trodas

Thank you for the change! Maybe HWbot could allow the change of mainboard for the Aquamark. After all, the user know best what mobo he/she bench

Yes,true. With this "just for score" run, there are places you marked right that can be used. But that is what what happend in the first case: There are actually these places full of info that I wanted to preserve... Because it is funny, how 6800 GT is slower in this test that R 9600 XT by about 300 marks...

Nah. What about... Socket 7? That is oldschool for me (Asus TX97-XE recapped for my friend, got second lowest CPU-Z clocks of CPU 10.74MHz at one point: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=348684 - http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2005/asustxp4x22sr5.jpg - http://s24.postimg.org/542zkoak5/trodas_10_74_MHz_CPU_Z.png )

Yep, that it is. My edge is around the 285/286MHz FSB and these days are HOT in Europe, not good for everclocking, so... that must caused it. Next CPU-Z validation goes fine - I added fans blowing fams and NB

Second place... neat Congratulations to Japan! I never knew that 3DMark 03 scores still can be uploaded to FutureMark site. I thought that they are mostly killed that support... Interesting. Yet except a nick - the information for this score is completely useless: Generic VGA, LOL Core clock 0 MHz - ROFL Processor Unknown - sure! Reported stock core clock 0 MHz - kinda fast CPU for zero MHz ))

Glad I could help to spot a few errors here and there...

I.nfraR.ed - Why, when treated unjustly (what the hell more could I do? Provided link to the CPU-Z! Provided link to the score saved by PCMark Vantage! All not enought? Give me a break. Well, since they say, that their stock (!) ATI Rage 128 PRO can do 255fps and I paired the same card with Core 2 Duo Extreme X6800 and it hardly do 60fps overclocked in pretty much ANYTHING and on top of that, every reviewer site results (92fps in 640x480x16 is max) matches mine experience - then someone must be cheating there. I repeat it again - it is physically impossible for ATI Rage 128 PRO to render 800x600x16 in 255fps. Period. There is no IF or BUTs. It simply cannot happend and no-one (except 3 cheaters) claim it. So, there cheaters is not EVERYONE. That is qute a difference. There is close to 7 billions peoples on this planet alone and "everyone" include even lifeforms on another planets thru whole universe(ses), so that is kinda far stretch. On second hand, I did not (at first) accused anyone. All I say - tell me how or show me an video, that show the tests in question running at 255fps on stock ATI Rage 128 PRO - of course the video have to show in uninterupted view the card in the PC and then pan on the test(s) running. Then a little bit of explaination, how there guys figured out to make such high scores and I rest my case, apologize and say - damn, I was so wrong. I have too much to learn. How the hell I did calculated the throughput? What the hell I was thinking? ATI Rage 128 PRO really have half the power of GeForce 6800 GT! (Do that comparsion to 6800 GT sound silly? Yea. But that is EXACTLY what they are saying all over and YOU seems to buy it. 6800 GT can do top 600fps in that test w/o textures (cheat force all mipmaps to lowest levels = effectively no texures = max geometric speed testing) and it score 500fps with textures ( http://hwbot.org/submission/2942293_ ) - and 255fps is half of this speed, right?) Done. So do I get it right (Mr.Scott, pls?) that when I open the memory tab there, then even it get partialy covered, it should be okay? Like this? http://postimg.org/image/lvkskuys9/ That is the best I could do. I could do even a video, if that is not enought: Hopefully it is good this time. So the memory tab of CPU-Z is favored one in case only two CPU-Z instances can fit on screen? But I believe that I'm right this time. Okay, I admit that there should be the memory tab and the mainboard one is only optional. Mixed that. That fault I do admit. My bad. But on the other hand, I provided plenty of other informations that could *MORE THAT* substitute the informations not presented in the screenshot by MY MISTAKE. - the CPU-Z link provide all the need memory informations - the memory type and clocks/timings are perfectly and precisely described in the score - the score file is availabe for download and check for everyone - there is just not enought place on the screen and I wanted even the other tests results (bellow the main score) are visible to show I done them and how they went... GENiEBEN - yea, it suxx. But rest of my testing monitors are tied up with some super-low/slow scores, so I take this one. I used in on Amiga with 800x600... 1024x768 is on the edge of readability, so problems with too many windows happen... Dead Things - done deal. And I got even better result... But it is hard to cram all the windows in

Preface: PCMark Vantage have a *VERY* large output window and what is even worser, the important information is on the right corner... Having shortage of monitors, I tried the old CRT Eizo F35 Flexscan and that gives acceptable readability only in 1024x768 output. (I used it on Amiga from 1997 and I used it in 800x600, witch is best for 15' monitor) Problem: Mr.Scott wrongly flagged my score with PCMark Vantage as "invalid", because it allegedly miss the CPU-Z screen(s?). The score in question is there: http://hwbot.org/submission/2943404_ And it is now marked as "deleted or blocked", even that it clearly (right top and bottom corner, see?) feature the CPU-Z screen Mr.Scott was *WRONGLY* complained about. It did not stop him, that I: - explained it - included right from the beginning the link to CPU-Z validation witch provide all the need informations - included right from the beginning the link to the saved scorefile from PCMark Vantage Today question: Is this rightfully delated or blocked, when I clearly did not have where to fit the screen and yet I tried my best? Future question: How to submit a PCMark Vantage score that will not cause complaints? Is this better way? Where could I fit the windows and what it important to be visible, when the windows are partialy covered thx to limited resolution? I made a little video that show the problem with given resolution IMHO clearly: ... So, all what Mr.Scott says that "I should work on the screenshot", w/o providing any clue, on how can I cram so much windows into the relatively small resolution

LOL ...

By browsing my Hardware Library, I discovered plenty of my errors when entering the hardware. I aim to correct them all, but... a problem happens. To be precise, two major ones: http://hwbot.org/user/trodas/#Hardware_Library 1) at the memory tab, it claims that I have some DDR3 Mushkin rams. This is not true, it is probably a remnant after the "DDR3 by default" bug, but I should check it better... so anyway, there is: Mushkin DDR3 SDRAM - 1 Mushkin DDR3 SDRAM Enhanced - 1 So I hoped, that by clicking on the "1" I get link to the one test, where I have wrongly entered DDR3 rams and I fix it. But no! I get full pages full of results: http://url.hwbot.org/1Mhxfau http://url.hwbot.org/1Mhy7Mn ...and none of them show the DDR3 Mushkin/Mushkin Enhanced rams in question. Clicking on next button bellow the results yiels no result at all. 2) at the graphic cards tab, I discovered, that I cannot change this Aquamarks score: http://hwbot.org/submission/2941512_ to Rage 128 PRO graphic card that was really used, not the Rage Fury Pro that I never had. Next up is the R 9600 XT. It is a HIS card, but for some scores I either forget to specify HIS or I put there Ati wrongly, as maker of the card. To correct the mistake I want to search for the 6 cases of "Ati" as maker of my R 9600 XT. But the search did not give me anything usefull again: http://url.hwbot.org/1PihJLo None of the searched results contain the "Ati" maker And button to next page cause only "Modify your search query." failure as showed up before. No way to find the nVidia made GeForce 6800 GT AGP too: http://url.hwbot.org/1x4wprJ (that card is PNY made and I 42x forget to add that maker, causing it to default to nVidia... suxxx!) Same for 9 cases of "nVidia" GeForce 210 DDR2 (GT218) 64bit card: http://url.hwbot.org/1MhzVoq Instead of 9 rusults I got plenty... so, are there any way to fix this or how can I modify the search to get what I want?

Oh, good to know. Estminated ETA is in days or weeks?

BUMP for the removal of the "sample images" on DDR1, DDR2 and DDR3 rams: http://hwbot.org/hardware/memory/ddr_sd_ram/ http://hwbot.org/hardware/memory/ddr2%20sdram/ http://hwbot.org/hardware/memory/ddr3%20sdram/ No picture on DDR4 rams yet: http://hwbot.org/hardware/memory/ddr4%20sdram/ (I suggest & prepared G.Skill DDR4 Ripjaws red: http://postimg.org/image/suysw8r5t/ ) BUMP for centering the picture on DDR1 rams /shoot me later, pls

Bump for the scorefiles.

Great. I cannot change it and the board detection is just wrong. I did not have that board and never had... it is not like an innocent mistake, as I fixed yestrday in my HW library the R 9600 TX to R 9600 XT... And more errors are still present, but these I can fix. This one not.

Perfect, thanks!

You are welcome. However... there is just small fix need in the same page, Community Advisory Board and Moderators section: Strunkenbold location is "Strunkenbold", not Germany So, unless he declared own state (then the flag is probably wrong ), then there is a slight error in his location. The stamp on the postage says "Germany" too...

Bump?

ECS KT600-A do not have any image: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/kt600_8237/ I sadly cannot find anything better, but maybe someone can... later: http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Product/Product_Detail.aspx?DetailID=360&MenuID=24&LanID=0 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813135143 http://akebonotown.com/bouken/pc_KT600A.htm Thanks!

Thanks

Slight bump for building the two scores, since... well... pretty long ago, GENiEBEN

Why? CPU-Z windows are clearly to see (or you are blind?), so you are clearly WRONG. AND I provided the link to CPU-Z AND I provided even download link to the score saved. What more you can possibly want? So tell me, how to put the CPU-Z windows into 1024x768 screen better and I will follow your example. If you cannot do it better, then you have to accept it as cramed to the screen as it is. The most important parts are visible anyway, rest you can look up on CPU-Z site. Case closed.

Well, that works! Thanks! Removed the 6800 GT, put there R 9600 XT, installed the Catalysts 12.1 and voila! All is working: Thanks a lot, lanbonden for the hint. I did not search for X800 card, as I did not have it, lol. *** Now it makes me wonder, witch reduction size setting is fastest and witch is slowest on my HW. Looks like that reduction size 16 is 9sec slower that reduction 32... on HWbot guide is recommended 64, but what happens using 512? PS: answer is there: Reduction size 512 - 4:41.085 Reduction size 256 - 3:10.086 Reduction size 128 - 3.02.958 Reduction size 64 - 3:01.822 Reduction size 32 - 3:01.939 Reduction size 16 - 3:10.934

Congratulations, Massman! ... You can ask G.Skill for special bin or specifically for overclocking? And recieve binned rams that is most likely overclock high? WOW So, if you want to have things harder for you, then how about push to tighter timings? Can the rams do 4GHz with tRP 22? 18?

Hmmm, it keep pushing me v10.2 for R 9600 XT: http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/desktop/legacy?product=Legacy1&os=Windows%20Vista%20-%2064# So finding a Catalyst 12.1 could be harder... Hopefully this will be it: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Download-AMD-Catalyst-12-1-Display-Driver-248748.shtml

Depending on where you live, it might not be happening. The hot weather means that people turning airconditioners left and right and that put pretty stress on the powergrid. When fluke happend and you lost 17+ hours of benchmark, then it really suxx. I have to start thinking about some backup device... Also the excessive heat limit the overclocks badly :-/