Antinomy

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/

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

Added: https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/w7440/

added: https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/meg_b550_unify_x_ms_7d13/ Nice scores BTW!

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/b75/

Added: https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/ga_k8n/

Seems legit ?

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/x550ze/ Bald eagle, seriously? WTF is this? ??

I've got one benchmark proposal for Beta for 2021, anyone in for it? (Not sure whether its 3D or 2D).

Added! https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/x705ba/

Agree on this one and not only for ES. I always provide fotos of strange CPUs. Don't see a problem with that. I have a lot of stuff HWBot doesn't know about. I even got AM3 CPUs that Knute hasn't benched, LOL. I would recommend everyone running ES/QS/odd stuff to provide more info about it, especially if you can't google it in 2 minutes. I mean there are well-known ES and others aren't.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/2b01_apxd1_dm/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/361a_ibswme_v10/

kinda strange to my mind - when UC, Prime, PCMark05 got pulled, they all lost points. But this gives a ranking you can't beat anymore so who got lucky will keep points forever and no way to beat their scores. Am I missing something?

I'd support Greg on this one - too many benches isn't good too. You don't buy an RTX 3090 to play DOS games so running '99 and 2000 on it is pretty lame, so I'd stand against giving those points on modern hardware, only old school as I said. And in general, making a ridiculous number of (point awarded) tests will make it less fun as I think. This will bring us right between Rev. 2 and 3. Removing cut-off should be good - motivates people to bench no matter how bad the situation in the rankings is (how tight the comp). Now I open say Ryzen 3500 and see 5 results, 4 of which are LN2 and just close it. The second will bring back trash-boints when instead of competing in categories with high number of subs you'll be focused on grinding less competitive ones which is easier and will bring same gain for less effort. I think №1 points should correlate with number of competitors. Grinding is good, just don't over-value it with points. The third is a bit of an issue, but on the other hand, back in Rev.3 we got a situation when say a popular category with 200 subs you can get 31 points for being 50th and 33 points for 20th and you thought - why try so hard for those extra 2 points, just run other tests and get moving instead if pushing to the limit. So the slope should be steep maybe a bit not that steep as now.

Totally agree. I've suggested this before, will write again: Give 99 and 2000 points (HW, TPP) for hardware that can't run 3DMark 03. I have to remind that since Aquamark on legacy hardware is currently dead, some categories have only one benchmark awarded.

Hm, make HWBot Prime great again? As for TestCPU - you mean the good old one? I think it's kind of outdated nowadays. I would keep boints for pre-SSE CPUs only.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/ga502iu/

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/915glm-v_(ms-7131)/

And looks like CPU-Z doesn't e-mail CPU-Z validations anymore so all my links are gone together with the results. Sh.......

Yep, the entry I've created after the restore has gone, I've re-added it and now it's added to HWbot. Thx

Looks like there's a bug - newly created hardware doesn't appear neither in submit page nor on HWBot hardware pages.

You kind of miss the big picture heree. Let's go back in the days of P3 and AMD Athlon. Why would anyone want to buy a dualCPU config instead of a single CPU? It costs around twice more and wasn't the best choice back in the days in most cases. In most but not all of them. Why people have bought dualCPU setups was multithread performance - rendering, video editing, scientific stuff and all of this. That's where and why those were used. Nobody brought them for single thread tasks. So running Pifast on a dual socket setup may be curious but has no value at all. You have Cinebenches, wPrimes, x265, GPUPI and all sorts of stuff for that. The reasons people were crazy about SR-2 was globals for multithread tests, don't make a mistake on this one too. Both some 2D and 3D gained from second socket.

It would be better if you've put links to all the results but I got you. You mean you have better results in both x1 CPU and x2 CPU but since your x2 CPU is lower, it's hidden and in the x2 rankings a lower result is shown. This is an interesting bug and I believe that the right way is to show your x2 result with zero points awarded. I'll try to report this bug but it's a long to-do list.

Z-buf 16bit