cbjaust

Just put the link in without the "eb" and put a note in the comments with the correct link. It's a hwbot bug.

I'll refer you to the following quote regarding separating the s754 palermo Semprons:

I'm getting just basic html with no fancy formatting: Edit: fixed now

https://community.hwbot.org/topic/202857-griff-xeon-l3014-5724mhz-4001-fps-hwbot-x265-benchmark-1080p/

Oh, as if you're going to bother with teamcup anyway. From what I've heard, the best contribution you'll make will be to the local bottle shop's profits before passing out under the nearest table.

Good on ya for making this comp. Sadly I'm not one of those people who has any LGA1151 gear. GLHF to the participants.

Yeah, but it was fine before switching to the LN2 BIOS. I guess it's just of the era nVidia things. It was quite the epidemic of faulty GPUs back in the day. Apols for the thread crap, OP

Yeah, PCMark Vantage is retarded in that way vs all of the other keys FM/UL provides for their other legacy software.

Are you at all interested in one that went from perfectly fine to not taking a driver with a flick of the bios switch to the LN2 side? PS does anyone know if such an occurrence is/was common with the GTX 580 Lightnings?

What is your point?

I never had Zen+ in my C6H so I can't comment on that. Certainly with a Zen2 CPU (Ryzen 5 3600X) and C6H there's full controll of memclk, fclk and uclk, so unless we're not talking about the same thing... ?‍♂️

Which board in particular? are you missing the fabric clock option now?

On another note, I found out today that the key provided by UL/FM on their download page for PCMark 7 (same as the one listed at hwbot) was blocked for online submissions. I don't know if it was a temporary error or if they're blocking that key now.

as far as I know, turning off cores to fit into a particular core count category would be forbidden. Turing off cores to run say, SPI would be fine as long as the score is entered with the original CPU category.

I reckon it's mostly down to the IMC, if you get a great IMC then the quality of the board would start to be more important.

@MaddMutt, did you have SystemInfo scanning enabled? Sometimes the hardware monitoring crashes but the SystemInfo scan still works. At least you'll be getting the hardware recognised. Also that score would be inadmissible because of a time measurement error. Reboot rerun.

oops well the original entry from the OP should be a vanilla 6800 with the "shaders unlocked" option selected, not a 6800 GT as it appears to be. A link to the Card and its BIOS in the entry wouldn't go astray either.

I think you'd have to say it looks a lot like a 6800 GT, given the the stock clocks, and the device and sub-system IDs that match this BIOS

oh, right so it's a weird board partner concoction made to mess with the hwbot GPU categories. At the very least the entry linked in the OP should have the "shaders unlocked" option ticked which was probably not a thing in late 2008 when the score was put up.

I can't be a 6800 (even though the ASUS card linked has the right base clocks and vram type for the score in question) because the card in the entry as per the gpu-z in the sreenshot is a 16:16:6:16 (rops:tmu:vertex:pixel) core with 350/500 base clocks. This matches the 6800 GT only. The NV40 6800 has a 12:12:5:12 core set up.

@Primordiarch, it looks like a Thermalright Archon SB-E

More likely it's actually a 6800 GT (GDDR3, 256bit, NV40) since that is what the stock clocks match.

compact with tabs looks the goods.

On Windows XP SP2, fresh install using an Athlon XP-M on an Abit AN7 CPU-Z 1.91 just hangs the OS at the Processor detection stage. A reset is the only option to recover and CPU-Z 1.59 is needed to avoid the lock up. Conversely on the same system running Server 2003 R2 SP2 CPU-Z 1.91 works just fine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I see the same problem. Have made a ticket at UL/Futuremark. Thanks for the link @chispy