Mr. Fox

I noticed none of my old submissions appear looking at my submissions histroy. I cannot tell you have much I HATE the new UI. Everything so SO bloated, huge and ugly. Feels like I am using a damned tablet or smartphone. Really sucks how it looks now. Amen to that, brother!

I have one 14900KF (out of many 13th and 14th Gen) with the SA bug and anything 1.200V or higher VCCSA would cause lockups, which obviously hinders RAM overclocking. That CPU maxed out at 8200 CL38 with 1.190V on VCCSA. BIOS 1503 with 0x129 MC fixed that for me. I tested up to 1.400V on VCCSA and no more freezes. The SA bug was a problem on ASUS and MSI boards I tested it on. I tested the ASUS XOC BIOS that @safedisk posted (v9933) and the SA bug returned to that CPU even with 0x129 MC. I am going back to BIOS v1503 and hope the SA bug goes away again. It was nice having a CPU that worked right. I'm going to be sad if the fix was undone by 9933. It is a better than average CPU sample except for that flaw. Has a really nice VF curve and low voltage requirements for the P/E cores and cache and strong IMC.

What laptop CPUs will work with desktop LGA-1700? Aren't all of them BGA?

I'd really like to see something in Systeminfo that identifies GPU benchmark runs as "Stock" and "Overclocked" based on NVIDIA and AMD reference boost clock, with a corresponding filter available for search results. The actual boost clock will vary with temperatures, as will the boost clock of "OC" versions of non-reference designs, but the base boost clock will remain constant regardless of the actual boost clock on reference cards. The moment you overclock the GPU even a little bit, the base clock value will change. You can see this in GPU-Z. Once that is in place you can create a filter based on stock versus overclock and exclude anything from HOF ranking that isn't an overclocked submission. Conversely there would be times that it would be very useful knowledge to know what stock performance should look like based on averages. You could also more easily quantify how things like CPU clock, memory clock and BCLK, and OS tweaks, affect benchmark scores with stock GPU runs. It would also be nice to see a filter added to search results based on GPU brands and models as identified by the firmware. This data is already captured, so why not include those as options in the filtering menus for selection? Because so many of the 3DMark submissions are overclocked systems, which all of us here absolutely love doing, the UL database has little or no value in terms of identifying, with any level of accuracy, what appropriate stock performance should look like and thus it becomes more difficult to evaluate (from that data UL is compiling). (Note: I am speaking of UL/3DMark search results in my comments above and not HWBOT.)

Thank you. 👍 Really appreciate it. That seemed to work fine.

Are there instructions how to do this posted online that you can share? Is it done using NVFLASH or a hardware programmer? This should not be necessary, and it wouldn't be had NVIDIA not enabled this. But, it would be helpful to know in case it ever needs to be done. Thanks in advance for any detail you can share.

NVIDIA should have a warning that appears in NVIDIA Control Panel when ECC is enabled to inform the user that enabling ECC may result in unrecoverable damage to the GPU memory. Then neither HWBOT nor UL would need to worry about it or find solutions because nobody with a normal level of intelligence would enable ECC and there would be no 3DMark submissions for HWBOT moderators to have to worry about moderating. UL could continue producing the modern cartoon benchmark crap for the kiddos.

Probably so. UL has turned Futuremark into a huge joke. They used to be the industry standard, now they are just laughingstock. And, no... I am not going to ruin the memory on either one of my 4090s just for the sake of submitting meaningless benchmark scores at 3DMark.com or here. That's just way too stupid to even consider the idea. I wish NVIDIA had not enabled the ECC crap on these cards. Should be interesting to see what their "ideas" are since they haven't had any good ideas in a very long time. 3DMark turned to crap when UL took over. It's incredible how stupidity has taken the PC tech industry by storm. Intelligence has become rare and UL is leading the charge with their trashmark software.

Yeah, it would be extra work and not a great use of a moderator's time. But, you could require the person reporting the submission to provide a screenshot if they expect moderation to occur. That would shift the burden to the person reporting it.

Yes. That is the only logical, intelligent solution. Requiring people to waste money on a 4K display if they don't want one would be a truly great way of driving yet another nail into the coffin of our rapidly dying sport. That would be a very stupid decision. If anyone is easily butt-hurt and looking for ways to report scores that beat theirs they can always use the required validation link and visit 3dmark.com if they think the submitter is a liar.

No, I am sorry I only have those two versions saved. Intel has a bad practice of taking down old versions of drivers when they are replaced by newer versions and I was lucky to have saved those versions because they are difficult to find. They do the same thing with XTU and there are some older CPUs that only work correctly with older versions of XTU.

In case anyone needs it, here is also OpenCL v16.1 x64 opencl_runtime_16.1.1_x64_setup

I uploaded it to my OneDrive for anyone that needs it. Should allow download without sign-in. opencl_runtime_18.1_x64_setup

awesome stuff

Strange code to see... it is gnerally related to memory.