trodas

I managed to post two scores todays: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/txp4-x/ ...and I will continue to do so, so hopefully it will work for me? We see.

Thank you, time to come up with some submissions... what is the holdup on the SuperPi 32M test? ...ah, 12h 28min at loop 18, damn. Slow...!

When checking on the Radeons in general... I noticed that Fury X have no image to represent: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_r9_fury_x/ That must be fixed: Source: http://www.overclockers.ua/video/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x/all/ (impressive Fury X pics!) Org. source: http://www.overclockers.ua/video/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x/09-big-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x.jpg Cleaned up: http://postimg.org/image/6nmibl2ax/ This reference design is very beautifull anyway

Reading some of the results I stumbled upon this: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_r9_290x/ AMD Radeon R9 290X is not represented with image? That have to be fixed: Source: http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/3105/AMDRad_R9_290XStraightOn_RGB_24in.jpg So, sadly we cannot use one of these more "eyes-pleasing" non-reference cards, but still it is looking pretty good to me

GPU score only is a good idea. GT 210 clock up pretty well, actually... At least mine. And I agree, Heaven and Aquamark3 (is AM3 means that) are good choices, but the Heaven wrapper need fixing, as it does not run on my ASRock 775i65G mobo at all: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=142412

HWbot does recognize Asus TXP4 mainboard: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/txp4/ ...but not the "-X" version, witch is no revision bump, but entierly different mobo: Asus TXP4: Asus TXP4-X: Pictures taken from manuals, I provide later better picture of the overal mobo for HWbot image support, this one is ughly, I photograph it better! Manuals are there to check, how different these two are: Asus TXP4-X manual: http://www.mediafire.com/?ty8a172cb0thmoa ( http://depositfiles.com/files/i6aq82fzm - https://mega.co.nz/#!eRVEDDCC!zhO6dKpzmBTn3ZoytyRaC-OaSjZE6MyC5qnEhEzWD5I ) Asus TXP4 manual: http://www.mediafire.com/?1sds42nqtnn7jpq ( http://depositfiles.com/files/7pynygwmn - https://mega.co.nz/#!XVMBiRhD!7FknHU9ln-szvBnvQjZ_jbmxHAQsDPq61xSb2fQIFMA ) Basically the -X version features full ATX format, one more ISA slot and onboard PS/2 connectors, unlike the DIN 5pin "thing" on the Asus TXP4. Some pictures from the bench: ...and why I like this mobo: 10.7MHz Intel CPU: :nana:

...or pick up tests/challenges, that are clearly GPU-based. 3DMark2003 for instance, or GPU clock... or something like it.

Brutal dual Xeon LGA 771 mainboard, congratulations for owning such a jewel

ROFL! That suxxking thing? http://images.nvidia.com/products/quadro_nvs_300/Quadro_NVS_300_f_med.png ...it is PCIE, so... tests that are tied to CPU more that to GPU will benefit not from the GPU, but from fast CPU, ending in some sort of CPU-mark...

vows get specific

What is considered low-end anyway. For some it coudl be a S3 Trio64 PCI cards for first i486 / Pentiums. Or we go to the ISA bus? Or AGP will be the limit?

...makes me wonder, if all the other that XOC settings, are also important to disable...

I.nfraR.ed - I never say that, but I write that, because I never seen sucesfull XP optimizing. The best times on SuperPi I get was when they are right after the install state. Each "optimizing" only slow things down. There is about 25+ services, that can be stoped/disabled/killed for good, but all it does is to reduce the number of processes and the number of eated memory. But it always make the XP slower for SuperPi. No idea why, but to me it seems that XP leaved unoptimized and taken right after they being installed is best for SuperPi results. In theory, for example, the disabling of the WFP should be helpfull, but it is not. Disabling the annoing security service should also help, but it does not. And we can go on and on and on... But since I'm beginner, I gladly take some lessons for effectivive WinXP optimizing and I will gladly admit that I'm wrong, when the results come to prove it. I did not see priority settings and ending the explorer process as optimizing Windows... Maybe wazza can help there a bit? http://www.overclock.net/t/1249432/super-pi-32m-tweaking-guide http://forum.overclock3d.net/showthread.php?t=35053

Well, I prefer hardware way to do the slow-downs. In some cases it works great (Aquamark), but on other cases it produce mixed results (SuperPi 32M). Disabling L1 cache/L1+L2 caches on fully stable mainboards cause the SuperPi always fail on 32M test during it, tested on 3 different machines (Jetway V266B, 100x5 AXP-M, 2048MB 2-3-2-6 DDR1 Qimonda rams - PCchips M810LR, 100x11 Barton 2500+, 256MB 3-3-3-6 SDRAMs - MSI PM8M3-V, 200x17 Pentium 4 650, 2048MB 2-3-2-5 DDR1 OCZ rams): ...but that is a bit OT there (that is aimed at 12+h SuperPi 32M runs)... yet if you have some infos, pls drop me a PM or start a thread about this...

Yes, it does. Reported to Franck. All he says is: So it should be fixed in new release... ...the sample image will remain there forewer? Just asking... don't shoot me, pls! IIRC Chaintech is not existing anymore, or does it?

Thank you. No idea if the rams are somewhat good or not, 2.5-3-3-6 is not any miracle after all... Funny the chips are marked as Seitec

Great! Does it means that it will suggest now this type when I enter the HW table?

Absolutely agreed. This is almost 7GHz score and that is pretty damn good in my humble opinion. However, gotta ask... what is with the hairdrier? You are trying to increase the temperature of components, like coild and caps, that like more temperature that subzero or what? Yep, caps have their sweet spot at around 45°C - then they give highest ripple current = best stability for your O/C CPU. Coils like even higher temps...

WinXP = faster? You sure, I.nfraR.ed? Optimized Win2k are quite fast, there could be under 10 processes running easily, resulting with more CPU time for SuperPi.

Slowing the already slow CPU by some settings are not forbidden or against the rules. The validity of resulting file counts most as well, as regularity of the Batch times, IMHO. Yes, I spoted one exploitable bug and I reported it ASAP and it cannot be publicaly mentioned right now. But I have no need to use it to slow down my score anymore It is slow-enought, or is not it? :D

...and if there is a good, 8k footage, then what will be the size to download Memory requirments around 4G is expected and not all that impossible to meet on hi-end machines and for nothing else is this 8k rendering loop aimed at. Clearly PIII is out of the question, unless someone get a PIII machine with at least 2G of ram _AND_ SSD as swap drive. That might produce result in 8k... but it will took ages.

Thank you! Now the image, pls... (bugreport already submited to Franck, so maybe next CPU-Z will be fixed too, recieved thanks todays)

I got a patch for that

I know that rejection because of CPU-Z bug too. Happens many times using way wrong FSB clocks, like 7.14 (interpreted by CPU-Z as zero) or 30/33MHz (flaged as wrong also)... but both cases was 100% legit results.

Well... I will first end the system load, then wait and then click on OK after the computation will be done. That way it hopefully will redrawn just fine. I employ my GF to take a cellphone video, so you will see prcisely, what happend.