trodas

Guy that goes with nick fzabkar discovered that the SanDisk utility change the Identify Device configuration word from 848Ah to 044Ah: 1283:16C1 BF0006 MOV DI,0600 | if removable, then 1283:16C4 833E280801 CMP WORD PTR [0828],+01 | write 0x848A to 0x630 1283:16C9 740A JZ 16D5 | 1283:16CB C6453084 MOV BYTE PTR [DI+30],84 | 1283:16CF C645318A MOV BYTE PTR [DI+31],8A | 1283:16D3 EB08 JMP 16DD | 1283:16D5 C6453004 MOV BYTE PTR [DI+30],04 | else write 0x044A to 0x630 1283:16D9 C645314A MOV BYTE PTR [DI+31],4A | Witch makes me wonder, if someone could re-create such utility to change my CF card to fixed device rather that being removable, witch cause all sorts of problems with Windows and other programs... and slow-downs. (for example backing up or restoring a partition by DriveImage boot CD impossible!) Once I managed to run the card using the Hitachi CF card driver with DMA and I get pretty nice 20MB/sec speed: ...but on next reboot it fails to PIO mode again (and stay that forever since) and the speed is about 2MB/sec with *HUGE* CPU load Hopefully could someone help me out, because that suxx

Good to hear and yes, havli used faster P4. Not a problem, I would like to scale my P4/other CPU as high, as I can. The GPUPI will stop bogging down my ASRock 775i65G R3.0 (Intel 865G) soon, so I can try the Win98/ATI Rage 128 PRO there too. 3.4GHz X6800 Core 2 Duo Extreme should be pretty fast. It get second place in 3DMark 99 on 6800 GT already: http://hwbot.org/submission/2942293_ Please note the 88 266 CPU marks. Yes, SATA SSD and SATA DVDROM. I try PATA then... This is VIA PT880 Pro chipset: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/775dual_vsta/ Well, this is not that easy option I did not understand. What could be a problem with the northbridge? Either it works, or it does not...? Please specify. I respect your opinion, but I consider it invalid - unless you prove it with data - eg. reall test The reason is quite simple: the fastest Game 1 test we saw is 140.9fps. Just using different CPU and overclocking the card could bring that to 160, maybe 180fps. But scaling all the way up to 225fps is IMHO w/o the reach of possibility. You gotta understand, that the Rage scale fps with faster CPU is not linear. The chip have it's limits and it will IMHO not produce such results on any CPU. Now... DrSwizz have CPU score 62 212: http://hwbot.org/submission/2248070_drswizz_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_21447_marks Now back to the note I mentioned above: my CPU score is 88 266...! (and that is under WinXP) I did not want to brag about it, I was just trying to point that the idea of scaling does have flaws. Basically spoken - if your idea is right, then when I run Win98 on the X6800 Extreme at 3.4GHz, then I will CRUSH DrSwizz score. I have my doubts about that, but I do everything I can to test this Well, appology accepted. Now I have to apologize for you, that I did not believed that the score you get is possible by other way that cheating. Clearly your score is legit and it can be done. But you have to understand, that the moment you start talking about "some special oldtimer fastest driver no-one can get": ...then I started talking about cheats. Because "special driver" is something fishy When I use fastest driver for old nVidia cards, I always mention it (and GPU-Z show it). And I shared it on the web, so, anyone can download it, even it is a nVidia beta driver I have from the time I was registred develper with access to these betas. That is IMHO the standard and a little bit more sharing and allowing others to match the hardware and finetuning skills could be only good for the comunity as whole ...also it is interesting, that novadays you did mention in the video, that non special driver is used Why not? We want max FPS! )) Good luck with it, pretty please *BEAT* DrSwizz score by some verifiable way, so I can have a peace

Care to explain this? I use CPU-Z to slow things down, but it produce the refresh bug... LOL ... that is a good point That is refresh bug, that is there from the very beginning for me. Maybe someone with AGP graphic could confirm that some day, but the screenshot is - believe or not - valid. The computation file is valid, witch is what matters. The screenshot is enbeded with the benchmark, witch is why it is and it will stays that way. I have even a video that show at least two serious refreshing problems (whole remaining times disappear) from saving of the score ( ), so it is valid. I'm not responsible for program bugses and quirks. Hardly I can do more that I already did... The machine is able to pass many benches, like PCmark 07: http://hwbot.org/submission/2945615_Or GPUPI 1B: http://hwbot.org/submission/2944654_ So, I probably try making own screenshot before things disappear ))

christianity perverse logic

Guys, my friend provided me with some old SDRAMs (for the over 256MB attempt on i430TX chipset - Asus TXP4-X) and two of them are these rams: I did not managed two machines I tested these in (Asus TXP4-X, MSI K7TM Pro) to post with them, I could and probably will test others SDRAM-capable mobos (JetWay V266B, PCchips M810LR), but the chance are IMHO minimal. IMHO these are ECC rams. Anyone seen that rams? It is mainly the double-stacking that get me interesed, because I never seen anything like that yet. They stack like HBM rams, lol So, there it is for your enjoyment and maybe someone could identify these...? Don_Dan, Strunkenbold, Jazzman or other memory experts?

...but what if you just buy a old ES on eBay? For example my Xeon is ES: http://valid.x86.fr/6cr7g9 And, IMHO, it is a bad clocker anyway, so no point of banning such CPU at all... but that is just my opinion.

That could be megaslow, lol. (If he uses v2.1, then that could be done by ughly nasty trick too (cheat), I stumbled upon it and reported it...) But the problem is, that he cannot finish that in time Mine are at 717h now, loop 14: It is probably time to stop the CPU load now... or...? PS. so I figured the oc-esports.io page and the scores are as follows: http://oc-esports.io/#!/round/team_cup_2015_sc4/2352/slowest_gpupi_for_cpu_1b 1st - 950h 11m 2nd - 946h 3m 3rd - 609h 25m 4th - 368h 45m ...while that 4th submission is mine and I can be on 3rd place, as there is simply not enought time for me to get into 1st Now there are only two questions: - how long I should keep it running so there is safe time that it will end before the end of 30 September day - what should I do to get around the refresh problem, so the score image will not looks crazy as before... I will take a vid from it (when someone feel the need to complain), but I cannot influence the screenshot into the resulting file And THIS is not looking good at all: Maybe I could take my own screenshot and _mat_ or someone could replace the GPUPI internal screenshot it with in case it get "weird" again?

this house requires

Reporting progress Currently 648h and ticking. However... where I can find the current stage times, so I have an idea...?

True And many attempts to optimize WinNT also cause them won't start anymore, so another 1 hour waiting for restoring the partition on such slow systems But hey... that is the oldschool overclocking

Hmmm, that would be unfortunate. Then what about rams with 36 ics per stick?

Case closed, ATI Rage XL it is Look, 1024x768 and no bugs in image: Hooooray for ATI!

Guys, I looking out for rams with the legendary Samsung TCCD chips, that are 2x1024MB and of course capable of running at 2-2-2-5 + tight advanced timings (like Interleave 8 bank, TRFC - 9, TRRD - 2, TRTP - 2, TWTR - 1 and TWR - 2), as my OCZ OCZ4002048ELDCPE-K rams can do it, only with the unfortunate exceptions of TRCD - 3 and 4 bank interleave (so they are suxxking 2-3-2-5). 1T, of course. The only good news is, that such timings are need at 200MHz ... From the list of DDR1 rams: http://ramlist.i4memory.com/ddr/ it seems, that some chances are in AData Vitesta DDR566/600 (I did not say DDR500, as these I got and are not good at all, req. 2T and 2.5-3-3-8 timings are IMHO horrible - clearly not TCCD), but mainly I looking at: Apacer PC4000 Buffalo FireStix PC3200 Centon New Advanced DDR400 Corsair XMS-PC3200XL/XLPT Rev1.1 (2.0-2-2-5-1T) Corsair XMS-PC3200XL/XLPT Rev1.2 (2.0-2-2-5-1T) Geil ONE PC3200 (GOS5123200DC / GOS1GB3200DC) Geil Ultra-X PC4000 / PC4400 (2.0-2-2-5 / 2.5-3-3-5 / 2.5-4-4-7-1T) G.Skill PC3200 (2.0-2-2-5-1T) F1-3200DSU2-1GBLD G.Skill PC3200 (2.0-2-2-5-1T) F1-3200DSU2-1GBFX Kingston HyperX PC 3200ULK2 (2.0-2-2-5-1T) (KHX 3200ULK2) OCZ EL DDR PC3200 Platinum Edition rev.2 1.0 (2.0-2-2-5-1T) Patriot Patriot XBL PC3200 (2.0-2-2-5-1T) (PEP5123200XBL / PDC1G3200XBLK) PQI PQI Turbo Memory Black Mirrored R3 PC3200 (2.0-2-2-5-1T) TwinMOS TwisterPro PC3200 (2.0-2-2-5-1T) ...and all other that meet the requirments at 2.50 to 2.85V @ 200MHz

This is not entierly true, as latest CPU-Z hapilly run on Windows 2000 SP4 But I used WinXP to avoid possible troubles anyway. Just saying...

SuperPi 32M test is heavy on HDD on it's finish. You need to finetune your machine to have stable I/O operations to pass this. It crashed for me at least 10 times for many about ~20h runs. It is hardcore, but it is managable... Mostly PCI latency helps (from default 32 to 42 it was need to pass SPI 32M test on 125MHz P90 on TXP4-X), but changing components change the game. Using ATI Rage XL completely change the need settings over a S3 Trio64, for example.

Agreed. Multithreaded Prime95 or SuperPi 32M or wPrime 1024M do it for my ASRock at 227x17, but x265 bench did not. At 225x17 it does pass. At 227x17 two cores (single it passed!) it does hang at about 87%...

Oh, finally something materialized, thanks a lot! Now we can probably agree on: 1) both your and havli videos show about the same results havli - - 140.9 / 105.6 fpsStermy57 - - 139.2 / 110.8 fps 2) given that your card is better (have higher default clocks of 130/130MHz = mine: 118/140MHz, havli: 118/140MHz) it is not very surprising to see, that your results are slightly better in game 2 test (I say 5 fps), while the first test is about the same (or under the measuring error). ... So we all can agree now (yes, I failed to present my Win98 tests at default clock, because I have troubles booting the ASRock 775Dual-VSTA into Win98 install, believe it or not... even the machine is very stable at 225x17 P4 for dual core, 227x17 for single core tasks including SuperPi 32M), it refuse too boot even from Win98 floppy and about 1 000 other DOS booting CD's I tried, so the install will be a challenge) that 254.8/185.2fps on default clock is impossible, as I say right in the beginning, yes? http://hwbot.org/submission/2248070_drswizz_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_21447_marks I'm very sorry your mainboard is going to die. I did not fully understand what are you saing about the baseclock (you have to back with your overclocking?), but as long at it works, it is likely that I can be repaired by replacing the caps on it, so maybe I can do it for the sake or argument and thoroughness. Since unlike you say in the video that "there is nothing more to say" - I do believe that there IS something to be sayed: 1 - default clocks cannot give the score (okay, he could forget to type the clock, that happens... still, he should correct that) 2 - your score of 162/125.4fps is withing the reachable possibility when seriously overclocking the card (177/190MHz) and CPU (157.5x20), so it is okay Still, 224.8fps is out of the reach of possibility even with very high overclocking, hence my suspicion is at least partly valid

I will read this text (translate) to my GF, because she managed to avoid killing my Aquamark almost month run to score 2, just to kick the power line by carelessly walking by, when I was saving the score logs and pictures to my flashdrive under normal settings (at lowered FSB 34MHz the USB does not work)... Unbelievable. So, since I having hard time to orientate on the site, then what is the score I need to get to second or third place? Provided that no-one run like me, to submit at the last possible moment...

/unsupported smiley

Sure I can kill the CPU-Z processes... but that cannot give me to win 1st place, not to mention the results with most of the batches invisible will be contraversial. Sure _mat_ will check the file and it will pass as good, because nothing wrong was done there, but... people will still complain. I can made it to last about 730h top, then it will be time to speed-up the calc and hurry to submit it. What that could give...?

Well, yea I should done it sooner, but I'm more after the refresh bug with this run. Previous attempt stabilized the refresh in the batch 12: http://img.hwbot.org/u8592/image_id_1475307.jpg And my run was like 4 fast runs, very closely to each other and then it get haywire - calculated time just by the hours, so, not very precise (23:57 is still counted as 23, so...): 1 - 2h 2 - 3h 3 - 3h 4 - 3h 5 - 14h 6 - 23h 7 - 19h 8 - 26h 9 - 26h 10 - 28h 11 - 21h 12 - 24h 13 - 23h 14 - 23h 15 - 22h 16 - 21h 17 - 22h 18 - 21h 19 - 22h 20 - 22h But it still are quire stabilized in the last half. I used two instances of CPU-Z for CPU stress, opened windows. Not 3 instances, but minimized. Win7 not activated and during the test it start complain about not genuine... So I keep it this way, might be relevant to the refresh bug... Still the question is same - keep it running or stop?

Dunno why. Maybe it is just because people are trying hard to get Skylake into these benches? Dunno. I'm satisfacted with my old hardware for *some* benches But recently it seems to run too fast to me: 39h per batch is too fast :D ... But it looks like to me, that I cannot beat Spiedie 946h score because of time reasons. He got 946h, and I'm at 565h now. 381h short of his time. 381h is 15.8 days and we are at 23. September, witch give only 7 days to deadline. Also 9 remaining batches for 39h translate to "only" 351h, so I will be 30h short of the 946h record long time. The question is only... should I keep the bench running to the end?

I noticed It is divided into bus and memory types. Normal Rage 128: Rage 128bit 16MB: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/rage_128_128bit_16mb/ Rage 128bit 32MB: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/rage_128_128bit_32mb/ Rage 64bit 16MB: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/rage_128_64bit_16mb/ Rage 64bit 32MB: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/rage_128_64bit_32mb/ Rage 128 PRO: Rage 128 PRO 64bit 16MB: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/rage_128_pro_64bit_16mb/ Rage 128 PRO 64bit 32MB: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/rage_128_pro_64bit_32mb/ Rage 128 PRO 128bit 32MB: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/rage_128_pro_128bit_32mb/ ...and since all my results are in the last link (Rage 128 PRO 128bit 32MB) and there is no picture, then I complain (and you put a picture of AGP card into PCI card ) I must say that I did not understand one thing, and that is the bus width. GPU-Z consistently reporting 64bit wide bus, but I have no idea, if that is accurate or not. From havli video ( ) I would say he have same looking card as me, witch is deemed to be ATI Rage 128 PRO (128bit, 32MB). Quicky search for 16MB card turned out something like my stepbro was using: http://www.amoretro.de/2012/06/ati-rage-128-16mb-agp.html (with little color corrections it can be used) Some other versions are there: http://old.vgamuseum.info/home/item/76-ati-radeon-ve.html And there: http://www.vgamuseum.info/index.php/component/k2/item/107-ati-rage-128-gl The PCI version will most likely look like this: http://i0.wp.com/www.applerescueofdenver.com/wp-content/uploads/pmg4-pci-rage-128-1.jpg And there is even bunch of ATI Rage XL versions: http://www.vgamuseum.info/index.php/component/k2/item/108-ati-rage-xl

nerd talking controling PC

Not screenshot, whole hardware report will be in order there. While it is not entierly impossible, that some software identify certain chipset(s) wrongly, the error can be corrected, if it is indeed error. But things like that usually happen only on very rare situations on somewhat obscure and less known, old hardware. Take this find for example: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=143722 See, how you can present your case to be dealt with? Done AIDA 64 report, show screens, show the reports and come with other sources, claming the different chipset and then the error get fixed. Just claiming that mainboard X use chipset Y just will not quite cut it. viper-rd - Maybe because the Asus G551JM is easy to be found NTB: http://www.asus.com/cz/Notebooks/G551JM/specifications/ With clear specifications: Intel® Core™ i7 4710HQ procesor Intel® Core™ i5 4200H procesor Intel® HM86 Express Chipset ...that match the user hardware well? Hardly he could be punished for the fact, that CPU-Z 1.72.1 does not recognize the chipset on this particular NTB.