havli

What bad experience you have then? Because I had no issues at all - it is the same silicon, same board, same RAM, same everything except writing on the IHS and name in CPU-Z. "low pointers and useless therefore" is a matter of perspective. I can get more points from obscure Xeon then I ever will using i7 920... because quite simply Xeon is (almost) guaranteed 1-2 points + cup / score. On the other hand benching i7 on ambient cooling (I'm not a fan of subzero) results in rank 400 of 650 and 0.1 points / score most of the time. Also I don't resell CPUs, everything I buy remains mine for my collection and available for future rebench when needed. So I think you understand 5 xeons instead of one i7 is much better option.... Anyway here we are discussing competitions, so points are not important, only the score is. I understand dual-socket boards and/or huge multicore Xeons kill the fun for i7 users, as they can't reach score that high no matter how hard they try. But... I really see no reason why single socket MB + Xeon based on following logic couldn't be used: 1366 = 6C/12T fastest i7 / 6C/12T fastest Xeon -> allowed all i7 + all Xeons up to 6 cores 2011 = 6C/12T fastest i7 / 8C/16T fastest Xeon -> -> allowed all i7 + all Xeons up to 6 cores 2011V3 = 10C/20T fastest i7 / 22C/44T fastest Xeon -> -> allowed all i7 + all Xeons up to 10 cores etc...

Banning Xeon is the best way to kill this competition for many people. i7 970 = $120, Xeon X5650 = $25... I guess plenty of people (me included) simply won't pay 5x as much for exactly the same CPU only because it is called i7.

Most likely something is missing in your special win7 install. I never had this problem in windows 7 and neither anywhere else. But I never use modded OS, so it must be the reason.

How exactly the ranking algorithm works? For example the situation is as following: 3DMark01 GTX 200 (3 GPUs) person1 -> submits 110k with GTX 280 (day 1) person1 -> submits 115k with GTX 285 (day 2) person2 -> submits 105k with GTX 260 216 (day 3) person3 -> submits 120k with GTX 285 (day 4) -------------------- So after day 2 we have one score contributing to the stage which is 115k with GTX 285... 38333 total score. After day 3 we have 115k (GTX 285) + 105k (GTX 260 216)..... 73333 total score. But what happens after day 4? The logical approach would be 120k (GTX 285) + 110k (GTX 280) + 105k (GTX 260 216).... 111666 points total. Question is, does it really work this way?

It seems you are having two problems: 1. The x265 Benchmark package is compressed using rar5 format, which is not compatible with older versions of Winrar. 2. With 99.999% chance a false positive detection by your AV software. I'm afraid there is no solution to this other than either add an exception to your AV to ignore "HWBOTx265Benchmark.exe" (if possible) or use a different AV software.

@cagej I don't think this monitoring issue is such a big deal. Until this ROG competition, noone has ever used it... Without the monitoring module the benchmark is working just fine and that is 99.99% use case. Development of the 2.0.0 version wasn't easy and took a lot of time, most likely much more than all the users in total have spent running x265 with monitoring on to this day. Don't forget that except some new 3Dmarks and XTU, other HWBOT benchmarks don't support realtime monitoring / tools for LCC at all. Yes, the x265 monitoring feature is far from perfect... but this to be expected as, you know... there is a difference betwen Futuremark / Intel and one guy who is developing the x265 benchmark in his free time after work and gets exactly nothing for it. Most likely there will be an update in the future (no ETA), but I can't guarantee all these new CPUs will be supported for ambient / LCC competitions. Everything depends on the Open Hardware Monitor development. It is open source project but performing the needed adjustments myself is beyond my reach so I must wait when (if) new version supporting Ryzen / Skylake-X / etc. become available and then I can use it.

I think you should run desktop at 1024x768 @ 99Hz... and then 3dmark will use this mode also. Otherwise is just defalts to one of the predefined modes (which are all 60Hz).

Hmm, 178k @ 60Hz and 185k @ 144Hz using GTX 1070 and 3dm03... so nothing ground breaking but it works somewhat. Which is weird, cause there is no logical reason for connection between fps and refresh (when running vsync off), 3dmark must be bugged somehow.

How much difference does the hirefresh make?

In this case, VIA should be better - assuming it supports 1/2 AGP divider. Unfortunately BE6 and PIII 700 are the best things I have for Slot 1.

It might, but also depends on CPU and MB. RFM is more sensitive to high AGP clock, that's why I had to run only at 124 MHz FSB... the CPU itself is stable even at 140.

Thank you... I'm not sure I still remember how to get R128p working properly though It has been a long time sice I benched these GPUs last time. This round will be interesting.

Great run... GF2 Ultra is the real killer

Yeah, it is working now - thank you.

Great run! Are there some special mods needed to get SLI running in XP when using 7700K? I was trying 2x GTX 260 and there is no option to activate SLI... even with the latest XP drivers. On the other hand the same happens in win7 unless I use the unofficial patch, so this might be just some VGA BIOS incompatibility.

Yeah, sorry - my mistake. It seems all CGN based IGP indeed run GPUPI just fine.

I'm not sure... but is it even possible to run GPUPI on IGP? As far as I know, none of them support FP64, which GPUPI requires.

And if you don't then you will do the same? No, this is nonsense. The thing is - you are stuck in PC world like 10 years ago and refuse to adapt. And everyone who has a different opinion on this is a lesser being for you... I don't like that attitude, most people don't. Just be cool and stop bunnying around because you don't like stuff newer than 10 years and consider it non-skill. I don't like a lot of stuff either... but do you (or anyone) see me spamming BS, complaining or calling other people n00bs just because they enjoy competitions containing stuff like highly binned 6950X CPUs and zombie modded Titan GPUs? Not at all. I respect what other people enjoy and so should you. Overclocking is so complex that noone can know everything to the smallest details. I'm sure most of todays best ranked overclockers are not very familiar with OC'ing things like Slot A Athlon... still I'm not calling them as "know nothing". See the point?

I don't know - noone was able to beat that score for 3 years now. And with all due respect - you have no 32M submissions on socket 7. Mastering this platform is not so easy, so I don't think you can. For me 32M @ socket 7 is much more interesting than anything s370. Just a different personal preference, just as LGA 771 vs "the true old school stuff". Btw - all 3 your s7 1M WR (wow, that much... ) are in category that has 0, 1 and 3 competititors respectively. Not so much of a challenge really.

Yes, after so many competitions covering this HW in past few years... it is boring for me and possibly others as well. I don't own any s370 WRs - it is quite simple actually. I have no decent s370 modded board nor 200+ MHz capable SDRAM and after all no above-average PIII. Also I'm using only air/water cooling (and TEC in very few subs)... which is simply not good enough for WR on most CPUs after socket 7. Btw - stuff I know nothing about? That is a bold statement. Maybe you could try something other than pouring LN2 on PIII... like beating this for example havli`s SuperPi - 32M score: 5h 18min 11sec 842ms with a Pentium MMX 166Mhz Is it old school enough?

Overclocking s370/462/478 all the time gets boring eventually.... so this is a nice change.

DDR3 DIMM... wasn't it introduced like 2007? Sure old enough. Btw - I almost consider retro my 5 year old SB-E. Oh and Quadro - nVidia Quadro SDR - Hardware museum 1999 indeed

I don't see a problem here. LGA 771 CPUs are cheap, easy to get (unlike dual socket 7 ) and in 2016/17 really can be considered old school. Btw - one of very few opportunities to use "server HW" in oc-esports competitions.

Hi, could you please add: Quadro DDR And perhaps rename the existing Quadro Nvidia Quadro @ HWBOT to something like "Quadro SDR" Thx.

Yes, much faster