trodas

Hopefully. At least re-arrange the menu, so I can select normal Ballistix? I did not want to submit wrong infos. All the chaos from CPU-Z is enought :D

*BUMP* - I have plenty of interesting scores with these rams that cannot be submited, because I'm not going to re-edit the hardware back to get the right memory there... So bump for ANY solution at all.

Thanks, mate. I plan on making it even better, but looks like the overal optimism, that the ATI Rage XL works, was premature. When the card is inserted, WinXP is not booting (complaining that the ere are DLLs that cannot be loaded for kernel) and even Windows install CD fail to work on "kdcom.dll cannot be loaded", witch seems to be issue, when HDD is not working well. Time to tweak the bios settings or get stuck with S3 Trio64 w/o ram upgrade to 2MB = 800x600x16 ONLY in WinXP (((( (I want XP to see, what latest CPU-Z will say about the memory - 640MB = LOL )

Hoory, thanks! Now... what's with the picture...???

...and, here we have a result: http://hwbot.org/submission/2978646_ 14h 3min 27.130sec - last best score beated by nearly 30min Funny, tough, how the CPU-Z get completely haywire with the ram. Showing 640MB of ram - LOL! No comment. Gotta see, what latest CPU-Z will report And I have already means to improve the speed, even w/o changing the cursed slow HDD - I get a PCI card ATI Rage XL that does work well (in Socket 7 board with Pentium 1 - who would have quessed that?), and surely it have faster writing operations = even just by that the score get faster So one way or another, that score is going down (not to mention I still did not use/learned the waza thing...)

xxbassplayerxx - Yes, it is. However that might be the point? I hope I get the Aquamarsk with score 2 score soon, it took me 4 days short of one month and no score is build yet for me. I can improve it to score 1, I believe, but that will took me month and half... ... Current progress: GPUPI v2.2 388h progress

Yea, the little harbor is getting full of cars, instead cars getting pulled out of the watter... Really work of true professionals by all means! ... honey keep your damn

SanDisk response my my questions (actually only to the first one): Dear Pavel, I understand that you want to change your CF card from removable to fixed device. Please allow us to inform you that CompactFlash cards can be configured to use “Fixed Disk mode†as this is defined by the CompactFlash specification. SanDisk does not support its implementation with our consumer or professional-level cards as it is outside of the scope of their intended use. Thus, all of our consumer and professional cards are shipped, by default, in Removable mode. SanDisk no longer offers an OEM or fixed disk Compact flash card line. There also is no utility available to change retail Compact Flash cards from removable to fixed disk. Additional information you may read on the following web article: Can I enable the Fixed Disk mode on my CompactFlash card? In order to answer your question to which voltage the PATA to CF card adapter should be set, I will reply to you later as I will escalate this issue to our technical department, in order to give you a correct answer. Thank you for your preference of our SanDisk products. Click here to register your product online. Please provide us your phone number (for technical support call back only) Thank you for your kind cooperation. Best regards, Joanna R. SanDisk Global Customer Care ... So to put it short, I pay premium price for "CF card" that is not really a CF card, because I cannot change the bit that is defined by CF specification...? You are gotta be kidding me...

xxbassplayerxx - And the GT210 is current and low-end card by all means. I quess that we should give it a try If it did not clock well at all, then one more reason for use that card, so it won't be just a "pay to win" competition about who can afford the fastest hardware and best bad-ass LN2 setup to run

Update: Loop 23 is done and by 13h 5min 24.091sec. Totocellux need 13h 32min 6.035sec for that Looks pretty good... TerraRaptor - Nah, this is not going to happen, the machine is quite stable and L2 is disabled by the chipset settings, as it refuse to work reliably at 83MHz... xxbassplayerxx - some O/C ironic humor is going on there Hopefully it turn out to be good... speed.fastest - Yes, given the 6.4MB/sec "HDD" I use it could most definitively help a lot, as you can see there: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=145530'>http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=145530 However I still waiting for the delivery of the DeLock 91620 PATA to CF adapter (SanDisk Extreme PRO 32G CF card is waiting on my desk, dying to run as HDD in the Asus TXP4-X) and to top that out, SanDisk refused my request about providing a tool to switch the CF card from removable to fixed device and no-one was much helpfull yet. But this is for that topic ( http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=145530 ) discussion. Any help will be really appreciated there. So yes, I'm ready to re-run this with the best/fastest possible device I manage to connect to the board. It can do PIO4 (16.7MB/sec) and DMA2 (also 16.7MB/sec) and I hoping to reach such speeds.

Epic fail epic fail

My Asus TXP4-X board is interesting piece of hardware and when I made it overclock it's FSB to 83MHz sucesfully (pusing my P90 to 125MHz ), then I begin to comparing with others. It is not that bad, in the end: SuperPi 1M 125Mhz - http://hwbot.org/submission/2975859_ (second) SuperPi 32M 125MHz - http://hwbot.org/submission/2971047_ (second) PiFast 125MHz - http://hwbot.org/submission/2975973_ (second) ...however with the recommendation from Dead Things, I try Windows NT. Whoa, much faster! And they can be optimized HARD - booting into 1024x768x256 colors and needing only 10.3MB of ram ATM. Not bad, IMHO. However the SuperPi 32M test is much slower under WinNT that under WinXP. I believe that the reason is deadly slow swapping and in general - lack of the memory. I remember when TerraRaptor made the suggestion for slow runs to limit the ram available. Hmmm. In guide and theory, the Asus TXP4-X is limited to 256MB ram, witch is LESS that SuperPi 32M run need. There is no way except increase the speed of HDD (6.4MB/sec is not exactly fast: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=145530 )... But then I remember that previous owner claimed, that he made the board run with 384MB of ram. So I contacted him and todays I recieved the rams he used... and yes! In one combination a 384MB of ram is possible! That is great, because now SuperPi 32M can run the whole test in the RAM! Hoooray! So I set it up and... it looks good. The 1st place guy has the initial value finished in 10min 9sec: Totocellux owns: http://hwbot.org/submission/757446_ Now under WinXP, I got the initial value done in 10min 17sec. But under WinNT it goes with 9min something at 256MB ram, but with 384MB ram it gives time just 8min 42sec! ...so that show a promise, is not it? Now, at loop 4, where Totocellux need 2h 27min 7sec, I need only 2h 20min 59sec: ...so now I just wonder, if his 133.6MHz will beat me in the long run or not. What are your bets, gentlemans?

websmile - On many chipsets CPU-Z did not report memory frequency and even memory timings. Good example is SIS 730 (PCchips M810LR) or i430TX (Asus TXP4-X). Nothing can be done with it. On the other hand, new CPU-Z version entierly f*cked up timings detection on VIA PT800 chipsets (ASRock 775Dual-VSTA) and the results are completely wrong. This is 3-3-3-10 (28) timings on Crucial Ballistic, thx to Jazzman: So you see - by CPU-Z is: CL - unknown, tRAS 9, when it is 10 and no info on tRC, despite older CPU-Z versions did not give any trouble on this mainboard. And I reporting bugs to Frank left and right, but no fix... In case of i430TX I even send him the Intel docs a pointed out what bites on witch registers one can detect the memory settings... what more can I do? ... Other programs have quirks too... sometimes it is not that hard to do some record, as to submit the validation. This is, "thanks" to endless bugses of almost everything (for example Aquamark wrapper - run on nVidia Vanta, get score 0, save as valid... submit... and it is still valid ) ... And it is not like my Vanta is bad, it can do 3D well: ...even with slight overclock from 100/125 to 120/160 But the wrapper suxx... Same for Heaven wrapper. Also does not work for me on some machines (and much less weird machines that, this MSI K7TM Pro is)... So, it is fighting with bugses all around the way!

And speed is reasonable? What are you getting from it...?

Poor seal bejby, I know. Still that caption is funny... bully and his mother

Therefore I wonder, if someone have a experience with replacing such SLOOOW HDDs with PATA to CF adapter and CF card(s)? The latest models promise very fast speeds - 160MB/sec is quite above PATA possibilities: SanDisk Extreme PRO 32G CF card ...and since the adapters are just wires, connecting the CF card to PATA interface (CF cards work on same PATA interface!) and only in best cases, you can choose the voltage (3.3V or 5V) and you get the power and activity lights: DeLock 91620 PATA to CF ...then there should not be any problem of using CF cards as old PATA HDD replacement(s). Only problem I hear, that there should be changed bit on the card somewhere, that change the device type from removable to fixed. Then it should act as normal HardDriveDevice. But maybe I missed something...? Do anyone have experience with this? Could someone share tips, software for the change (from removable to fixed) and experience in general?

Segate 13G ST313021A on Pentium 90 @ 125MHz: Average - 6.4MB/sec - now this is SPEEED! ... I wonder, if anyone have in operation slower HDD

Then how about to limit it up to Socket 462 for AMD and Socket 478 for Intel CPU's? That go nicely with the low-end VGA competition ... Heck, we could try ISA cards for LULZ How much they could overclock, after all...? What is the fatest ISA card...?

That rule does not make sense. 3DMark 01 is very sensitive to hi-fsb CPU's and therefore will react well on not restricted Intel CPU's, turning that into CPU bench. Agreed. Nope, since Heaven wrapper is failing to work on many cases, therefore we cannot use it in stage, what it is: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=142412 Low-end cards cannot run 3DMark Vantage at all...

Long time ago I wanted this mainborard to be added: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=87039&highlight=MS-6340 I always mentioned that "it is not terribly clear, witch is the official name of this thing." So it was ended up with the MS-6340 as is the MSI label. Later I wanted adding picture of the mobo there: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=135499 ...and it was there for long time, before recently go missing. Please add it back ... However with recent Aida64 report, it become clear that the mainboard is in fact a MSI K7TM Pro: "MSI K7M Pro (MS-6340M)/K7TM Pro (MS-6340)" Google search for pictures of "MSI K7TM Pro" confim that: https://www.google.cz/search?newwindow=1&safe=off&hl=cs&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=928&q=MSI+K7TM&oq=MSI+K7TM&gs_l=img.3...492.492.0.771.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..1.0.0.__iKCvUuc6o Including logs of the Aida64, HWiNFO and CPU-Z. ... Yes, it took me some time, but I believe that it is better later that never. The mobo have, however, unique feature and that is being able to run at FSB 34.5MHz: ...so it is kinda worth keeping, even the overclock is virtually nonexistant

So... how can I choose them? If I just put that into the box, it usually not get remembered as choice... And I would like the HW info to be precise:

BUMP? Either I'm wrong, or... they are missing?

warranty void if seal is broken

...for me, the page is mostly loading over and over and over again (Firefox v10), so I'm worried to even as much, as check it out... Usually I end up with Chrome, that did not refresh too much...

Np, man. Would be nice to edit that out, before someone use this little mistake to report world third best score. That would just add HWbot team work and... And yep, SPD values is mostly quite accurate. Either they did not work at all (speaking about some obscure chipsets like SIS 730 or too old chipsets, where Franck broke the compatibility - say i430TX) or they work and are precise And yep, that mistake I know too and I edit then things out. Sometimes I even go thru my hardware base to realize that I, by mistake, enter some HW I did not even have :D ... Just be pls less aggressive on your poor Haswell-E, 1.70Vcore is IMHO too much. This is not AMD K6 3+ or something like that )) PS. hello to France, my caps are just in France too - on airport of Charless de Gaulle: https://www.fedex.com/apps/fedextrack/?action=track&tracknumbers=650411890455 :D (small world)