Antinomy

That's absolutely normal. If you update your BIOS, you have big chances that it will be recognised fine.

So you made a new account? Try to logout and login again - this makes things OK often.

IMHO, the IE is the one, who screwed up

I agree, if it's not compatible in software means, then it will be very hard to bench old systems. I don't ever want to see a Vista being installed on 486 So many get the win2K or others to work there. It would be very bad if a category will fall off because of a new version. The same was with Super pi 1.4/1.5 that don't want to launch on Win9x but this can be solved.

Em.. what's the system? First of all, you should use wPrime 1.55, because 2.0 isn't allowed As for the second - switch to Windows Vista, it makes multicore CPUs perform faster in this test (or I would say - in every multithread HWBot CPU test). Don't know about Windows 7 though.

Looks like you don't know about the Time Machine http://web.archive.org/web/20040208023530/http://home.comcast.net/~shrmytoon/NF7D_10b4.ace'>http://web.archive.org/web/20040208023530/http://home.comcast.net/~shrmytoon/NF7D_10b4.ace - here's your file. http://web.archive.org/web/ - here's the Time Machine This is why I asked for the dead link. You can make it undead

New stepping by itself never was a reason for a new category. A question that has been discussed a number of times. As the last example - the Wolfdale E0 a zounds of others.

Post couple links where you were searching. doesn't matter that they are dead.

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=689288 - wrong category. The result is of a socket 478 CPU, but in a socket 423 category pretty common mistake, but was validated, so couldn't use the golden bell

Thanks, that was a great one!

Massman, here's a guy whos result will make you cry: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=910987 Next time, you should beat his score and not less!

The rule is "220 is the limit". This means - if you get 220, you are very lucky. Otherwise you should look for not exceeding this value which means - below 220. Can't get exact - get it lower. Otherwise we will always argue on how much can "not much" be As for me, I know that this difference is much lower than even 1 PCMark point, so it doesn't make sense. But dura lex sed lex. P.S. I think that the limit issue should be written on the benchmark page. In the rules section. As a rule - all rules should be mentioned on the appropriate pages, making it easier for everyone.

I heard that Z-drive was mentioned. But as I know, there is a limit of 220MB/s in XP startup oh HWBot, am I correct? So when chasing the speed limit we shouldn't push too far, otherwise he will fall off the distance

Yep, already've seen this the first daty I got this card. And in my system GPU-Z showed the same - 0 ROPs and shader. Don't know waht ZFess has done to make it tell the truth Everest was only capable of showing that SLI is disabled and not even a word on the chip - seems it was in deep shock

16 shaders against 112, are you joking?

Well, I don't think this makes sense. We are talking about integrated video. So there's no card. There is a chipset and a GPU part. You say the ID's different. So, if we take a two-chip chipset, for example, the old 6100 and different secondary south bridges - 405, 410, 430. They have different ID's but the primary south is the same - 6100. We put the in one category despite the south bridge. So why does this change when we go to single-chip south bridge?Take a look in the driver: NVIDIA_DEV.02E0.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT" NVIDIA_DEV.02E1.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS" NVIDIA_DEV.02E2.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT" NVIDIA_DEV.02E3.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS " NVIDIA_DEV.02E4.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GT " NVIDIA_DEV.0390.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce 7650 GS" NVIDIA_DEV.0391.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT " NVIDIA_DEV.0392.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS " NVIDIA_DEV.0393.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT " NVIDIA_DEV.0394.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce 7600 LE" NVIDIA_DEV.0395.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT " You can see two 7600GT, 7600GS, 7300GT, so why don't we make two categories, cause In fact, the performance is not "similar", it's the same! Though, the performance and chip of the 6100 when C51 and 61 are being compared is not.As for the specs - should we separate the ATI All-in-wonder series in a separate category - their specs are different, like the ViVo support, aren't they? The answer is - it doesn't give anything in 3D performance. Like the extra PCI-E 1x doesn't. Well, I could show a lot more same cards with different ID's (like 9500GT), but I think the example was enough to show my opinion. The same platform (I think the AMD and Intel chipsets may be separated), the same videochip (but not in 6100 - there are two if them) - different categories. You can name it like 6150SE/6100 (C61 only) category. or a full list of supported chipsets, I mentioned above. The same is for 7050 if they have same video. I think there should be an addition to what is meaned as a different card. And there should be both cases - discrete and integrated viewed separately. IMHO, the GTS250 and 9800GTX+ have less reasons to be separated than 6100 C51 and C61

The 5833 code is for a ATI Radeon 9000/9100 IGP Chipset - Host-PCI Bridge. Make a report from Everest and CPU-Z. Both would be the best. And a screenshot of the GPU-Z.

Delete this one, I'm blind

You see the \r\n typos? Think this is due to the incorrect "Enter" translation. When getting on a new string this happens.

Ticket ID: 615 Priority: Medium This is what the message looks like when I type it in FF 3.5.3 in the Helpcenter. You can see here another one http://www.hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3864\r\nThe same was with my previous report, but I manually edited it in the forum.

Yep, thank you. That's better, but still not perfect. Why did you leave the 6150 having changed everything else? It's C51. And delete the memory frequency of the 6150LE and 6150SE - cause it's integrated. The thing I'm trying to show is that the C61 6100 are much closer to 6150SE rather than C51 6100. So the category separation is wrong. Look at the 3DMark 06 (GPU intensive load) results - the top5 is on C61. Didn't look the rest. I'll try to get a board on C51 6100 to check the speed difference.

Ticket ID: 606 Priority: Medium I\'ve been benching these chipsets and found out that there is a number of 6100/6150 chipsets. That's what NVIDIA driver says us: NVIDIA_DEV.0240.01 = \"NVIDIA GeForce 6150\" NVIDIA_DEV.0241.01 = \"NVIDIA GeForce 6150 LE\"\ NVIDIA_DEV.0242.01 = \"NVIDIA GeForce 6100\" NVIDIA_DEV.03D0.01 = \"NVIDIA GeForce 6150SE nForce 430\" NVIDIA_DEV.03D1.01 = \"NVIDIA GeForce 6100 nForce 405\" NVIDIA_DEV.03D2.01 = \"NVIDIA GeForce 6100 nForce 400\" NVIDIA_DEV.03D5.01 = \"NVIDIA GeForce 6100 nForce 420\" Whe can see two series of chipsets - the ones with DevID 02xx and with 03xx. The difference is that the first family is dual chip (two south bridges) and the second are single chip. But also the first series is based on Crush51 and the second on Crush61. The new Crush as I read (very poor info on them) has some Z-buffer optimizations enabled. And it's speed increased on same clock. But all of the second series chipsets have their VGA clock at 425MHz. The difference between the 6100 405, 430 and 400 is only the functionality of the second south bridge like USB et cetera. The difference between gen.2 6100 and 6150SE is that 6100 supports 17 PCI-E line (16+1) and 6150SE supports 18 (16+1+1). All these things make no influence on the subject - the graphics. They use the same platform and all specs are similar. So I would like to ask to combine all Crush 61 results in one category because the difference between 6100 Crush51 and 6100 Crish51 is much more than between 6100 C61 and 6150 SE. As for the first generation, the 6150 has a different clock, 475 which is worth a separate category. And as for the 6150LE - I haven't found any info on it yet about it's differences. And the category info needs to be updated, the 6100 are integrated and aren't based on NV43 P.S. as I just found out, the difference between 6100 and 6150 is VC1/H.264 decoding support for 6150. Also it supports newer DXVA (2.0) and DVI stuff and so on. Nothing vitale for 3D benching maybe combine the Crush51 in two categories, the 425 clock and 475?

I've got a question about group benching, but not with team mates. The question on sharing hardware within a team is clear and I agree with the rules. My nearest team mate though is about 7000-7500km from me, others even more. But last weekend I was having a bench session with another team from my city, with the people I know. Maybe it's the last, maybe it's not, but is hardware sharing between me and another team allowed? We just took the HW out of the bags on the table and oc'ed everything what eyes saw first. I surely understand that they can't share results of one HW within their team and there were a few CPU's of one model, what will be seen by their stepping, when they are out. But the different team benching is a question, I wanted to figure out. Nobody is pushing his team higher, cause we are in different ones.

Ticket ID: 85 Priority: Medium I would like to ask you to add GeForce 9500GT 512MB DDR2. I\'ve got one.\r\nhttp://img383.imageshack.us/my.php?image=78620025zz0.png

I agree absolutely. Quite fair. That's why I offered checking out mine. You mean less suspicious? http://hwbot.org/hwbot.post.do?postId=716 The date is out. Why not just delete Jigit's results, which were very suspicious? Both gave me a tough race. Both suspicious. One a mod, the other banned. Where is the edge? Cause I don't want to ask for whom is it This thread was created 9th of April. A couple of days ago I never visited this thread, so? Mine was though it wasn't outstanding, just №1 in the category. One man didn't know about certain hardware, I didn't have time to make an ORB version.