trodas

Rotated stock image? Hmmmm...

Clean Win XP SP3 or Win 7 SP1 instals. Config: ASRock 775i65G R3.0 (Intel 865G) - Noctua NH-C12P SE14 Core 2 X6800 Extreme 2.93GHz @ 3414MHz (285x12) 1.296Vcore 2x 1024MB OCZP4001G 2-3-2-5 190MHz 2.75V PNY 6800 GT AGP 256MB DDR3 350/500 @ 400/559MHz 1024G Western Digital Black 64MB cache (WD1003FZEX) 240G SanDisk Extreme PRO (SDSSDXPS-240G) DVD-RW Samsung SH-224DB Powered by eVGA Supernova G2 850W HWbot Unique Heaven benchmark fail to start Unique Heaven fail to work ... It should be noted, however, that on Win 7 x64 Unique Heaven does work standalone. Just when I press "Benchmark", then it show white letters "Benchmarking..." on the screen, yet suddently fail to render anything. Could it be, that for this testing machine I did not installed soud? I did added it on the Win XP SP3 later, but absolutely no change in behaviour... Any suggestions?

Guys, since I read how people do raids of SSD drives to get better PCMark 05 scores... it makes me wonder, if the "threads unfriendly" PCMark04 scores could get higher too, when benched on SSD drive. I did benched on HDD (WD 1T Black) and get reasonable score, then O/C graphic card a little and get even higher score, but still "17th out of 17" for X6800 But yea, all above me have higher that 3.4GHz clocks: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/pcmark_2004/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_875&cores=2#start=0#interval=20 ...and probably did not run the X6800 on single thread for all the tests So, just asking, if anyone know.

skulstation - Next to none. IIRC the software driver need Core of Xeon CPU's. From release notes: https://software.intel.com/file/450209/download It still won't work at all for me, tough. **** I wonder, what to do, when GPUPI just output the message "Could not start worker thread" ... Win7 lite, installed the latest OpenCL drivers for Intel (Core 2 Extreme X6800 utilized) and the Visual C++ Redistributable Packages for Visual Studio 2013 (x86), as mentioned there: https://www.overclockers.at/news/gpupi-international-support-thread Any ideas? I used Open CL runtime for CPU v15.1 x86 (Win7 x86 only) from Intel from there: https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/opencl-drivers#win32 I give a try the x64 versions using normal x64 Win7 install. Cannot seems to find older that v15.1 Open CL x32 CPU driver. If anyone know, where to get it, I test it gladly. ... Then I installed Win7 64bit, instaled the Microsoft Visual C++ libs 2013 x64, installed OpenCL 15.1 x64 and run GPUPI - again failure: Makes me wonder, if anyone else could run it (on CPU only, using the v15.1 OpenCL) and if I could run it, when my graphic card is recognized and have drivers. For some testing I use ATI Rage 128 PRO and there is not Win7 drivers for it, as far, as I searched. W98/98SE/ME - yes. Win2k - yes. WinXP - yes. Win7 - NO! Suxx. At least I made some Cinebench scores (could be better, if there is a driver for GFX card installed, on the 32bit version the score go from 8.13 to 8.17 just by installing GFX card drivers on Xeon X5650... :nana: ) Never the less, I did not managed it to work. Any ideas?

Skylake made it's debut! When cooled well, it can show good results it seems.

Bump for building of my scores... this time with 17h (+1h to initialize) SuperPi 32M running test: Already passed loop 4, going fast

A very nice nVidia GTX 980 ti card don't have any image: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_980_ti/ Because this is currently sold hardware, HWbot team probably want stock original image to represent, so there it is: ...it is no secret that I would like to see there the much nicer image to represent such HW, for example the MSI GTX 980 ti is very nicely looking... ...but I have to leave it for HWbot team to pick the representing image

Bump for the Aquamark scores

Thanks! I managed to find only this one, but the quality is LOW and the colors are drop dead ughly: http://postimg.org/image/it9paz9qz/ ...so I quess it is better to stick with the nice one After all, the only difference is the logo in the blower.

Oh, well, then there is a slight advantage So again, the question is, how far 3-2-2-8 timings go at just 2.05V for Crucial Ballistix 1066 16FD5 and/or Cellshocks. Don_Dan think, that the Crucials will be more versatile option... And when you are at it, pls take a look for the DDR1 TCCD 2x512MB sticks. There is request to complare the ASRock 775Dual-VSTA with TCCD vs D9Gxx

Great GeForce 6800 GT AGP is not recognized by any image! That is wrong... http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_6800_gt_agp/ So I looked for quality image that represent the card best and that is it, took me plenty of time to retouch it to white background: Hopefully no-one will want to remove the sticker... right? At least it give some nice colors and at the size, it will NOT be reasable at all

...and we can have a good looking rams pictures on HWbot, or shall we not?

74 marks... wow. Congratulations! Sadly I cannot underclock mine nVidia Vanta LT to lower that 25MHz. It still IMHO have the potencial of extra low score, but I have to give up on 30MHz on the RAMs, as the RAMDAC need more, seems. That is why it stoped working... Yep, yep. I think I know the reason, so... next time. I try stability of the mainboard first, Super Pi 32M test. Started today, 17:15. With these preliminary calculations about speed: So, roughly 24 iterations, 5h each = 120h = 5 days. If it make this, then I'm sure the aquamark was ram problem - or perhaps RAMDAC is not that stable w/o the capacitor? Could be. Normal Riva Vanta LT have 2 caps: http://kraftsound.com/oscommerce_st/catalog/images/nVidiaVantaLT8MB.jpg http://www.vgamuseum.info/images/vlask/nvidia/vantaltfb.jpg http://kraftsound.com/oscommerce_st/catalog/images/MS-8830-LP.jpg (the last one closely resemble my cards) ...but mine have both torn off. I sourced one good cap for the small cap on the left to replace, but still waiting on the bigger one... Could be the reason why it failed. 25/30MHz is IMHO into safely high margins to not fail. No idea (unless ATI Tool helps, but IIRC it fail to work with Vanta LT) how to get lower anyway. Managed to run FX 5200 at 8/70MHz, tough score was shockingly high 309 Bump for the completed scores

...no update overnight, 2247 frames stuck Damn. Too low ram clocks, probably. Or the lacking cap that was torn-off from the card? Dunno. So pls make at least the two scores already done, w/o the caches it is probably too slow to pass these hot days even with fan on it...

I'm affraid that it is stuck at 2247 frame... Hopefully I'm wrong.

So, you brilliantly avoid answering any questions of mine What is the point of debating, then? That is not my point and I hope you noticed that. My point is, that the screenshot is not consistent. One window claim that tests will run, other window show that tests did not run. That it is. Sure. They can turn Rage 128 PRO into Radeon 9600 XT :D ... Once again - show me getting 254.8fps on stock clocked Rage 128 PRO, pretty please with suggar on top! Neither you do, because you failed to answer few simple questions. Are you affraid of something? I not tweaked anything yet. I use benches to bench hardware, not cheats. And once again I encourage you to show me, how do you made R 9600 XT from Rage 128 PRO Because that is need to render the Game 1 race test at everage 255fps I cannot wait to see it! I was never checking on your scores, so I cannot tell. But - once again - you have a real golden oportunity to show us, what you can! Stock ATI Rage 128 PRO. First around 30fps, as normal in Game 1 on Rage 128 PRO. Then apply your tweaks and we should see 255fps in Game 1 test of 3DMark 99 on same hardware, if no-one is cheated there. Go!

my own social media

Heh... but on the projected size of the picture you don't recognize if they are Winbond chips or not... Not to mention that Samsung TCCD chips are also not bad... and IIRC G.Skill made a CL1.5 DDR1 memory too So with the resulting size in mind, I picked that ram, that WILL look pretty good even resized down

I hope you are joking, right? Or you did not read my post or even check the scores yourself, right? ... Okay, let's start point by point - take only the highest score: http://hwbot.org/submission/2248070_ Please answer questions: 1 - do you see that the Fill Rate and Texture Rendering Speed benchmarks are choosed to run? (Yes/No) 2 - do you see that the Fill Rate and Texture Rendering Speed benchmarks did indeed run? (Yes/No) 3 - do you see that the card clocks is claimed to be stock 125/143MHz? (Yes/No) 4 - do you really seriously want to suggest, that ATI Rage 128 PRO can do 254.8fps? (Yes/No) 5 - can you show one repeatable example and verificable, where ATI Rage 128 PRO users could at stock get 254.8fps in 3D game rendering? (Yes/No) ... Just think about the sheer number of pixels and the rate at witch this card render pixels. ... Or okay... I can help you a little bit. Anadtech once reviewed ATI Rage Fury MAXX card. That card have two Rage 128 PRO core chips, where reference boards are clocked to 125/143MHz - just as the chip claimed that do 254.8fps. The reviewed sample have clocks 135/155MHz! And the fastest FPS it reached was 93.8fps in 640x480x16 in Descent 3 demo: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ati-rage-fury-maxx-review,156-10.html Now Descent 3 is fastest, because it is simpliest. (Shogo get only 68.1fps, Q3 62.3fps) The number of polygons and very short visibility range (tunnels) is very low, witch is why the framerate is very fast. I remember playing it's port on Amiga with Virge 3D graphic card... relatively smooothly. See there how simple Descent 3 is: Futhermore, these "max. 90fps in 640x480x16 with twice GPU cores" results are consistent with other reviews of the Fury Maxx, for example: http://www.anandtech.com/show/438/8 ... So I would suggest - to these, who want to defend these impossibly high framerates - recording a small video out of such framerates, allegedly reached using ATI Rage 128 PRO. ... To not sound all that negative, I have confirmed, that on Win2k the 3DMarks is getting notably more points that on WinXP (3DMark01 goes from 1189 marks (stock) to 1412 (stock, but W2k used)) - but 3DMark 2000 fail to start on W2k SP4 - and also that WinXP drivers somewhat claims that they hold-on to the "Vsync off" option (and they showing really more frames during most part of the tests), while on Win2k is the Vsync locked-in, no regardless of driver settings. D3D Overrider did not help as well, as Riva Tuner to unlock this mystery, so I starting to doubt that w/o patching the executable one can disable the Vsync on Win2k. It does not even ract to setting the 800x600 res. to 120Hz refresh, keeping 60Hz all the time

Why? These Adata ones are pretty and there is no reason why we shall not have a pretty nice pictures No company is making / selling DDR1 rams today, so no taking sides or advertising there... Do you really want me to look for ughly generic DIMMs pictures?

Legendary DDR1 rams have no image! http://hwbot.org/hardware/memory/ddr_sd_ram/ That should be fixed ASAP. But... witch to choose? I choose Adata Vitesta, because: - they are so pretty :celebration: - they win the fastest bandwitch ATM - they are legendary :ws: Hopefully there won't be objections to my choice

park like idiot

PS. 1912 frames by this morning, lol. This is getting a "little" out of hand...

pills obsession for joint

Noproblemo! My best score with nVidia Vanta LT is, after going for 2 days, in 1170th frame out of 5200. I think I can wait... LOL Glad you respond, that counts! (I starting to think that time-lapse camera could be quite good thing there (but my old Nikon 4300 did not qualify, sadly), the total run lenght might get to 5 days or so) If you really need the Vanta LT to fix the wrapper, then I could borrow it to you for that