havli

Thank you. I have tried that before with W3520 and didn't help at all. But now i gave it another shot with E5620 and it seems Slow Mode really works Intel Xeon E5620 @ 4503.71 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR It seems the board is quite sensitive to memory timings at higher BCLK and refuses to post with wrong settings (even with Slow Mode). I worked that out using combination of bios settings and setFSB. Now I think actual CPU cores are the limit at >4.4 GHz. Now I'll return to the W3520 to see what it can do.

It should be easy enough, yes. There were some changes required when going 1.77 -> 1.80, but should be easy to upgrade 1.80 to 1.81. I'll take a look at it and do some testing.

I think Dead Things meant it like this: S775/S771 (Xeon-class processor required) - Stage 1 = 2 cores on 1 socket .......... -> 1x Dual-core (like 1x Xeon 5130) - Stage 2 = 4 cores on 1 socket .......... -> 1x Quad-core (like 1x Xeon X5450) - Stage 3 = 4 cores on 2 sockets .......... -> 2x Dual-core (like 2x Xeon 5130) - Stage 4 = 8 cores on 2 sockets .......... -> 2x Quad-core (like 2x Xeon X5450) S939/S940 (Opteron-class processor required) - Stage 1 = 1 core on 1 socket .......... -> 1x Single-core (like 1x Opteron 144) - Stage 2 = 2 cores on 1 socket .......... -> 1x Dual-core (like 1x Opteron 175) - Stage 3 = 2 cores on 2 socekts .......... -> 2x Single-core (like 2x Opteron 248) - Stage 4 = 4 cores on 2 sockets .......... -> 2x Dual-core (like 2x Opteron 280)

Just tried Xeon E5620 and this time I can do 217 MHz rock stable... but at 218 windows won't boot. It seems board is not the problem but CPU is... just like FSB wall with Core2. havli`s HWBOT x265 Benchmark - 4k score: 3.83 fps with a Xeon E5620

This looks great! I like the idea of allowing 1/2P configuration also in 4P stages as it greatly increases number of people who can compete in there. 4P boards are not that common, so it is nice to have a possibility to use for example higher clocked 2P config which is not as fast but can do at least something. ES allowed or not? For example G34 Opterons ES have unlocked multiplier which makes them very OC friendly. Btw - I think you meant socket 1207 (not 1277) and Opteron Interlagos (BD gen1) instead of Istanbul for G34 stage.

It is possible to change this behavior of course. But this feature was implemented to (somewhat) properly detect multi-core turbo frequency when the benchmark is starting. I'm not sure if there is another way to do this. If the benchmark crashes your PC at the launch screen due to high CPU load... then I'm pretty sure it wouldn't survive the 1080p preset anyway, not to mention 4k.

Sent PM to unityofsaints.

Maybe limit the 754 stage to 130nm ClawHammer and Newcastle cores? That feels more old school to me. In that case R15 must be replaced with something else as 130nm A64 lack SSE3 and because of that can't run R15.

As long as one-man-team have a chance to score well, it should be good

Hi, I'm quite new to X58... but I have some older scores with GA-EX58-UD3R, that board did around 215 MHz BCLK with more or less default settings, which I considered acceptable for "lowend" X58. Yesterday I bought R3E and expected something around 230 should be very easy and with the right settings even more Reference Frequency overclocking records @ HWBOT Turns out I was wrong. I've spent two evenings on this already, studied all kinds of X58 OC guides and still can't get some decent BCLK. The system is: Xeon W3520 water cooled R3E (BIOS 1502 - latest) 3x4 GB DDR3 dual-rank or 1x2 GB single-rank 9-9-9-24 Radeon HD 5500 single sata HDD running in IDE mode Enermax 630W win7 64 It seems this W3520 is not as bad as most of my CPUs and it could actually run faster than 4.4 GHz... if the MB would cooperate. I can get 4378 MHz R15 stable (multiple times) running 21x208. havli`s Cinebench - R15 score: 702 cb with a Xeon W3520 After that I got freezing during R15 runs so I lowered CPU and NB multiplier by one notch to make sure CPU is not the limit. Still no matter what I do >210 is not stable. I can boot windows, wprime 32M on 4 threads finishes, on 8 threads crashes and of course R15 crashes within a second after rendering starts. Tried raising PCI-E up to 120 MHz, changed GTX 465 to HD 5500 and also tried PCI Voodoo3, still the same. Tried HD 5500 in first slot and second slot -> same. Tried to switch RAM to single 2GB module... nothing. QPI slow mode also does nothing. This CPU can do more I'm sure and also I have other 1366 Xeons with lower multi and those really need as high BCLK as possible. I'm kinda running out of ideas. Most likely it is some obvious mistake... which I don't see. If you have some tips how to get this thing going strong I would really appreciate it.

Looking good, although some combinations are very hard to get running. For example: 486 - is a pure pain to run some benches on... last time I tried it took 5 hours to install win 2k and in the end it didn't work anyway. socket 4 - noone has it and even if there are few people, I really doubt these boards even can be overclocked (other than P60 @ 66) without modding PLL. VIA s370 CPUs are so slow and useless that noone have them 3dmark 01 - requires MMX IIRC, so no socket 5. Also V2 single is limited to 800x600, while SLI can do 1024x768. In fact all the 3D stages are so much CPU limited, they are not really 3D anymore. Maybe rebalance it a little? Like: 3DM99 = socket 5/7 non-K6 + Riva 128/ZX 3DM00 = Klamath + Rage 128 non-Pro 3DM00 = Katmai + Voodoo3 3DM01 = TBird + GF256

I really doubt 06 would run on non-SSE CPU.

Server platforms are banned by default... and it has been discussed many times already.

My intention was to avoid K6... because this inevitably leads to >600 MHz K6-2+/3+. Which we already had in several competitions. On the other hand P MMX is always getting overlooked.

Not so long ago serious security bug was discovered. It took some time but now I can present the new version of X265 which implements fix to this vulnerability and also adds some other improvements. Here is the changelog for version 2.1.0: 1. Fixed security issue allowing score manipulation. 2. Skylake, Kaby Lake, Skylake-X no longer requires HPET when running Windows 8 / 10. 3. Open Hardware Monitor updated to version 0.8.0.2 Alpha, added support for Kaby Lake, Skylake-X (not tested), Ryzen (not tested) 4. CPU-Z upgraded to version 1.80.1 5. Fixed data files path saving and name suggesting 6. Added/fixed profiles for CPU Feature Override (15h gen1, 15h gen2/3, 15h gen4, Zen, Kaby Lake, Cofee Lake) 7. Added legacy mode for compatibility with Athlon, Pentium III and possibly other old CPUs (pre-SSE2) 8. Dropped support for batch testing ---------------- To put some comments to the changes: 1. The score measuring is no longer connected to system time. Moving time has no effect on the score. 2. If you run X265 on these platforms using Windows 8/10, Windows Server 2012 / 2016, HPET is no longer required. This exception only applies to Skylake, Skylake-X, Kaby Lake, Kaby Lake-X. Everything else still must have HPET active. 3. This should make LCC and ambient cooling working on CPU released after Skylake. At least i7-7700K works (tested myself), Ryzen and Skylake-X might work (according to the OHM release notes)... but I don't have these platforms at hand, so can't tell for sure. 4. Should provide better HW detection for Ryzen, Kaby Lake, Skylake-X. Not sure if it supports latest 12/14/16/18-core i9 though. 5. There was a bug in older versions - when path for saving datafiles contained space (like "c:\my benchmark results"), then it wasn't loaded properly. Now it should be fixed. Just beware - if you are saving files to a network drive, make sure you open it using explorer (or anything else) first - so it will become properly initialized and connected. Otherwise saved path in X265 (pointing to network drive) won't work. 6. Nothing major, just updated few profiles. I doubt anyone use this function anyway 7. I received a bug report concerning incompatibility of X265 v2.0.0 with AMD Athlon (K7) and Pentium III CPUs. Most likely the updated version of the encoder is no longer compatible with pre-SSE2 CPUs, while the old version worked fine. For this reason I've added a legacy mode option which launches old encoder build (1.7.x) which was used in X265 Benchmark v1.2.x. This works for any CPU but performance is much lower... so unless you are running very old PC, there is no reason to use it. 8. I guess noone has ever used it... so now it is gone. This patch brings no performance change, only bugfixes and minor new features. ---------------------------------- Download link is here, feel free to test it: http://hw-museum.cz/data/hwbot/HWBOT_X265_2.1.0.zip

Hi, I assume you are trying to submit directly from the benchmark? This error message sounds like at that moment HWBOT servers were unreachable, or perhaps your Internet connection malfunctioned. Try to submit it again, it should work. Or another possibility is to save a datafile and submit it via web browser at HWBOT site.

The datafile looks like this (CPU related part): As you can see, there is no field for codename or socket. As far as I know, when you submit the score it works exactly the same way as if you perform manual search on the main site. If you type 4800+, three records show up (in alphabetical order most likely)... and the first one is used for the submission. Like I said in the previous post, there are two solutions. One is non-systemic workaround for current API which would take a lot of time to implement. And the second solution requires changes to the API itself (server side)... and this is beyond my power.

Thank you for the support Actually - CPU-Z is used to detect all the HW and SW info shown in the main window. It has been like that since the very first version of x265. The problem is - HWBOT API only accept one parameter to specify used CPU and that is the name. I could implement some kind of my own database for CPUs with conflicting names built into the x265 bench and since I know the codename (thanks to CPU-Z), then it would be possible to assemble the correct name for submit... in this case "Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Toledo) ". Obviously this is not very efficient approach. I have an idea how to do this properly, but it would require update to HWBOT API... and I'm not sure if this can be done.

With current system, I don't think it is possible to solve this. X265 reports CPU name, which is in this case "Athlon 64 X2 4800+" and HWBOT engine is trying to find the best match from the database. There is no way to tell which 4800+ it actually is. Anyway the manual edit should work (I've used it few times myself) and this issue is not that common anyway. There are just a few different CPUs with same name.

It is great to see another season of old school. I'm sure there will be some very interesting rounds and stages. Maybe I can start with this proposal? Platform: Pentium MMX + EDO RAM + any 3dfx Voodoo GPU (single or SLI) Stage 1 = SuperPI 1M Stage 2 = 3DMark 99 Stage 3 = Aida64 Memory Read (optional) Stage 4 = CPU Frequency 3Dmark is CPU limited anyway, so Voodoo2 or Banshee should be more than enough, others are allowed just to extend the range of suitable HW. To make things more interesting, EDO memory must be used, no SDRAM. Feel free to use any board based on i430 series chipsets, VIA, SiS or others. Even Super 7 boards are fine as long as they have SIMM slots for EDO. As for the server HW - perhaps some socket 603/4 action would be nice. Prestonia and Gallatin Xeons are cheap and easy to find. Boards are not so difficult to get either. Gallatin DP (socket 604) has 1 or 2 MB of L3 cache, Gallatin MP (socket 603) has 2 or 4 MB L3 cache... both are compatible with s604 boards and can be overclocked. Running something like SuperPI 32M could be fun.

Hard questions I think at some point there was planned 16MB VSA-100 board, possibly it could have been called V4 4200 (but was canceled and never released, like V5 5000). The Daytona based V4 are called V4-2 4200 I believe. But I have no idea if that is oficial name or community given. V4 4800 should be the never released 64MB / DVI / TV-out AGP VSA-100 board. And also 32MB / DVI / TV-OUT PCI VSA-100 board. IIRC TDP for V4 4500 is ~15W, so it should be very similar here, maybe 17-18W. Some also say Rampage has 30 milion transistors, but who knows, anyway 18 milion seems to low for 4pp DX8 chip. VSA-100 is 2pp DX6/7 and has 14 milion. Die size is unknown as far as I know. Rampage chip should support only PS 1.1. Vertex shader (and TnL) was implemented in the Sage chip. I think Spectre cards were planned +/- like this: Spectre 1000 = 1x Rampage, 4pp, PS 1.1, 128-bit DDR, 32-64MB Spectre 2000 = 1x Rampage, 1x Sage, 4pp, PS 1.1, VS, 128-bit DDR, 64MB Spectre 3000 = 2x Rampage, 8pp, 1x Sage, PS 1.1, VS, 256-bit DDR, 128MB

That is true... unless stated otherwise, server HW is not allowed for competitions. Server HW (as far as I know) is considered anything called "Xeon, Opteron, Epyc". Not sure about GPUs - but most likely Quadro, FirePro, FireGL are not allowed as well.

Well, I didn't realize that - too long rules list wouldn't look very good either. The problem is (no offense) people are lazy to search for general rules page hidden somewhere on the main hwbot site (not even on the esports). The support menu -> rules link on esports is empty placeholder btw. I can accept server HW is not allowed for comppetitions, ok - different game, different rules, no problem. Global points... well, most of the rankings are/will be dominated by Threadripper / i7 / i9... so whatever. But do not dare to touch HW points :D I'm sure there are many people interested in the HW Masters league and for them benchmarking everything they can find is a must. And like half of the database is server HW... Also by banning server HW completely all the effort put into creating such a nice and complex database we have would be thrown out of the window.

Maybe it would be simply easier to add "no server HW message" to the competition template... then it would be written for all stages of every comp = perfectly clear for everyone and no more repeating questions. I know it is written in general rules, but obviously not everyone is familiar with them. Banning server HW completely (HW and GL ranking) would would kill most of the fun and motivation for some people (me included). Possibly it could have some negative consequences.

Yeah, out of few hundreds CPUs I have, this is the only one that could be considered highly above average.