trodas
-
Posts
1129 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by trodas
-
-
This my submission cannot be edited:
http://hwbot.org/submission/2980283_trodas_aquamark_vanta_2_marks
And the card type used need to be changed into:
Vanta LT (16Mb)
...and maked by nVidia...
Thanks!
(sorry to bother, but I trying to correct bugs and errors everywhere and especially in my submissions, where I should have order
) -
I waited with reply, because I did not want nitpicking AND I want first to have first hand experience with the Pentium OverDrive CPU... Now I have it.
1) the post screen show: "Pentium-ODP-MMX 200MHz"
IMHO it is clear that the "ODP" stands for OverDriveProcessor and the MMX is also, as in every intel ducumentation I managed to find, last in the sentence. Therefore I believe that this is the correct order.
Still, CPU-Z says also Pentium MMX overdrive.Argument noted, however CPU-Z is not Intel documentation, and yes, it does use that order:
But it is very likely that Franck get the order from HWbot or some dubious source, because once again, Intel put the MMX part at the end, hence it IMHO should be at the end. It makes sense, since there are no MMX POD's, so... Also it make these easy searchable, except the 200MHz one, witch does not fit in the list w/o going to the mmx, but that is IMHO minor issue and also that cannot be easily corrected, I'm affraid.
1. I changed Socket 3 to Socket 1/2/3. I guess you wont be satisfied with this but connecting more than one socket to CPU is technically not possible.You quessed it right. I did not want to nitpicking, but these POD's are for Socket 2 and 3. They won't work in Socket 1, so no idea why you cannot put there just the sockets, that are correct.
I must say that I'm completely lost at the sentence: "but connecting more than one socket to CPU is technically not possible."
Well... no one ever claim that you can connect more that one socket to CPU, lol. That would not work. All I wanted is that HWbot report correctly that you can use these 63 and 83MHz POD's into EITHER Socket 2 OR Socket 3 mainboard. No talk about "more that one socket to CPU" was ever made, to my best knowledge.
I just wanted HWbot to be factually correct and all sources says there the same - POD 63 and 83MHz have Socket 2/3 compatibility. Period.
Having there Socket 1 is not correct.
2. I split Socket 4/5/7 to Socket 5/7 and Socket 4Almost correct now. What is wrong is only this:
POD 63 /83 MHz are Socket 2/3, not Socket 1/2/3
POD MMX 200 MHz is Socket 7, not Socket 5/7
5 - Intel does now know about POD at 120MHz (HWbot claims it exist)5. Do a google search...
Okay, perhaps I trusted Intel sources way too much. It might also be just downclocked 133MHz version, but this picture settled it:
http://www.smithschips.com.au/Images/PentiumOD/PODP5V120SU080-LG.jpg
My bad
Everyone who will submit and does _not_ look at intel site will now need brain and look in our db to see that we named them Pentium Overdrive MMX.If this will be corrected in CPU-Z, then they did not need to "have a brain"
But I'm inclined to believe that this is somewhat pre-requisite for person life please keep your request as compact as possible... I really dont want to read essaysSorry, I trying my best, but sometimes it get a little bit out of hand. Also this POD thing is IMHO very complex... so pls have some patience with me
-
Thanks!
-
was that today
-
Thanks guys for noticing. To be frank, I'm much more proud of THIS score, that of the lowest validated by CPU-Z clock for Intel CPU ( http://hwbot.org/submission/2987009_ ).
The reasons are simple:
- first, it took me 3 days short of one MONTH
(stability might be a issue for so long runs, witch is why there are ECC rams for servers to assure a stability when cosmic ray hits - "IBM estimated in 1996 that one error per month per 256 MiB of ram was expected for a desktop computer. This flux of energetic neutrons is typically referred to as "cosmic rays" in the soft error literature." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_error - so since I used 1024MB of SDRAMs, a total of 4 errors per month are expected to happen and it is only a luck, that it does not cause crash of system of benchmark...)- second, the machine is unstable (mostly it did not like simple pasting from PrtScr clipboard into MSpaint) when cache is off, so pulling that off was not easy and the problem was not as much to made the score, but to save the validation infos - luckily Christian Ney suggested providing the log file AND Aquamark react on PrtScr by saving the TGA files into Aquamark3 directory in root of D drive + I provided the video and takes pictures
...
The score of 1 (or 0?) is possible. I can use Duron 600 (x6 multi), downclocked to 206-215MHz it will be much slower that Athlon (x9 multi) and maybe I can find a way to downlock the GFX card more that to 25MHz core and/or use slower drivers.
The running time will be extreme, tough. I would expect closely to 1,5 to 2 months for "better" score.
...
TerraRaptor -
Patience and self-confidence!Yep, it took plenty of both. But score 1 is definitively possible.
gradus -
next run 1 pointYour try! I provided all the informations you need to make that run possible
Good luck!ObscureParadox -
I bet that was fun to watch, nice score dudeSure it was. I bit lenghty, tough
I was surprised, that one of the tests managed the 0.01fps, tough! That was very interesting :nana:If I will made lower score, then it will be all uninterestingly 0.00fps. That might give the 0 score anyway...
atleast something happens in Aquamark, way more fun then GPUpi for 700h+Not much happens with a score of 2 marks I promise you that
Not true. You can see (on daily basic, tough) that there are some picture updates...! But the ram is clocked too low, that in 3D screen the display is partly trashed, as the RAMDAC is incapable of fully rendering the screen with so low ram frequency. 2D is fine, unless you use 32bit on higher resolution. You have to restrict yourself to 16bit at 1024x768.
lanbonden -
2p should take between ~31-62 days (at 62days it turns over to 1point instead!), ~5300 frames gives a average of 7 fph (frames per hour) so its absolutley amazingly fast and rewarding to watchYes, exactly. I have to admit that I was turning monitor on and waiting for it to light on (it is a very old CRT crap, it took like a 2min to light on and it is beginning to be very dim...) in excitement to see the next phase of the test, that can run so quick on modern hardware, lol
Rasparthe -
Incredible score, wonder if 1 is possible? Now if only there was a wrapper...
Yes, score 1 is possible. And wrapper - gosh, I would LOVE to have wrapper. It could provide the much need overhead to get into score 1 (or even 0) ...! However even I was reported almost 1.5 year ago to Genieben, that on Vanta the wrapper crash (producing a seeminly valid score 0 witch can be even submited and deemed valid!) and I even offered sending him the card for the test, I never get back and reply.
Now I hope he will work on it soon, but I probably need more pressure from you, guys. Score 1 is waiting!
Wrapper will help me a lot, the overhead might not be much on modern CPU's, but on Duron at ~200MHz w/o caches it is pretty much Hyperhorn -
Epic score! A stable power supply sometimes really pays off.Next try - a Fortron FSP 300W PSU
ludek - thank you!
-
Report on progress:
When I attempted to save the PrtScr from the running Duron, the machine crashed. That is something this machine like to do, when run caches off
That deter me a lot from more Duron testings for now. I hate when machine is stable to do SuperPi 32M run or almost month run Aquamark 3 test, but not stable to survive pasting the copy of Win screen into MSpaint ...
So meanwhile, while I look out for the lanbonden suggested CPU-slow-down program (thanks!) I did the tests Dead Things suggested - comparing the SuperPi 1.5 and 1.6 in terms of speed. Since I was managed to sucesfully attach an SSD to the Asus TXP4-X, I was wonder, even w/o having the DMA on, if this make the machine faster for SuperPi:
After all, 14h 3min 27.128sec was my record: http://hwbot.org/submission/2978646_
Now I get 13h 52min 18.820sec for v1.5: http://hwbot.org/submission/3009521_
And then I get 13h 52min 4.296sec for v1.6: http://hwbot.org/submission/3009526_
So, v1.6 is 12sec faster on Pentium 1, when the test took almost 14h. I would say that this is minimal difference and it might be the other way around when I re-run these tests.
Both started after userinit ended, realtime priority, closed Explorer and after couple or 16k runs, till I get fastest 7.020sec time for the 16k run. It took me a plenty of runs with the v1.6, yet only 2 runs on v1.5 to get "there". Then 32M run. No waza ram optimizing, because 1) I did not yet learned to do it manually 2) WinNT does not support the tools that do it 3) I hear that it do no help on WinNT anyway.
WinNT optimized as much, as I can and mainly - except a reboot, there is no difference for both runs. Sure, 12sec might look plenty, but not on ~14h run. I'm quite happy to get under 14h anyway. That was what I have it it for me :banana:
Next - get DMA working for more SPEEEEEEEEEEEED!
...and slow-down 1M test enought to get over 24h... Okay, okay.
-
Guys, the SanDisk line of SSDs have also the Ultra II series, not only Ultra and Ultra Plus that are supported ATM:
https://www.sandisk.com/home/ssd/ultra-ii-ssd
Mine are there:
I had to submit it as "Ultra", even that is not true
Pls add.
-
thirsty rover
(NASA report water on Mars: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-mars )
-
Oh, sorry. I did not thought that this could be viewed as anything else but a joke... But this is nothing other what Obama just said:
But if you view that as politic, then okay... my bad....
send nudes
-
Ah! Yes, using the "Pentium MMX OverDrive" let me find these MMX OverDrives, thanks. But... I did not really want to stir this up anymore and I gladly accept my failure to find the procesor, but... there is a little "but."
The whole misunderstanding is based on the failure of search to show, when searching for the "Pentium OverDrive" all these POD for short. Now this is caused because you, or someone at HWbot take as granted, that the order of words in the name of these CPU's are exactly as my link suggest: "Pentium MMX OverDrive." I quote:
Pentium MMX OverDrive:Intel Pentium MMX OverDrive PODPMT66X166
Intel Pentium MMX OverDrive PODPMT60X180
Intel Pentium MMX OverDrive PODPMT66X200
But... this is not only counter-intuitive (and illogical), but I would be inclined to think, that this is also wrong wording and HWbot repeat someone mistake (well, the search should pick that up regardless, IMHO, but that is another story).
If you go directly to Intel, then you realize that Intel always name these MMX enhanced POD this way:
"Pentium® OverDrive® Processor with MMX Technology"
There:
http://www.intel.com/design/archives/Processors/mmx/docs/290607.htm
Or there:
http://www.intel.com/support/processors/overdrive/sb/CS-023620.htm'>http://www.intel.com/support/processors/overdrive/sb/CS-023620.htm
And also in the PDF manual:
http://download.intel.com/design/archives/processors/mmx/docs/29060701.pdf
...
Now if I have to extract from the long name "Pentium® OverDrive® Processor with MMX Technology" only the important bits, then I go for "Pentium OverDrive MMX" in the same order, are the mighty Intel used it. Do I doing it right or wrong, please?
That seems to me, to be the correct name order by Intel itself. And there is a hidden "bonus" for going this way - then search for "pentium overdrive" show up these there POD with MMX too, so you prevent another dense user like me, who cannot get the search working, reporting the he/she cannot find the Pentium OverDrive MMX CPU
...
But I could be completely wrong, of course. I accept that the confusion was my fault from the whole beginning, because altrought I used the (IMHO correct) wording "Pentium OverDrive MMX", I linked the list, where are the wording different ("Pentium MMX OverDrive) w/o mentioning that this does not correspond with the way Intel itself label these CPU's.
So if there are in fact a mistake, then yes, I'm the source of it. If HWbot decide that this: "Pentium® OverDrive® Processor with MMX Technology" translate best into this: "Pentium MMX OverDrive", then I accept that as well, as it does not matter that much, IMHO. But... it is IMHO not accurate _AND_ it cause these MMX POD to be "hidden"
...
Yet still there are (as I already partly mentioned, I did not want to lecture anyone or be a pain in the ass...) couple of actual errors. As both Intel ( http://www.intel.com/support/processors/overdrive/sb/CS-023620.htm ) and the cpu-collection.de website ( http://www.cpu-collection.de/?l0=co&l1=Intel&l2=Pentium+OverDrive ) agree, then:
1 - POD 63 & 83 are Socket 2 and 3 (HWbot claim only Socket 3)
2 - there exist POD 133MHz for Socket 4 only, as both Intel and cpu-collection.de claims (HWbot did not know it at all)
3 - 120MHz and up PODs & PODs MMX with the sole exception of the highest model are all Socket 5/7 (HWbot claims they are Socket 4/5/7)
4 - POD MMX 200MHz is Socket 7 only (HWbot claims it is Socket 4/5/7)
5 - Intel does now know about POD at 120MHz (HWbot claims it exist)
6 - Intel claim that POD MMX 150MHz also exist, bringing the number of MMX capable PODs to 4 (HWbot did not know it yet)
So, just being actually factually corect is not easy. Hopefully my little limited research into POD & POD MMX will help to make HWbot precise and won't be regarded as useless bunnying about meaningless errors. Yes, I noticed. Only Antimony (POD MMX 166: http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/pentium_mmx_overdrive_166/ & POD MMX 200: http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/pentium_mmx_overdrive_200/ ) and MAX1024 (POD 83MHz: http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/pentium_overdrive_83mhz/ ) actually benched these PODs. Yet not only that I will join the party (hopefully shortly?), but insisting on precise informations should not be regarded as "bad thing" ...
-
Pentium 1, 10.7MHz w/o L2 cahe - SuperPi 1M 3h 43min:
Too fast. I need slow down... The Duron slow-down is loking good, but it did not register the PrtScr as of it yet
-
More bad news: Pentium 1 @ 10.7MHz is still too fast, believe it or not. 3h 15min for SuperPi 1M:
That suxx. I need something to slow down. What could run well on P1 & WinNT? Suggestions welcome.
There is the 16k screen promised:
(and no, the time is running correctly, I checked)
...
I thought that I could try disable the caches on the 10.7MHz Pentium, but that did not went well. When the graphic card resolution & driver is inicializig, it trash display and crash.
With disabling just L2 it works, but that is not slowing down things significantly, so there is no way to get even close to 24h run on SuperPi 1M w/o some sort of slow-down app
...
On the other hand, the Duron 600 is going strong
3h 50min for preparation on the SuperPi 32M "dummy load" run, no info in the 1M run, not even the preparation yet And I reduced the priority of the load run to just "Above average" ... -
Thank you to agree, that the database should be as complete, as possible.
It looks like you dont even search anymore before reporting. MMX Overdrive 166 & 200 actually existed. So I really understand what Mr.Scott is saying.If they are existed, then they did notshow up in my search, see image above in first post.
It show and search result only the two Pentium OverDrive 63 and 83MHz.
Actually, 180 and 200MHz versions are still missing, so in case of the 200MHz version you reporting as "actually existing" - please point me where it is. It just did not show up in the search at all:
But maybe I doing something wrong. Can you help me to do it right?
...
And even that I did not want to cause any troubles, I have to mention that Pentium OverDrive 166 exist in two variants - MMX and w/o MMX. Pentium OverDrive 180 and 200MHz both are MMX only, but they are not even there... yet there should be two versions for the 166MHz version, as they feature different core:
Core Frequency: 166 MHz
Board Frequency: 66 MHz
Clock Multiplier: 2.5
Data bus (ext.): 64 Bit
Address bus: 32 Bit
Transistors: 4,500,000
Circuit Size: 0.35 µ
Voltage: 3.3 V
Manufactured: week 06/1996
Made in: Malaysia
L1 Cache: 8+8 KB
Intel S-Spec: SU084
Package Type: Ceramic
PGA-320
Socket: 5, 7
...
Core Frequency: 166 MHz
Board Frequency: 66 MHz
Clock Multiplier: 2.5
Data bus (ext.): 64 Bit
Address bus: 32 Bit
Transistors: 4,500,000
Circuit Size: 0.28 µ
Core / I/O Voltage: 3.3 / 3.3 V
Introduced: 01/1997
Manufactured: week 27/1997
Made in: Malaysia
L1 Cache: 16+16 KB
CPU Code: P54CTB
Intel S-Spec: SL24W
Package Type: Ceramic
PGA-320
Socket: 5, 7
...
Also none of both feature support for Socket 4, as now HWbot claims... but that is really nitpicking. Sorry about it.
-
You are welcome. I stumbled upon this error in SuperPi, when I tried these cache off runs and I could not believe that thousads overclockers use that SuperPi program, yet I have to the the one to spot the bug there
http://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=44726
Back to the work: there is the promised screen from the too fast run - 200MHz Duron w/o caches is still way too fast:
Now bad and good news. Bad: the re-run with anoter SuperPi in high priority ended up bad, because my failure. SuperPi use program directory for cache files and when I run two instanced from SAME location, the cache files go mixed. The 1M SuperPi reported error in calculation. The machine was THAT slow, it does not even recognized the PrtScr press (repeatedly done), so I have nothing to show. Sadly. 3.5h wait just for preparation is IMHO quite slow and in the 32M test, I already saw 1st loop - 16h...!!!
)However the good news are, that I'm aware of the error and now I run two SuperPi instanced from two different directories (even drives), so it should be good now. Running from now... sorry.
As even more good news, the WinNT does not object to running at 10.7MHz, so I run the SuperPi 1M on the 10.7MHz Pentium 1 now. If it could be any reference, the 16k run took 1min and 24sec (screenshot will come later, at 10.7MHz the floppy and even CDROM does not work, dunno why :-) ). Also dunno, what the 1M run will took. These WinNT are optimized reasonably well, so... maybe it will be too fast and it will need some slow-down too? Dunno. We see.
(the 10.7MHz Pentium feels faster that the slowed-down Duron, lol ... cache rules! (yes, the Pentium 1 have both caches enabled and 512k L2 is not all that all
) -
The 1M run still did not even show "The initial value finished" and it is running for hours now... so I quess that I overdid it. No change on the 32M hi-priority one as of yet. So it will be very bad, there will be (like on the tests above) just few time infos and then crash...
Good to hear that the crash is confirmed on 64bit OS too, but I did not expect any different.
-
Well, my Duron let me down. At 200MHz (34.5x6) w/o caches it make the 1M test in about 2h, witch is pretty quick. I stoped it at loop 16 or so, when it is at 1:40... because that suxx. I got screen, but not on my computer right now.
So I try another approach. Again no caches + ~200MHz + load by the new CPU-Z. Sadly I forget that new CPU-Z mostly freeze on the MSI K7TM Pro, despite the mobo run stable for nearly month for the Aquamark score 2... it freezed, witch make me just switch it off and leave it alone. Pissed at CPU-Z bugses...
...
Today I give it a chance. Again no caches, again ~200MHz, but now a SuperPi 32M for load. However when I set the priority to Realtime, my mouse stop working, lol ... no comment. Setting priority of the 32M background task to High cause it took ~3.5h for just preparing the memory for the loop 1, so... that *WILL* definitively took the 1M test (lowest priority) over 24h.
But dunno, if I manage at least few pases, because the 1M test did not print anything in it's window for ~3.5h...
Maybe I overdid it?
-
Guys, sorry for my lame mistake, fdisk /mbr fixed the boot issue, so I get the SSD running in my Asus TXP4-X mainboard. That is a good thing. Install went fine even at 83MHz FSB (witch give 41.7MHz PCI bus clock) using Pentium 90 @ 125MHz.
However that is all for good things. Bad thing is, that the SSD will not using DMA at all and the speed is accordingly limited by CPU - see 93.3% CPU usage - to 7.2MB/sec:
This is laughable for SanDisk 120G Ultra II SSD, even run thru the adapter that support SATA (1) only...
...
I would like to mention that ONCE (just once!) I get the DMA running using PATA to CF adapter and that give me on same machine speed around 24MB/sec. With around 20% CPU usage. That might looks a big high, but remember that we are talking about Pentium 1 system, not i7 machine...
So, anyone have any ideas / solutions for that DMA failure? Anything that could be done there? Do I need some install for the i430TX chipset to get the DMA working?
-
ludek -
You can put higher multiplier CPU and do your unofficial frequency. It could be interesting eg. AMD K6-III @30 MHz SPI1M -->> ~1day (or maybe 30 MHz is too fast to do 1 day, then look for 2x cpu or even 3x)The only unlocked CPU for multiplier settings I have for the TXP4-X is the AMD K6 III+. That (together with the AMD K5 PR75 CPU) refuse to post at 7.14MHz settings. One bios patcher/moder suggested, that it might take the clock as test one and ignore it. Intel does not support that test mode, so it works just right away... Dunno if that is the reason, but I found no AMD CPU yet that can work at 7.14MHz FSB. AND I have no one other Socket 7 CPU to test... Donations accepted for the cause, of course.
I bought Pentium OverDrive 200 MMX, but the person who have to send it did not yet confirmed even going to the post office, so... that will took some time, I'm affraid, to get there.
So while in teory it should work, it does not. No idea why and except some change in bios (test mode to normal mode?), there is a little hope that it will run at 7.14MHz. Besides, lowest K6 multiplier is 2. A bit high for me
))I mean please do this and we will be able to see if only 32M combination with slow CPU is causing problem or if 1 MB is also crashing.It is unnecessary, it will crash over 24h for sure, but I let the Duron 600 run w/o caches for the 1M and we see. If it piss me off by going too fast, then I will slow it down to 200MHz: http://valid.x86.fr/kfqjxs ...AND kill the caches
That should do it easily.I thought that I can do it on the Pentium 4 at 4.2GHz, but it turns out I cannot. The lame ASROck bios does not support cache off option and Windows compatible version of program to disable the cache(s) is not ready yet to roll, so sorry. Only one computer is dedicated to over 24h SuperPi 1M test now.
I more waiting for some news from Fugger. I want fix for this error
So with v1.7 I could be the first to break 24h on SuperPi ))If both crash then we can say that it is caused by SPI version, not 32MB option... You know what I mean. I could check this if I had "unofficial" settingsWell, I have the SuperPi already unpacked and therefore editable:
...so I could take a look at the code, but it did not seems to have any possible "hidden options" at all. Unpacked size is 579 504 bytest after correctios on resource sizes (before it was 764 416 bytes). The depacker is called there:
0041005E > 6A 00 PUSH 0x0 00410060 E8 7BFC0100 CALL super_pi.0042FCE0
...and when I started more that hour ago the 1M calc, w/o the caches are the CPU that slow, that unpacking the 100k packed exe took about 15 sec or something. Maybe I should give the unpacked one a chance, but that version is not for public usage, because it is packed for good reasons...
lanbonden -
Ok, I tried to slow my socket 754 rig down but I cant get it slower then ~3.5h for 1M, so only a slowdown of 250x3,5h for 1M? Nah, that is too fast
What do you used to slow SuperPi down? For me is best killer the L1 cache. Maybe I should give CPU-Z stress a chance too, if the cache is not good enought Worked great for me on the GPUPI challenge Ill try the part with 32M on a x64 OS instead, just need to decide on what bench ssd/hdd to sacrafice for a future reinstall...Please do.
-
lanbonden -
did you try to run it slower then 24h on a x64 OS?Nope, please test it. I did some testing in the possibility of slowing-down more modern CPU's, but I failed completely. For some reason, when I disable L1 cache (L2 does not have that big effect AND things work w/o L2 normally, even SuperPi), SuperPi crash for me. Always. It run very slow and then (5-6 loop for AMD, 9-10 loop for P4) crash.
Most these old board can disable L1 and L2 caches, some even the SSE instructions support and even that disabling all but L1 does not affect the performance much, disabling L1 is "super-killer" of performance. For the reference, all these machines can do SuperPi 32M w/o fail or crash or any other problems, all the computers have replaced their original bad caps to good ones and all these computers are 100% stable and I can run on th SuperPi 32M tests repeatedly w/o any trouble... BUT!
Here we come. I got starting scores 12h 28min per loop, or even 17h 59min per loop:
(PCchips M810LR (SIS 730) 11x100MHz AXP Barton SDRAMs 3-3-3-6)
(Jetway V266B (KT266A) 5x100 AXP-M DDR 2-2-2-5)
That would produce (18hx24) a 432h long benchmark (18 days) - but it crashed on the 24h limit also.
However, and that is where things get really bad, it always crash. Sooner or later it crash on any machine with disabled L1 cache in bios I run it. A good example is P4 3.4GHz CPU that fail w/o caches too:
(MSI PM8M3-V (VIA P4M800) 17x200 Pentium 4 DDR 2-3-2-5)
(notice the crash time!)
I would once again stress, that the machines are completely stable, there is no way that the error is hardware related. Not when it happen like 10x times. Since all these tests failed, because they go over 24h, then this 24h bug is completely and entierly confirmed. Please someone test on 64bit OS. And maybe use other slow-down methods. For me, the cache off come as the easiest thing to do...
Yes, all these tests are 32M runs. I let run 1M overnight w/o caches (600MHz Duon + 4.2GHz P4) and we see what happen.
And did you start that 1M run yet?On the 10.7MHz CPU? Nope. I was banging my head currently on how to give the Asus TXP4-X maniboard a fast HDD. I get a PATA to SATA adapter, SanDisk 120G (must be to be under the 128G limit with patched bios) Ultra II SSD and now I figuring out how to make it all work. It does not. The SSD is well detected during POST and things seems to work (I can install ANY operating system on it, WinNT, WinXP...) but it does NOT BOOT from it:
(SanDisk Ultra II 120G (SDSSDHII-120G), PATA to SATA bi-derectional adapter from Gembird, chipset JM20330, should do hot-swap for non bootable devices)
I tried many disk-setup programs, from old fdisk thru Windows setup to Acronis on Hiren Boot CD 8.6 (my favorite Mini Tool Partition Wizard Pro BOOT CD (allign SSD) does not work on the board... and AMD K5 PR75 in it right now), yet it always fail to boot from the SSD. I have no idea what to do and I very much want to get fast HDD operations... so I trying to push for this instead of having the machine bogged down with 24h limit test... Maybe later, when I figure this crap out. That is second time when PATA - SATA conversion proved unbootable for me. First case - Dell OptiPlex GX110. Same result, different convertor used. Working, but NOT booting...
Sigh.
-
I probably could slow down the CPU to 10.7MHz and give these 1M, 4M or 8M test a try (that way they sure will be over 24h), but I think that 1M test will rival a week time, if it does not crash after first loop past 24h mark...
-
While I do agree that I should bench more, I do not agree that my requests are bad, wrong or "out of place." I simply trying to improve HWbot to support plenty of hardware, have nice images to represent the hardware and be factually correct.
I bought the Pentium OverDrive 200 MMX you can see on the pictures and I did not yet bench it, because the USPS did not yet delivered it - simple as that. Still, you are confused. At first HWbot must support the CPU, then I can submit the results. Not the other way around.
And when adding the rest of Pentium OverDrive CPU's - why not add them all? Instead of "Thanks, there is all the information I need to add these CPU's to HWbot" I hear "Cut those guys some slack." And I don't have a problem with our opinion, I just think that the altitude "cut them some slack" and not report missing / bad / wrog things won't get us anywhere.
I mean... my reports aren't like "Hey guys, your HWbot suxx! Improve the page!", I trying to be constructive and always come with some sort of solution or suggesting a way to deal with things. Most my request are stright simple anyway: adding nice images of the represented hardware.
So I certainly aren't feeling sorry, bad or wrong and I have no plans of stoping on the bugreports. Because the aim is to improve HWbot, nothing else.
Your approach won't get us anywhere.
-
My Pentium 4 670 CPU have no image to represent itself:
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/pentium_4_670/
A fix is need... and there is a nice image for good representing of this hardware:
Acceptable?
-
Yup, I use BIOS Saviour when I need. Hot-swap bios chip is doable and I did it plenty of times, but this one make your life much easier. Good luck with your mobo
And yes, 9.5MB memory usage is not bad. But... what about 9.3MB usage BUT with 1024x768?
That translate to possibility of nearing 8MB of memory usage in 800x600. Remember, if I disable swap, the memory usage will be actually lower. And there is STILL optimalizations to be done! I'm not finished, no matter how crazy that might sound. WinNT rulez
-
What... Okay. Let's be civil.
...
What do you think THIS is it?
Take WILD quess
...
Maybe no-one is benching them, because they are not supported. Had that ever crossed your mind?
Please change product image to stock & better still :)
in Support
Posted · Edited by trodas
GTX 660 is represented by eVGA card image, installed in someone's PC:
http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_660/
This is against the guidelines set by HWbot staff (see there: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=137483 - http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=142352 ...when I pushed for nicer images for the GFX cards are the deal was simply that cards that are on sale have to be represented by the image of stock card)
So there is the correct image to represent:
Source: http://diit.cz/sites/default/files/geforce_gtx_660_03.png
Confirmations that this is the stock image of GTX 660:
http://techreport.com/review/23527/review-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-graphics-card
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-660-2GB-Review-Kepler-GK106-229
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/08/16/nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-ti-2gb-review/1
...just to show that I did my homework
Thanks!