trodas

K404 - Nop, it was from the news... I won't like to get out much, when it is that cold Where is the globar warming, when we need it?! Dreadlockyx - So, also pretty cold... Where is the global warming?! doggy perpetuum

Created a more representative picture for the MSI 6340 - debarrelizer + white + added the parallel port, that I removed, lol: fullsize: Hope that nice picture get used soon...

It is getting cold there The global warming is not working, guys! It was Summer recently, and now it is pretty cold out there.

Oh! I did not expeceted that I was just concentrated on recapping it... But wait, want some nice picture of it? http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=87051

So years ago I already gather for this recap the caps, witch give me Big Pope - at lest these Samxon caps. Adding the 1000uF 4V cap increased the total Vcore output capacity to 18 300mF in 8 caps! (for example the famous Socket 462 mobo DFI Lanparty B have Vcore output wth only 4 caps and 13 200mF totl capacity - and no polymers!) Whole look at the Vcore part of the mainboard after recap: Look at the bottom caps from Vcore and for the AGP powering: Much smaller todays polymers (560uF was - 1000uF is) for the same voltage is really just small "bits" compared to these 3300uF Samxon GC caps near them: On the other hand, a 2700uF Samxon URL polymers are quite big pieces of caps: And at the end, whole look at the MSI 6340 mainboard - little mobo: Fun fact - after powering the mobo for the first time it show up, that for whole five years the real time clock is running. And on top of that, it even show good time - only +30min, witch is for 5 years w/o usage and with desoldered caps something amazing, I did not expect that And mobo is working quite well after the recap, even that the new CPU-Z version does not detect FSB, witch is weird. But the CPU-Z autor is already asked for some info to fix this, so there is a hope that this get fixed: http://valid.canardpc.com/vblm4v FSB 0 is not looking really truthfully Also is worth noting, that the mobo has a pretty detailed setup in the bios (especially considering that this is VIA KT133 chipset and SDRAMs) and even overclock possibilities, where one can choose from Default setting (100MHz) to 117MHz FSB (37MHz for PCI). However the result from this last settings (with so quality caps I did not expected and problem so I tried this right away) is, that CPU is working at 256MHz when using this setting (30x7.5) Well, there is a good deal of fun with this little MSI mobo...

Some five years ago my friend Peter give my this MSI 6340 micro ATX mobo with the Duron 750 CPU. It allegedly worked, but very, very unstable. However I got intersed, because I see mainboard back from 2001 for Socket 462 processors - Duron, Athlon - that got interestingly designed Vcore regulator and mainly a polymer Fujistcu caps. The yellow ones are polymers - regardless that they have the top perforations like elektrolyte caps: Also as they say - everything small is nice. And this board is really small, almost like just fit tomy hand: The fact that the mainboard is unstable is understandable. It is only enough to look, what caps are on it - many bad caps like these Chhsi ones: And these terrible caps are combined with polymers, witch is trully interesting combination, witch in the end probably allow the board to survive all the time working. At least sort of... Near Vcore output coil, witch get pretty how when the caps in Vcore are bad, the Chhsi cap is leaking now: ...but it looks like these two good polymers hold him pretty well, so the computer somehow worked. Except quality polymers there are on the mainboard also good caps - Chemicon KZE - as input filter caps, witch sure worked well. Even I did not trust Chemicons much, the bad batches of them are only the KZG, KZJ, TMV and TMZ series, not the KZE. And on top of that, they are nicely green: However all that is not going to stop the instability of chipset, witch power voltage is "filtered" Chhsi terrible cap... But all it all this looks like a decent Vcore design (for 2001): 560uF 4V Fujitsu polymers and 2700uF 6.3V Chhsi terrible caps is almone relatively qualite Vcore filtering, unless they start to break down, of course: For rams and USB ports voltage filtering are used these bad caps Tayeh: Of course the big problem is, when you push to big and heated coil a capacitor. This cap is really having a troubles, when the whole cascade is start to overhat: However as you can see, bad caps are bulging even when they are long away from all typically overheating componets, like coils and mosfets: MSI 6340 v1 -------------- 2x 4700uF 6.3V d12.5 (Chemi-con KZE) -> 2x 4700uF 6.3V Panny FM d12.5 - P12347-ND 4x 2700uF 6.3V d10 (Chhsi) -> 4x 3300uF 6.3V Samxon GC d10 2x 820uF 4V d10 (Fujitsu) -> 2x 2700uF 2.5V Samxon ULR d10 2x 560uF 4V d8 (Fujitsu) -> 3x 1000uF 4V Samxon ULR d8 6x 1000uF 6.3V d8 (Chhsi) -> 6x 1000uF 6.3V Samxon GC d8 3x 330uF 6.3V d6.3 (Tayeh) -> 3x 470uF 6.3V Samxon GD d6.3 2x 47uF 16V d5 SMD -> 2x 47uF 16V Panny FK SMD d5 (16V) - PCE3397CT-ND 4x 10uF 16V d4 SMD -> 4x 10uF 16V Panny X5R SMD ceramic (4V) - PCC216CT-ND (one polymer I added near the CPU, because it was removed and these 47 and 10uF SMD little caps I did not yet replaced, as I did not have anything to replace them with ATM)

BIOS show this - on the upper part of the post screen: W6340MS V4.0 030101 ...and at the bottom: 03/01/2001-8363-686B-6A6LMM49C-00 The 030101 is clearly the date the bios get created. 6340 seems to be the mobo type, not sure about the MS after... Maybe MS as MicroStarInternational shortcut...? The 8363 is on the VIA KT133 chipset written, on the NB, to be precise. Also the 686B is on the southbridge, to be concrete: VT82C686B So, is this a MSI 6340 v4...? No mobo like that MSI show on their page... lol. Maybe we can stick with the MSI 6340 and so be it.

Hello HWbot staff. I resuscitated a old, but interestingly designed MSI mainboard MS-6340 rev.1 with KT133 chipset and supporting Socket 462 CPU's up to whooping 1GHz And I would like HWbot supports it. MSI show only "M" version of it: http://www.msi.com/product/mb/MS-6340M.html'>http://www.msi.com/product/mb/MS-6340M.html ...so it is not terribly clear, witch is the official name of this thing: http://www.msi.com/service/search/?kw=MS-6340&type=product ...because there are plenty of options and fairly similar mainboards. And the last link for the ver. 5 did not even work But mine looks like this one: http://microdream.co.uk/pc-components/desktop-pc-computer-motherboards/msi-ms-6340-socket-462-motherboard-i-o-plate.html My pictures of the MSI 6340 mainboard before caps replacement: http://www.msi.com/product/mb/MS-6340M.html After replacement: So I would be inclined to believe that this is MSI 6340 and not the "M" version of it, as the "M" version do have different CPU VRM (mainly less caps and not the yellow Fujitsu polymer caps, witch I replaced with the Samxon URL polymer caps). For example this is also not my mainboard: http://s644.photobucket.com/user/crux2384/media/mainboardmini1.jpg.html ...yet it looks awfully similar to this reviewed one: http://www.svethardware.cz/recenze-zakladni-deska-msi-ms-6340-zelenou-nikterak-nesetri/3767 And there seems to be some info about it: http://support.gateway.com/support/manlib/cmponts/sysboard/8506598/8506598.htm CPU-Z report it as MSI 6340. Everest report is as K7M Pro (MS6340M) or K7TM Pro (MS-6340), yet none of the pictures on the net (of K7TM Pro) looks like what I have in hand and now is working on the SuperPi 32M test :banana: So, this time the challenge it, what is the precise selling name of this board, because MSI use their own internal names and different ones for public, IIRC...

Fine then, getting better: This should be perfect, right?

Hmmm, my Duron already pulled a bit higher score that AXP in the same configuration Anyway, bump for the nicer images in the Sapphire PI-A9RX480 and MSI PM8M3-V boards http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/pi-a9rx480/ http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/pm8m3-v/

WTF, man? What - all the work for nothing? Why? You cannot be serious that just because I did not moved the window on 3D Mark 03 it was invalidated? Okay... I move the damn window then... but at 12MHz core settings is VERY HARD to move a window... you know

I would just like to report that the rules for Perforance test are missing: http://hwbot.org/article/application_55_rules So if someone got a bit of the time, maybe this could be fixed. The link is from there pointing to this missing page: http://hwbot.org/submit/benchmark/performance_test/

And hooray - finally HWbot recognized that I made: 31 submissions already (uff) 4 nVidia gfx cards (okay) 2 3D Mark submissions with very low score (looks like only my 65 and 83 Marks for 3D Mark 2003 are counted, so 96 Marks is too much ) ...and the MSI 50 submissions Achievement picked up 10 points, so at least something is moving already Great, thanks for the fix, guys! Now I pull off my Duron and we see about very low scores!

Nah, not gonna make it... but 12/80MHz I managed to work. However saving the screenshot was HELL. The windows hardly move, sometimes get corrupted, then one have to wait minutes, screen flicking, signal is lost on the monitor many times... starting CPU-Z took minutes as well... And too much windows on screen = mause hardly move, etc. Bloody, hell, but there it is - 12/80 gives 65 3D Marks: http://hwbot.org/submission/2434222_trodas_3dmark03_geforce_fx_5200_131_marks http://hwbot.org/submission/2434242_trodas_3dmark03_geforce_fx_5200_96_marks http://hwbot.org/submission/2434245_trodas_3dmark03_geforce_fx_5200_83_marks http://hwbot.org/submission/2434752_trodas_3dmark03_geforce_fx_5200_65_marks ...to catch a glimpse of how hard that was to save the screenshot, then check this one: Window rendering in progress Honestly I did not believe I can manage to save the screenshot, so I started with just 2 windows (almost no problemo): ...but in the end I made it w/o need to compose the resulting screenshot from more screenshots... And I find my Duron CPU, but it is too fast, whole 750MHz I thought it was 600MHz only...

I like totally understand, what you are talking about Now just a little translation, please, for the rest of the people... BTW, I still not get any reply on these questions: Make 100 submissions to HWBOT. - 6/100 is my progress, but that cannot be right, since just the 20 MSI submissions prove this entierly wrong... not to mention 23 submissions for the MSI PM8M3-V mobo itself: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/pm8m3-v/ Overclock 25 different Nvidia graphics cards - 1/25 is my progress, but that is also wrong, because I submited results using FX6800 GT, GF2 MX400, FX5200... each overclocked and underclocked... in various ways. Use an MSI mainboard for at least 50 submissions. - 0/0 is my progress - is this right, the first 20 does not count? Make 5 3DMark submissions with a very low score. - 0/0 is my progress, yet there are scores like 96 and 83 3DMarks for 3DMark 2003... How low is this "very low" for a 3DMark 2001 and 3DMark 2003, can you tell...? http://hwbot.org/submission/2434222_trodas_3dmark03_geforce_fx_5200_131_marks http://hwbot.org/submission/2434242_trodas_3dmark03_geforce_fx_5200_96_marks http://hwbot.org/submission/2434245_trodas_3dmark03_geforce_fx_5200_83_marks Hiting the "Recalculate" buttons in each of these achievements don't fix these bugs. What now?

I can provide pictures in ANY dimensions you say. Just to get them not ughly and not stretched somehow... And I did not ask for anything in return 400x200 then: (the image in the grey rectangle - http://s7.postimg.org/rz7v35rd7/Sapphire_PI_A9_RX48_sample_image.jpg - is actually 360x240 pixels in size exactly)

Yep, but this is ughly as hell: ...what about use this one? (344x229) If you tell me the wanted dimensions, then I can create nice images for any board for HWbot - for free and be happy to help a good project. Just tell me the dimensions and we all then can enjoy nice images

Yep, I trying this - just edit the old and copy to the new... But that is very likely to create some errors, so it is not a best way... This and the DDR3-insist bug is quite annoing. Let's hope someone look at this soon... What can I to do help? ATM I only waste resources by finding too many bugs... lol

Guys, when overclocking or pushing for lowest possible clocks, there are usually plenty of runs, witch differ only by the clocks used. This is IMHO quite normal and one could save most of the time by just choosing the prepopulated hardware values from previous submissions... Or so I thought. But I was wrong! No-one can do that, because the GPU clocks are LOCKED and cannot be altered from the previous submission prepopulatd fields...! And I done some quite similar submissions: ...witch should not require re-entering all the HW over and over again (XTU not work on W2k...)... This is IMHO quite serious limitation and should be fixed ... please.

Okay, dokey! Got it. But then it should be... renamed? Because - even I cannot claim language superiority there - by my limited english vocabulary "All" mean quite something else - simply all the tests submited. Period. Not the best scores for the all submited tests... Something like "Best of" will fit more appropriately. And if this is true, then I claim a bug found That is - the best scores of SuperPi 1M and 32M tests are, of course, reserved for my Opteron 148 scores: http://url.hwbot.org/178Lg2K But I dare you to find them on the "All" my scores! Unless I'm blind, they are not there. And they are far better that anything the poor P4 architecture can come up with, of course. A bug? Or the Sapphire PI-A9RX480 mobo problem? BTW, the Sapphire PI-A9DR480 mobo lack a picture: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/pi-a9rx480/ At what dimensions I can submit for you the official picture of it? Got it in quite big resolution: http://postimg.org/image/bu2pcmy6j/full/ ...and scaling down so much require add the contrast and sharpen the result a bit, so it is not like "just scale it down"... (there is just the graphician in me, well... bear with me, pls ) Turrican - Oh, true! Mea culpa. ...but... there tons of bugs then! Let me just start: Make 100 submissions to HWBOT. - 6/100 is my progress, but that cannot be right, since just the 20 MSI submissions prove this entierly wrong... Overclock 25 different Nvidia graphics cards - 1/25 is my progress, but that is also wrong, because I submited results using FX6800 GT, GF2 MX400, FX5200... each overclocked and underclocked... in various ways. Use an MSI mainboard for at least 50 submissions. - 0/0 is my progress - is this right, the first 20 does not count? Make 5 3DMark submissions with a very low score. - 0/0 is my progress, yet there are scores like 96 and 83 3DMarks for 3DMark 2003... How low is this "very low" for a 3DMark 2001 and 3DMark 2003, can you tell...? http://hwbot.org/submission/2434222_trodas_3dmark03_geforce_fx_5200_131_marks http://hwbot.org/submission/2434242_trodas_3dmark03_geforce_fx_5200_96_marks http://hwbot.org/submission/2434245_trodas_3dmark03_geforce_fx_5200_83_marks ...I got score of 73Marks too, but when opening new windows of CPU-Z, then the machine failed on me Too low... I saw there cursors, photographed this situation...

Massman - Heheh, we all are nuts Now... how low can my HW go? With step-by step approach we are getting close to something interesting GeForce FX5200 - AGP 1x, slowest settings in bios, not yet tweaked card bios (for example slower ram settings come to my perverted mind ): 22/80MHz 131 Marks - too high! 16/80MHz 96 Marks - a bit better, but still too high 14/76MHz 83 Marks - now it's starting to get interesting... Dunno how low can it go, because many times between the tests is monitor complaining about the lack of the signal... waiting for the test to begin is sometimes about 5min or so... from some of the tests (for example Vertex Shader, Rag Dool) are visible only 2 frames... etc. :nana: Still the "intro" planes get even to 14fps, witch is terribly high framerate. Gotta do something with this... where the hell is my Duron 600?! I got it somewhere... Come on, you little suxxka! You got work to do! AXP is too fast! That way we never get seriously low scores! In the meantime, 3DMark 2003 is doing another run at 12/76MHz... :nana:

Oh, well, great! Thanks! I'm still rather confused from HWbot, tought. When I click on the All sumbissions, it does not show them all. There are the Opteron SuperPi ones missing as well, as the 299 3DMarks for 3DMark 2001 - first lame attempt to get a super low 3DMark score. So either I expecting something different from the word "All", or only the best results are shown up? Then it should be renamed "Best scores" ... Oh, well. Off to make some meaningfull super low scores. First more serious attempt - 131 from 3DMark 2003 by FX5200 22/80MHz... gotta get it lower

Nope, it does not say how much I have done for me: ...but maybe that is because I use Firefox v3.1 beta3 browser? Using Opera 11.64 for the test - same except there are the address of this page mentioned in the tooltip... And besides, even if 6 submissions are true, then most of my submissions have to disapear, because: Christian Ney - ...I was at 14 recently. And submited some more from this day, not deleted them Something is deeply wrong there. Tested recalc: Nah, no help. Won't work.

Stretched image - I can gladly submit the image of the MSI PM8M3-V in any dimensions - just add some white backgrount to the right when need 360x240: (these are the original dimensions it report there: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/pm8m3-v/'>http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/pm8m3-v/ ) 344x229: (to this size it says it was streched: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/pm8m3-v/ ) 220x245: (200x245 size is the image os MSI PM8M-V: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/ms_71_04/ ) All seems to me to be kinda nicer that this: ... But still unanswered is this: "where I can check how much MSI submissions I did get ranked as MSI ones?" .Because many of my submissions are completely missing (mainly these with Sapphire PI-A9RX480 mobo)...

I don't know what users wanted, all I saying is, that the original Aquamark3 worked well under Windows 2000 SP4, yet the HWbot "version" does not work at all. This is sad, but whatever... I move to another benchmark then, updating OS is not what I do w/o damn good reason to do so And most of the benchmarks do work just nicely on W2k system: