trodas

Well, I downclock in the bios, there is the trick - setting FSB 112 cause it drop to 30 (or 33.333, depending on CPU). Also cache kill is a bios thing... so booting is painfully slow and there is no way around it... You can make the system crash bad just by wildly clicking on many mouse buttons, when it is busy opening windows. Opening window is not a small task as such slow system. You can see them windows being drawn... Also you forget, that CPU-Z crash on MS-6340. Probably need some exception as to not touch certain SMBus registers, but that will require a work on it with Franck - and he is currently busy with the new site design and new validation code of CPU-Z. Even the new 1.73 version crash, of course. I already "been there" - CPU-Z need disable the SMBus on Sapphire A9RX480 mobo. After some work HWiNFO autor figured out what on with SMBus registers bring the mobo down and Franck added the ignore for these ... and since that CPU-Z can run with default settings (eg. scan SMBus) on the mobo. There is the thread about it: http://www.hwinfo.com/forum/Thread-Solved-Sapphire-A9RX480-HWiNFO-crash Exactly same must be done first, before you can even say "CPU-Z" again There is no way I can start CPU-Z on MS-6340 currently. It is not a problem on V600DAP, but that was too fast. If the wrapper just works, there won't be any troubles... BTW, it have 588 frames in the morning, so we have some time to figure out what to do. I can photograph the score and hopefully the details too from screen and then try place the score screen into mspaint. I cannot open modern GPU-Z (you quessed it - it crash too), but 0.4.6 version (last onefor W2k) works nicely. As CPU-Z substitute I take try with the CBid, but not before I save the result in case it crash too. That have to be enought, because it is too painfull to work around 1000 bugs in everything on machine, where simple right mouse click on desktop to show the menu "Properties" took about minute or two (don't know now) to be recognized and draw the menu... Yes, it is THAT painfully slow.

Well, I haven't thought about it at the time... but since these two scores are far from being anything spectacular (179 and 163 points), then I believe that you can forgive me the little mistake. That is why I took the screens with camera as well... for verification. And it is also MUCH faster that on so slowed down machine arrange all the things. It won't fit into the 1024x768 resolution anyway, most of the screen from Aquamark will have to be covered with other windows... And I cannot re-run the test now, because I put the Vanta LT into MS-6340 mobo and there are few members: frames - time 143 - 2:41 (at night) 521 - 8:32 (morning) 535 - 13:45 (kind slow... after launch) 541 - 14:50 547 - 16:51 551 - 18:21 555 - 19:58 564 - 22:56 566 - 23:50 ...you getting the idea, right? Two frames took a hour to complete This is kinda overkill. You have to understand, that mouse moves by delay of about 10 sec in Aquamark. Starting GPU-Z is 15min easily. Arranging 4 windows with content could take hours... And there is no reason to change anything between running of the Aquamark and taking the screens, because I cannot make the machine slower or run with different clocks. Bios have 100MHz limit (V600DAP), x5 multiplier cannot be faked or toyed at all (set by switches on mainboard and by conductive paint on the CPU, the most interesting was the way to cut the bridges that need to be cut ), 25/30MHz for nVidia Vanta LT is the dreaded nVidia drivers limit I complain about like for ethernity (I think I know now a way now to get around that limit... But that is up to the test, ATM the Vanta LT is *busy* ) ... And the only one reason I need you to build the scores is, that the wrapper fail on Vanta LT (and Windows 2000) to run, ending with 0 and claim that this is valid score ... Come to think that I would need another way that CPU-Z to show the CPU/memory settings, because on MS-6340 does ATM the CPU-Z crash. Probably disabling the SMBus scan will fix that, but after taking week+ long lowest score run I cannot take the risc, not to mention that startng the programs and moving the windows like that will take at least 45min, because the machine is really slow even if I take only CPU and memory tabs (2 instances of CBId ... or what do you suggest?

LOL ... interesting. Why then the fails? Mine load seems quite regular and no sudden jumps are seen... but maybe things get different on different HW? Who knows. Noctua just delivered the support for S775/S1366 ...and one more socket I forget, so I install cooler on the ASRock 775Dual-VSTA and try make the GPUPI work with really low-end HW and we see, what will happen.

description of reading

Well, then did not change the load on the run Right now, mine seems to be relatively consistent: 1 - 2:46 (166min) 2 - 5:32 (332min - exactly 166 per loop) 3 - 8:26 (506min - exactly 168.666 per loop) 4 - 11:47 (707min - exactly 176.75 per loop) ...looks like the times are slightly increasing, but all in all it seems very well consistent - IMHO. But maybe you get the irregularity because you did not yet compiled the two Aquamark scores for me That sort of defy the purpose of having setup another superslow run... (BTW and in Aquamark, there is clearly irregularity in the speed the frames increase between various tests. At first it run well, but now it turned into real snail...)

Heh, that is maybe where mohammad2284 learn that 3:5 is bugged on certain older chipsets and now he is just spreading the knowledge

Too late for that, already having 3rd batch (8h, 30 something minutes) ... and it look suspicious, when the time distances between batches vary, as I will add another slowing-down program But I have better ideas, the bench can run on notably slower hardware, causing it to choke a bit (or a lot?) ... like on another machine running Aquamark for 24h now, having only drawn little over 1/10 from the 5200 frames

Well, I'm not that optimistic, since 1st score have 1 batch at 3h 14min and 2 batch at 7h 1min. Mine times for 1 batch are 2h 46 min and 2 batch at 5h 32min mark. That clearly put them way behind the 1st score by GENiEBEN. Sure it beat his older score ( http://hwbot.org/submission/2938964_ ) with goes to 2:25 and 4:50 ...but that was old score Beating old score is nothing earthshaking. But I get wild ideas what can I do with another mobo, if I did not manage to lower the FSB with ASRock 775i65G, witch freeze each time I change the FSB using SetFSB _AND_ fail to post, each time I set under 100MHz for FSB in bios, that allow FSB 95 as lowest... But the question is - will that score be ready in time to end the Team Cup?

Forget to change the batch size to 5... damn Congratulations!

I hope so. Got only 2nd pass with 5h 32min... and I would hate to cancel the test running so nicely slow

Oh...! Thanks! Sorry to produce too many bugreports... there are simply too many bugs PS. Hoooray! It's gone!

3:5 divider on X38/P35/X48/P45 is broken, is 2:3 in reality on 400 strap Oh, so on the X38/P35/X48 and P45 chipsets do this 3:5 divider cause false scores (too high)... Never knew that before, so that make the frequency invalid.

Well, as long, as the score is validated by CPU-Z and it is: http://valid.x86.fr/p3fztx I did not see a problem. Certainly it is not divider. Anyone can use what divider he please... BTW, WR in DDR2 frequency is 900MHz: http://hwbot.org/hardware/memory/ddr2%20sdram/ http://hwbot.org/submission/1025909_shahryar_neo___baran_memory_clock_ddr2_sdram_900_mhz ...with 1:2 divider Mine best use also 1:2 divider and no-one is saying that it cannot be used: http://valid.canardpc.com/mnqznf ...tough I not aimed at maximum frequency yet...

Well, 1.56V aren't pretty, but under just aircooling is this pretty impressive Old good Noctua Makes me wonder, how the GPU will hold under some 3D tests... care to try? And could all 4 cores keep their 5G clocks under load? I mean... mine air 4G Xeon X5650 cannot, they downclock even at 3.6GHz from x22 to x20

The XTU score still show up under the V600DAP mainboard: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/v600dap/

Well, if flowers works for GENiEBEN, I could give them a try: Pretty please with suggar on top?

Hoooray! It works now! I can submit he 5h 10min scrore... http://hwbot.org/submission/2947163_ ...now for the 32bit version, it run overnight, sooooo...

Ah, now it does NOT work for me. Damn! Tried submit GPUPI 5h 10min 9.063sec results and after I finally got the CPU-Z validation working (need new CPU-Z), it just freeze on the white screen and URL http://hwbot.org/submit/create Now how one can participate, when submissions are not working? ...not to mention battling the Aquamark wrapper bugs, eg. it does not work with nVidia Vanta LT, while original benchmark does and one is then dependent on promised creating of the score... witch did not happen yet

So, GENiEBEN, are you going to create the scorefiles from the data sendt to you by PM at all? Just asking, as the time pases. You know, it is pain to have setup for really slow benchmark, especially when you have to work with the original Aquamark 3 and go thru the menu, when my mouse have 10sec lag to any movement... (30MHz FSB x9 Athlon, nVidia Vanta LT 25/30MHz, MS-6340 mobo ... the Jetway V600DAP is too fast to be the slowest, 500MHz Duron is still too fast )

Thx! Hopefully it disappear soon from the Jetway V600DAP lists of scores: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/v600dap/

...then either I'm mistaken, or ... why it was not possible to edit that out later, so I have to bug others to do it? That makes no sense. As soon, as I finish my testing SuperPi 32M run on slowed AMD Duron I try another Aquamark score just to be sure...

For these poor souls, who did not have airconditioning (or computer testing room lack this feature) or their A/C suxx - I have to say that it is kinda sweaty to work in 28°C Even overclocking requires a "little bit" more cooling recently. Dunno how do you guys do it, but I do it this way: And it works! :celebration:

The number seems to be fine, just as my KT133 chipset does: As you can see: Read: me - 908MB/s ; MrPaco - 1080MB/s Write: me - 811MB/s ; MrPaco - 914MB/s Copy: me - 848MB/s ; MrPaco - 974MB/s Latency: me - 150nS ; MrPaco - 150nS ...are pretty normal numbers. Nothing special there

This is funny mistake: http://hwbot.org/submission/2506941_gslashg_xtu_core_i5_3570k_434_marks An intel core i5 3570K @ 3800MHz CPU on Jetway V600DAP Socket A mainboard I have no idea what the hell happend, but clearly it should be moved to apropriate mainboard. V600DAP cannot use Intel processors, much less i5 (even it might be cool, it just is not happening )

Sorry about it... Works for me now. Maybe you need to clear web browser cache & cookies and try again? Yesterday there was a few hiccups, so it might cause the problems you experiencing.