Antinomy

Is it normal that 3DM Vantage requires verification despite being unsupported? https://benchmarks.ul.com/legacy-benchmarks?redirected=true#

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/x540ya/

Wow, nice 300A!

Could we add "Any 3D" and "Any 2D" to the list of options? I think I'm not the only one who does such searches for given parameters.

I'm afraid those are too old and rare for him to make an interest...

1) I've benched a not too popular videocard, Twister K recently. GPU-Z gives me a BSOD on stock settings, what should I do? GPU-Z doesn't support it either. 2) Certain systems (Radeon being one of them) hang up on start of 3DMark. Is using -nosysteminfo key allowed for such cases?

@moi_kot_lybit_moloko, most likely this is because your cards need 3.3V in PCI slot and socket 7 boards don't have it. Check out PCI pinout, check for 3.3V. Addind ATX 3.3V from PSU might help with this.

Agree on both. I prefer to make a thorough research before making big changes like this. Anyway, I think Mr. Scott will agree that a vanilla 7800GS has no chances against a super-charged 24 pipe Gainward 7800GS+. And we consider the pipes locked. It's fine for me when a certain beefed up version of a card is better (like the Goes like hell and Golden Sample cards are) - better memory, better cooling, slightly higher clocks. But what we have here is a card with different specs. Think of a 7900GS card sold as 7800GT (and 7800GS vanilla is even weaker than 7800GT). I like Greg's idea but we need to think of all cards that will get affected by this. 7800GS will get handled but don't expect it in several days. It's been this way for years and no harm if it wait some more. Harm can be done by rapid decisions.

Added: https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/x421iay/

This conversation started at W9 forum: https://warp9-systems.proboards.com/thread/1474/gainward-bliss-7800gs-agp Yes, there is an issue with 7800GS/7800GS+ and Gainward variants of this but I'll handle it later as ATM I don't remember all the flavours of 7800GS and which ones could unlock or not and so on.

Well, the PCB color, thickness and SMD capacitors are different for different cores. But core can easily be identified by software. But not S-spec if we're speaking about unmarked CPUs.

Smth like "Xeon-W (base freq.) ES". Having the core count it quite uniquely identifies this SKU. My position for ES is approximately as follows: "apples to apples" - if ES follows specs of existing CPU (besides maybe stepping, TDP and unlocked multi), it goes to this category. Most ES don't have unlocked multi and most of them have lower o/c limit than retail (yeah, I remember Guldtown-A0). If a ES has different specs (like 26 cores in your case which is not seen in any other Xeon-W), it gets it's own category. Anything that falls out of this can be investigated separately.

You see the 26 cores? That makes it not a 3175X. This SKU will get it's own 26-core category pretty like the mobile Coffee-lakes discussed not long ago.

@yosarianilives, please specify what category are your talking about and what sort of unlocked are we speaking of?

Oddly, I was sure it wasn't there when I've asked, the page defaulted to 3DMark physics and there was nothing above. Now, at home looks fine like it's been before, thank you.

Any chances to get back the "Any" benchmark option in the Search submissions page?

Happened before - Prescott E0 (64-bit), Deneb C2/C3. Same old picture.

No, we don't split categories by stepping. This question is not new and I don't think it's a good idea.

Чудеса на миражах ?

Це очень старая ошибка, давно проблема есть. У меня система на Mirage 1 делала 29xx в 01, но я решил сперва догонять D201GLY, а теперь мать не стартует. Думаю, больше 3000 возможно.

Now things start to get interesting ?

Thanks! Took some time to understand the platform. 115 was done with stock VGA and FSB clocks.

Nice one, doc! You really know how to squeeze these.

I don't agree with your position but I will respect it. Exactly. And I don't see it now. Before it's been pretty simple, take PCM05 for example: you're not allowed to change benchmark's DLLs (I've tried to update the sound encoding with a newer version and it gave crazy boosts) because they're part of the test bundle. Pretty much like textures are part of 3DMark 2001 bundle if anyone is this old to remember that cheat. But you are allowed to change driver version, strip down the OS, upgrading or downgrading DirectX, using maxmem, LSC, copywaza making the software part of the system faster (I want to point this - making faster, not believing it runs faster). And now there's a forbidden subsystem we can't touch. If tomorrow comes a new driver or DirectX that will gain 5% and make old rankings obsolete, will we ban it too? Or will this be a kickstart for a re-bench? Oh, and how about OpenCL drivers, will we ban the fastest ones so everybody stays in line with the slowest guys? Two days ago I've spent about 6 hours disassembling an old BIOS to give it hell, maybe I should stop from software tinkering? I really wanna see a line.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/lenovo_g580/