trodas

Another MaxxMem fail - can't run on 512MB ram: Obviously the latest version is buggy Could someone contact the autor...? Windows XP SP3 Czech Celeron s478 2.6GHz Chaintech 9VJL3 512MB SDRAM

Hoooray! Just there loops to go, at that speed it should be roughly in 3 days finally finished: ...and we see, if that redraw is just a glitch or priority thing! If I believe, I would say: let's pray. But I don't. I believe in _mat_ and that the validation file will be okay!

Report on machine with 512MB of ram: 1080 test is possible, lenghty, but possible: http://hwbot.org/submission/2959296_ 4k test is impossible, machine run out of the swap (768MB specified, user size, no enlargement) Conclusion: 1G ram requirments valid for 4k, 512MB possible for 1080p test.

In submission of the x265 HWbot test: http://hwbot.org/submission/2959296_ ...I set the 9VJL3 Chaintech mainboard, but it it not accepted. I edit the score and same result - for some reason, HWbot did not attach the score to the right mainboard - the suggestion for the 9VJL3 never come up - so pls fix not only the score, but the mainboard suggestion/detection. Thanks!

That ram maker do exist, so HWbot better recognize it:

PSU: Premier LC-B300ATX do exist: https://www.google.cz/search?q=Premier+LC-B300ATX&newwindow=1&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=928&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIjdaN95fFxwIVAhgsCh0M3gId ...so it might be good that HWbot will add that PSU type.

Also pls put there this, much nicer, image: ...even I understand that it will be probably ghosted by the sample thing, because Chaintech does not support HWbot... but... do Chaintech even exist now? Should not be mainboard from companies, that aren't existing now, spared this dreaded "sample image" whitewash? Because... well... it is ughly and the company that is dead cannot in any way even support HWbot again, so we will forever end with this ughly "whitewash"... /just thinking out loud, pls don't shoot me...!

HWbot claims, that the Chaintech 9VJL3 mobo use a VIA PT800 chipset: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/9vjl3/ I would like that to be true, but sadly it is not. According to these infos, the mobo is most definitively NOT using modern PT800 chipset, but suxxking VIA P4X400 one: http://www.motherboard.cz/mb/chaintech/9VJL3.htm http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/big-business,671-12.html http://www.cnet.com/products/chaintech-9vjl3-motherboard-atx-socket-478-p4x400/specs/ Of course, all these sources could be wrong, however when even a manual insist on VIA P4X400 chipset: http://depositfiles.com/files/e3bmb9zqb http://www.mediafire.com/?odkuc80j5c1y4a7 https://mega.co.nz/#!vYcFkY5a!ODr9L_x3PpfjjlwtZeIZ7wUqwbIdn_pJZOo-7HzR9-E Then I believe that we can all agree, that the chipset is not PT800, but rather P4X400 ...because it perform like one, lol. (read - it is painfully slow, giving SuperPi 1M test in 2min 9sec and something, witch suxx) Hence I suggest the obvious: fix the chipset to VIA P4X400 one

I would suggest you first try overclocking something less valuable and easy to do. What about some basic desktop PC?

Aida64 gives the answer: It is a Chaintech 9VJL3. And there is a bug: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/9vjl3/ The mobo is most definitively NOT using modern PT800 chipset, but suxxking VIA P4X400 one: http://www.motherboard.cz/mb/chaintech/9VJL3.htm http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/big-business,671-12.html

For the first time, when I run Everest Ultimate v4.20.1170 I get message that request to send the mainboard info to Lavalys So I did, of course, only to get this email: But the question remain - how to get identification of mainboard, on witch there is no type/marker printed? It is a Socket 478 mainboard, featuring VIA P4X400 chipset, AGP and surprisingly still in working condition Featuring only lame Celeron 2.6GHz (100x26), tough: http://valid.x86.fr/dalq8i ...but a nice GeForce 6600 from Asus Anyone have clue, what to do? Upgrade to Aida64? What if Aida did not know it either...?

x265 Benchmark works nicely on Win7 gaming machine, but absolutely fail to work on my WinXP SP3 main machine, claiming that: havli suggested to try older CPU-Z versions, but it does not do anything to help. I tried the latest CPU-Z 1.73, then I go by versions 1.72.1, 1.70, 1.68 and 1.66 and then I give up, it just fail to run all the time. CPU-Z works w/o a glitch on this P4 machine, so any suggestions what could get wrong are more that welcome. The config is really nothing special AT ALL: Windows XP SP3 Czech MSI PM8M3-V (VIA P4M800) - Thermalright SI-128 SE Pentium 4 650 3400MHz (200x17) 1.375Vcore 2048MB OCZ4002048ELDCPE-K 2-3-2-5 200MHz 2.50V Sapphire R9100 128MB 250/200MHz @ 293/248MHz 250G Samsung 850 PRO 512MB cache (MZ-7KE256BW) MLC chips 1024G Western Digital Black 64MB cache (WD1003FZEX) ...so, anyone get this standalove version to work on WinXP w/o Java installed?

ROFL ... someone should made the score a bit faster That won't be me, tough. I'm about to turn loop 16... and hell, it is over 260h now ...it is getting tiresome, but at least it is over the half. My Aquamark run is _NOT_ over the half of their 5200 frames yet

But PSUs can be "overclocked" too When I tried to get more of ABit ST6-R mobo, then I increased the voltage PSU produced at 3.3V line in attempt to give more voltage to the rams and chipset. At 3.6V the overvoltage protection stopped me, but... imagine the possibilities! PSUs are fair game too. You can take a look at the old work of mine on old Eurocase PSU that I made fanless: http://trodas.wz.cz/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=438 ...even that you cannot read the text, you get the idea from the pictures

Hello to Tehran! Holly... that must be hot as hell, how do you guys manage to survive in such conditions?

So, you seen it happend and then works well in the end? I keep it running for now, but I'm _quite_ worried. I get to the point that I tried to duplicate my slow-down procedure on two other machines. These as AXP cpu's (Jetway V266B, AXP-M 100x5 - PCchips M810LR, AXP 100x11) and the results are: - good, because the slow-down works quite well on both machines - horrific, because SuperPi 32M test with 12 and 17h per loop (respectively to the affected machines) is not going to be finished any time soon :-O Dunno, if I can even keep up my patience for that long, tough. With 24loops per 17h, we are talking about 17+ days of test running... ...not to mention that the Aquamark is running since 13.8. and it is not even in the half (getting close, tough - 22xx something frames as of now are being drawn) with the very real possibility that I cannot made the verification required, because of CPU-Z crash and CBid not supported as replacement, witch is IMHO kind of odd, because if GPU-Z fail, then it is permisable to use other tool as well...

This submission verification screen is a "bit" wrong, lol: http://hwbot.org/submission/2955489_trouffman_hwbot_x265_benchmark___4k_core_i7_3615qm_0.78_fps BTW, tried the last portable version and got this error: Hardware detection error, please restart the program. Log: INFO -> Info: ------------------------------ INFO -> Info: 2015-08-22 00:16:37.75 INFO -> Info: MainFrame start INFO -> Info: 2015-08-22 00:16:49.234 ERROR -> Error: CPU-Z info open error INFO -> Info: ------------------------------ INFO -> Info: 2015-08-22 00:21:08.14 INFO -> Info: MainFrame start INFO -> Info: 2015-08-22 00:21:19.468 ERROR -> Error: CPU-Z info open error INFO -> Info: ------------------------------ INFO -> Info: 2015-08-22 00:21:25.578 INFO -> Info: MainFrame start INFO -> Info: 2015-08-22 00:21:36.906 ERROR -> Error: CPU-Z info open error ...witch is weird, because latest CPU-Z works well for me ( http://valid.x86.fr/fygs46 ), same as all versions before it on this rather standard MSI P4 mobo

Okay, I take that. And noproblemo, it is not need to be very fast, I having hard time with other computer challenges as of right now, so... Not to worry. Hit me with PM with the PayPal address of yours And yep, I take a look at more of your offerings soon Yet for the ASRock 775Dual-VSTA I need the 16FD5, these should work best there, according to Don_Dan ...but can the Hynix chips handle the same low latency timings, as TCCD chips? Testbench Gigagbyte P45 UD3P - noted, thanks a lot for your efforts!

That simply is not happening, because the FSB 7.14MHz is a jumper thing. No CpuFSB or ClockGen or SetFSB can help there, not to go THAT low: http://valid.x86.fr/9b88hu

At very low clocks (10.7MHz), I experienced that Windows 2000 fail to boot. The Win98se boot, but more recent versions CPU-Z cannot work on Win98se... and it is a good question, if on Windows 2000 the latest CPU-Z do work...

Could happen But I have a bigger problem. The text disappeard again... and I did not clicked now... maybe moved mouse a bit and that it is: So that is quite weird. Maybe it happens because of priorities? Or me, forgetting to activate the Win7?

Yea, he cover up pretty fast, when he sees a great a** ( ) Watercooling for bird: bird cooling

treadmill gym smooth recovery

Well, I hope the validation file will be OKAY mainly. That is IMHO what counts. These loops times can be reconstructed from my published images... I would be furious, if someone could claim that this is not valid, because all what I did was to few times click on the status window ... and the times disappear then I never had idea, that I should not click there and that the times could disappear like that. And there we have a new screen: ... also this is possible to do: http://valid.x86.fr/8cqmjb :-) This is AXP-M 2600+ and it can also run like 320MHz CPU. Board is not "unknown", but Jetway V266B. Under lowest 100MHz settings it was bring with CpuFSB program, the PLL is Realtek RTM560-266 and it sadly cannot get lower that about 60MHz and every attemps to go there are very quirky at best. Sometimes it reset or freeze at even as high, as 75MHz, but mostly problems arise near 66MHz

gigioracing - About 4 hours estiminated. I just run it and get to sleep and took the score in the morning If there won't be the taking screens during the run and the screensaver won't kick it (that is the only time the machine start swapping during the test at 512MB of ram), the speed might be a bit faster. 3.5h maybe? Hope that tell you something