimal place. Getting 3 decimal places is easy and after quick test it seems HWBOT API supports it also. So the question is - switch to 3 decimal places or stay at 2? This is double-edged sword, some people might benefit from it, others would lose points.

Great work! I can confirm both GPUPI v3.1.1 and 3.2 legacy are working on 32-bit Pentium 4 windows XP system. I'll test some of the older GPUs soon, curious how they will work. Btw - since you have nice HW detection implemented, would it be too much to ask for automatic datafile name suggesting, like x265 is doing for example? It would make benchmarking for HW masters a little easier I'm using following pattern: amount_of_HW_x_HW_name_benchmark_type_score 2x_Opteron_2216_HWBOT_x265-1080p_2.18 fps.hwbot

Wow, that is some great news. I wasn't aware legacy version 3.x already exists. I'm really looking forward to test GTX 200 series and other older hardware too. I like the idea of CPU computing without OCL driver, sounds really interesting. This should make the CPU version more popular and easier to use... while it isn't that hard to install OCL driver, many systems don't have it by default and some people might have problem with it. I really appreciate your work and effort to make GPUPI compatible with as wide hardware base as possible. My favorite kind of benchmark is the one which can run on old CPU but also is capable of utilizing new instruction sets and scale with modern architectures. There aren't that many unfortunately... at least that I know of - only GPUPI, Y-Cruncher and x265. I understand it takes extra time to support this much different HW, especially when you are developing the whole application. I try to keep x265 oldschool-HW ready as well, and while it is "only" a sophisticated wrapper to the encoder executable I did spend a ton of time doing pre-release testing on many different platforms.

I was trying the new version 3.1 today and unfortunately it is not working for me. The current PC is i5 2500k, GTX 465 (378.78 drv), windows 7 x64 SP1 and AMD OCL driver (for CPU). While old 2.3.4 version is working perfectly, the 3.1 just stops after I start the calculation. Same behavior for both OCL @ CPU and OCL @ GPU. Here is the log file: LOG START at 2018-02-05 23:31:51 ---------------------- Could not parse version string successfully: OpenCL C 1.1 OPENCL PCI address [0000:01:00.0] Could not parse version string successfully: OpenCL C 1.2 Invalid topology output type: 0 OPENCL PCI address [undefined] CUDA driver version is insufficient for CUDA runtime version Maybe it could be somehow related to Windows locale settings? I'm using english win7 with regional setting set to czech. Also does the last line means Fermi will be no longer supported (using CUDA at least)? It is sad to see the support for older HW is slowly disappearing. First GTX 200, then HD 4800, now all 32-bit SSE2-capable CPUs and perhaps even Fermi series GPUs.

I don't know - just a wild guess... could this be caused by the removed benchmarks? Like UCBench, Processing Power, etc. I had quite a lot scores in these, so perhaps cups gained there still counts towards the total (and are well preserved... noone can beat me and take them ).

Ran into these two: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cinebench_-_2003/rankings?start=0&hardwareTypeId=processor_2289&cores=4#start=0#interval=20 http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cinebench_-_r15/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_5521&cores=6#start=0#interval=20 Both points and positions are wrong it seems. Perhaps there are more than just two, I'll post more links if I can find something else.

It seems CPU-Z detects this CPU as Xeon E5-2637, while in reality it is E5-1607. Unfortunately not much I can do here, as x265 relies on CPU-Z detection... so if CPU-Z fails to detect properly the CPU used, the same mistake appears in x265 also. Sometimes this happened to me too, but should be possible to edit the submission manually and select the correct CPU once it is uploaded.

IIRC HD 4800 stopped working with GPUPI long time ago. I think when version 2.3.x was released. @_mat_ could you please also make 32-bit version of GPUPI 3.1 if it becomes mandatory? There is quite a lot of 32-bit only NetBurst CPUs otherwise capable of running GPUPI. And it is always nice to get free points and gold cups

Hi, that is a very nice system you have. Unfortunately to get somewhat good score in x265, you need at least SSE4.1 compatible CPU. K10 doesn't even support SSSE3 and because of that the fps is very low. Using overkill will help to some extent... but not much. 15h Opterons are much faster on the G34 platform. I'm aware of the wrong cores count in GUI on this kind of systems... but why it doesn't work properly I'm not sure. Anyway it is for display only, has no effect on score or anything else.

Cores count is shown in the GUI but the data file doesn't contain this information. Only CPU name and socket count are stored there. Core count is determined by HWBOT based on the CPU model (either by autodetection or by manual typing what CPU you have). The truth is editing of existing submission to fill in correct CPU parameters is kinda broken. For example I've just submitted this as a test. http://hwbot.org/submission/3713436_ (I'll delete it tomorrow) The CPU model wasn't detected, so at first I selected X4 960T unlocked to 5 cores... worked. Then I edited to unlocked 6 cores, also worked. Then switched to X2 550 unlocked to 4 cores... also worked. But now when I want to edit to 3 active cores the edit fails with a white screen. I'm not sure how HWBOT API detection works on real unlocked parts - they are usually detected by diferent name than original. If it is not detected properly and you have to type the name yourself, then it should be also possible to select actual unlocked status. If it is detected correctly (like X4 960T) and editing after submission has been uploaded doesn't work, there is one workaround. Instead of saving the datafile and manual uploading later, you can upload directly from X265 and there is an option to disable CPU detection. In that case it should be possible to choose correct CPU and core count. I guess it would be also handy to have this option with data-file saving. I can add it in future version, shouldn't be a problem. Or working edit function on hwbot could solve this.

The package is here http://hw-museum.cz/data/hwbot/HWBOT_X265_2.1_cpu-z_1.81.zip The benchmark executable remains still at version 2.1.0 - there is no reason to change it when only the external component (CPU-Z) was updated. And on top of that I really prefer not to compile it again from source codes to prevent possible bugs.

There is a workaround - in the HW ranking of the specific benchmark, you can selet # of cores Cinebench - R11.5 overclocking records @ HWBOT

It is possible to disable CPU detection in X265 when using direct upload from the benchmark. I'm not sure if it works however, I quess very few people are using this function.

It seems this was random bug either in OS / Java or the benchmark itself. I wasn't able to replicate the issue and neither was unityofsaints. I guess it is similar like other benchmarks which can also sometimes poduce bugged scores for no apparent reason.

Yeah, same here - 100% CPU usage (Firefox). Only on forums though - the main hwbot.org page seems to be clean.

Thank you for the tips. Now I'm testing E5502 and it seems all voltages and also Slow Mode are once more doing nothing. So far it seems 32nm CPU responds to Slow Mode in positive way... while 45nm doesn't.