trodas

I'm probably lost there I did not want, in lowest CPU clock battle, beat a guy with 6.7GHz CPU And I'm pretty sure I submited lower clocks that these... in fact, I would be in deep trouble, if I should submit anything over 4GHz That is my point... Maybe it should show the lowest ATM reached score in the challenge, that would be IMHO logical. What it show now is completely beyond me... but if this is not a bug and everyone else understand, then forget it ... It just does not make slightest sense to me, but maybe I just misunderstnd something?

Much nicer, thank you very much.

Thank you

Hoooray! Thanks, very nice!

When the popup for participating in the ongoing competitions appear, it show way wrong records to beat: For example: Intel CPU-Z lowest clock: 6798.8MHz? That hardly can be lowest, can it? AMD CPU-Z lowest clock: 4899.73MHz? Nah, not lowest clock either... ...and the rest of the scores require some scrutiny too

Thanks!

Yes, thanks, much nice now. Just also pls add the image for the R9 390: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_r9_390/ ...as the reference versions did not differ from 390 to 390X externaly...

I experienced similar bug, but on the other "end"... Pentium 90 overclocked past 66MHz it report wrong FSB and CPU clock... and same P90 underclocked to 10.7MHz result in no CPU frequency shown, hence no validation. Bug since v1.70... because earlier versions have no problemo.

Hoooray, user bartx contacted me by PM and offered sale of the Thermalright SI-97: So, thanks to HWbot, my search is over :nana:

Kojima45 - 2MB external cache? If working correctly, that should give you nice boost. Mine Asus TXP4-X Socket 7 board feature two chips with 512kBy L2 total, but it seems to be flakey. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. It is at least weird... Gotta look at this... I.nfraR.ed - I believe that I'm quite good in Win2k/XP optimizing. In fact, I take pride how well I can optimize these systems. I gut everything I can, disable everything possible, etc. However much to my surprise, the more I optimize, the slower SuperPi times get...! So, let's take recent example I made just for you: Asus TXP4-X Socket 7 mobo. Windows XP SP1.0a (no nLite). After install, it consume over 60MB of ram and at iddle, a 112.5MHz P90 is loaded at 9% with just opened taskman. Fresh install give SuperPi time 17min 43sec: http://hwbot.org/submission/2962671_ After thorough optimalization SuperPi 1M time is 19min 0sec: http://hwbot.org/submission/2963677_ And I slashed the used memory to 29MB and the CPU load with opened taskman to 7%, disabling everything I can. Previously I have records near 41MB (PCchips M810LR: http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/4369/taskmanagertestzz9.gif - SiS 730 ), but on this Socket 7 mainboard can Win be optimized REALLY well. But it have adverse effect on the speed, witch is IMHO very weird, but I consistently get such results. What I did wrong? TerraRaptor - Hopefully you can be more specific, pretty please with suggar on top? Sure I can take a eng version of WinXP. Sure I can take them w/o any servicepack... but I fear that the result will be the same. After optimizing - less SuperPi performance. Or can you help me out, suggest good build(s) or something like that, perhaps by PM when need? Thank you for every tips!

HWbot know S3 Trio64 V2/DX/GX videocards: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/trio64_v2dxgx/ However these are predated by their V1 versions: "S3 Trio64" ... These cards do suxx, w/o added ram (1MB by default) are the resolution limited in WinXP to 800x600x16 and the 57MHz GPU clock is slow. Not to mention that V2 worked much better on low clocked PCI bus. Using V1 things look that bad, when PCI bus has to run at 3.75MHz: ...but problems aside - HWbot should known this hardware and the image is appropriate PS. if the PC partner logo is a problem (usually these things are, so I trying to avoid them), then I will just photograph mine card with all the stickers are already removed now frommy S3 Trio64 card: ...please say what to do, I can do it easily and produce relative nice looking picture(s). Just say / PM what is preffered there.

Seems that it was happen already, hooray and thanks!

Cool score. Dunno, why it on Win98 did not run faster, but 173MHz SDRAM with 2-2-2 timing is awesome! Congratulations!

But Haven HWbot wrapper did not work correctly ATM: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=142412 ...and 3Dmark 01 is CPU-bound like no 3D bench...

Beautifull! Thank you!

Bumping with the picture of Empaq ram taken by me: Looks good, is not it?

Mine lovely (altrought not that much now, when I find out that AMD K5-75 did not post on it at 7.14MHz FSB, unlike my P90 :battle: ) Asus TXP4-X mobo... http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/txp4-x/ ...is lacking a image. So I made one: Thanks! :celebration:

Good point, thanks for the correction!

CPU/FSB detection using CPU-Z versions 1.61.4 - 1.63 - 1.66 - 1.70 - 1.72.1 - 1.73: In short, since 1.70 it start the detection of wrong clock (110 instead of 112.5 as 75x1.5 gives), yet added detection of FSB, witch is wrong, when overclocked and right when running on stock (last image and validation): http://valid.x86.fr/5hhxk9 ...that bring back the question on how that can work for someone before and how to do it now?

Reading the OC results I stumbled on this: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_r9_390x/ AMD Radeon R9 390X is not represented with image? That call for fix: Source: http://www.cnews.cz/sites/default/files/pictures/novinky/2015/06cerven/referencni-provedeni-radeonu-r9-390-a-r9-390x/referencni_provedeni_radeonu_r9_390_a_r9_390x_06.jpg (same image goes for 390 and 390X, as the reference versions did not differ at all...) That should take care of this :celebration:

While HWbot "knows" R9 Fury and Fury X models, the Fury Nano had been annouced and the specs are no longer under NDA So maybe the card should get recodnized by HWbot? I prepared nice image for it Thanks for keeping HWbot up to date :celebration:

On Asus TXP4-X mainboard, witch use Intel 430TX chipset, latest CPU-Z does report the FSB wrongly. A good example is my P90 running at 75x1.5 - reported as 55x2 = 110MHz: http://valid.x86.fr/ia4gwh So I "look around" to see, what others use and on the similar, Asus TXP4 mainboard held Antimony first place with 83MHz: http://hwbot.org/submission/2373822_ The 83MHz settings looks familiar, my board can do 7.14, 50, 55, 60, 66, 75 and 83MHz, so except my envy that the IDE controller made it on his board, I have nothing against that score. I looked that the FSB is correctly reported using CPU-Z v1.63 - so I grab that version on CPU-Z page (last one in history) and run it too: ...but it does not show anything! What the hell?! :mad: That does not make slightest sense. Yes, the v1.63 somewhat ignored the L2 cache on Antimony's Asus TXP4, but that it is. It is weird, in the place where cache IO should be ( http://s18.postimg.org/4yf1lv18p/Asus_TXP4.jpg ) - between the CPU socket and battery, he have a different IO on the photo: http://img.hwbot.org/u8730/image_id_949660.jpeg No idea what is going on there? And also the CPU-Z does not report the L2 at all for him, even that the board should come with it, as mentioned on page 8 of the manual: "Level 2 Cache: 512KB Pipelined Burst SRAM onboard." http://www.mediafire.com/?1sds42nqtnn7jpq Another score (CPU clock) is also weird on the Asus TXP4: http://hwbot.org/submission/2221547_patriot219_cpu_frequency_k6_2_500mhz_499.83_mhz Correct FSB, no ram info and weird L2 of side 128kBy?! (1.58): And with same CPU-Z used it suddently report no FSB and no L2 info (besides almost standard no ram info): http://hwbot.org/submission/2221534_patriot219_wprime___32m_pentium_1_100mhz_26min_18sec_383ms Another very similar board is Asus TX97-XE: No FSB and L2 in CPU clock (1.46): http://hwbot.org/submission/754366_azesmbog_cpu_frequency_k6_233mhz_%28model_6%29_265.6_mhz No FSB but correct L2 in PiFast (1.46): http://hwbot.org/submission/754370_azesmbog_pifast_k6_233mhz_%28model_6%29_23min_20sec_980ms No FSB but correct L2 in SPi 1M (1.46): http://hwbot.org/submission/754386_azesmbog_superpi___1m_k6_233mhz_%28model_6%29_10min_30sec_430ms No FSB but correct L2 in SPi 32M (1.46): http://hwbot.org/submission/753943_azesmbog_superpi___32m_pentium_1_150mhz_12h_5min_54sec_720ms No FSB and no ram info, but correct L2 in wPrime 1024M (1.46): http://hwbot.org/submission/757107_azesmbog_wprime___1024m_k6_233mhz_%28model_6%29_13h_32min_53sec_352ms ... While IMHO none of the scores seems suspect (all are within the possibility of these boards), what seems odd is the variously different results from FSB detection and some cache oddity. What I would love to know is, what CPU-Z should I use to get the FSB reported properly, as sometimes works for some with various old CPU-Z versions, while I get ZERO with the old versions of CPU-Z Anyone know?

From old Dell OptiPley GX110 I get two one sided, 128MB ram PC133 sticks. On the chips is written Empaq as chip/ram type. Not much else, but I can provide a photo when need... Quick Google search for "Empaq rams! revealed that I'm not alone with Empaq rams: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Empaq-512MB-PC133-VIA-Chipsatz-single-sided-SDRAM-133MHz-168-Pin-DIMM-RAM-/271381301403 http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/sis.html?_nkw=Empaq%20512MB%20PC133%20Via%20Chip%20Set%20Double%20Sided%20SDRAM%20133MHz%20168%20pin%20DIMM%20RAM&_itemId=271426799435 ...and since that type aways disappear when I enter it, I would like that HWbot recognize these Empaq rams... Thank you! :celebration:

If someone is willing to wait that long, then so be it - use CPU-Z 1.73 for stressing both cores (or all cores by one CPU-Z?), run them on high priority and run GPUPI in low priority. Underclock as much, as you can. Enjoy your waiting CPU-Z validation: http://valid.x86.fr/u5izxd - Images validating the whole run from start to end: http://s923.photobucket.com/user/ax2cz/library/GPUPI - video before the end of the calc (sneak-peak): - video of details of calculation in last loop: - video of the final saving of the score: (please note the refresh problems, IMHO due to AGP graphic card and CPU-Z 1.73 somewhat overloading the system, even the graphic part? Dunno... trying GPUPI 2.2 now) Editing my own commend does not work right now, always ending in white screen

Works well for me: http://hwbot.org/submission/2962892_