Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

komadyret

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    99

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by komadyret

    Some strange results I've come across

    in Submission & member moderation

    Posted

    I've been looking over the results for a cpu I have on my shelf that I may bench, and came across this anomality. CPU category and cpu-z doesn't match up, and same cpu-z version (1.45) reports different stats/names for the cpu for different benches done by this user.

    May this be an unlocked cpu (look at the multi in cpu-z verification) that confuses cpu-z?

     

    Hope a mod can look at these and make an educated opinion and answer me what is going on here.

     

    Sorry for the long link:

    http://www.hwbot.org/searchResults.do?direction=&applicationId=0&teamId=1046&userName=pepek&gpu=&numberOfVideocards=0&cpu=Athlon+XP+2600%2B+Thoroughbred+%28210%29&chipset=&model=&manufacturer=&minScore=&maxScore=&gpuId=0&cpuId=227&chipsetId=0&modelId=0&manufacturerId=0&offset=0&displayAdvanced=false&countryId=0&dateFrom=&dateUntil=&minGpuCoreFreq=&maxGpuCoreFreq=&minGpuMemFreq=&maxGpuMemFreq=&minCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&system=&minTotalPoints=

    -> Validated score still wrong? Let us know here

    in Submission & member moderation

    Posted · Edited by komadyret

    got some erronous entries:

     

    Not done at default settings:

     

    http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=644790

     

    http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=652071 <-- this card shouldn't be able to run the bench at default settings, and no verification is available (http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=GPU_1089&name=3dFx+Voodoo+Banshee+%2813%29)

     

    http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=621797 <-- this card shouldn't be able to run the bench at deafult settings, and no verification is available (http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=GPU_1088&name=3dFx+Voodoo2+%2810%29)

     

     

    I'll continue going through the voodoo cards later and notify my findings. There seems to be many awards and points wrongfully awarded.

    Allowed to use non-default settings?

    in Submission & member moderation

    Posted

    I'm sitting on a 3dFX Voodoo 3000 card and was contemplating on running it through the benches. To see what to expect I looked up what others had done with this card... It seems like all submissions using the Voodoo 3000 and the Voodoo 2000 and the Matrox G200 are done with non-default settings.

     

    Further investigation revealed the bench (3dmark01) was run at z-buffer depth 16 instead of default 32 for all submissions.

     

    Big question will then be; Are we allowed to run benches at non-default settings with hardware that don't support the default settings?

     

    If so, I'm good to go and will run the benches, setting z buffer to 16 and tweaking what has to be tweaked. If not, I'd have to go on and report all the mentioned submissions.

     

    Thank you very much :)

    Different chipsets, same videocard?

    in Submission & member moderation

    Posted

    I do believe you will find the same for VIA/S3. There are a lot of diferent versions of the same gfx core, but really only one entered in hwbot, and neither gpuz or everest or the various 3dmarks seems to be able to tell the diference...

     

    Some areas of the database could use a cleanup. Also some entries could do with a proper validation and be put in its right category. I'm just not sure how doable it is from an administrative view...

    Blocked 7200 score.

    in Submission & member moderation

    Posted

    Yeah.. it's amazing that such cards are out there. Must be a fabrication error :D

    I tried to keep pace, but there's just no way mine will go that far... Still, I did what I could toward finding those needed MHz to stay in the loop :)

     

    We spent many hours and pm's getting this card figured out Cannon :)

    -> Validated score still wrong? Let us know here

    in Submission & member moderation

    Posted

    http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=555626

    http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=776886'>http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=776886

    http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=776886

     

     

    Are these submitted in the wrong category. Northwood A cpus are x24 multi afaik....

    There seems to be many more of them too, this is but a few from the first page: http://hwbot.org/searchResults.do?direction=&applicationId=13&teamId=0&userName=&gpu=&numberOfVideocards=0&cpu=Pentium+4+2.4Ghz+B+Northwood++%28366%29&chipset=&model=&manufacturer=&minScore=&maxScore=&gpuId=0&cpuId=333&chipsetId=0&modelId=0&manufacturerId=0&offset=0&displayAdvanced=false&countryId=0&dateFrom=&dateUntil=&minGpuCoreFreq=&maxGpuCoreFreq=&minGpuMemFreq=&maxGpuMemFreq=&minCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&system=&minTotalPoints=

     

    Also there seems to be a number of x24 multi submissions under the Northwood B category, which I believe should be x18 multi.

     

    http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=782494

    http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=600554

    http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686310

    +++

     

     

    Was/is there a quick fix to unlock/change the multi for these cpus that indicates that these enties are correct anyway? Or is the info I find on hwbot (quick-search says Northwood A is 100MHz fsb, and northwood B is 133MHz, which indicates I'm right in assuming Northwood A is x24) and wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_4_microprocessors) wrong?

     

    This might need a cleanup...

    Feature requests : P45/43

    in Support

    Posted

    Cool. Then we just need to get a forum post with the chipset/board to get various hardware added? Or will this work for mobo/chipsets only? (I have a gfx card that is not listed, can I post that through a forum submission too?)

     

    And I agree on that Knopflerbruce. As I set on the ticket, LOW priority. No hurry at all, more of a question of curiosity :)

    Whats going on with Team Crazy-OC Germany?

    in Team Discussions

    Posted

    you like this and this? :banana::banana:

     

    Yeah, close. But I can't follow the hardware-list further, to see how I rank in hardware points against team-mates on that list. It sort of stops at 300 points... and the top dog don't even have his points listed on that page :)

     

    Also, there are a few pages (database queries etc.) I've discovered the last days, that are not accessible by looking at menus and links on the pages. I like some of them.

    I guess a few of these will be fixed/made easily available in the future :)

     

    Also, I must say I tend to agree with knopflerbruce on most points. It's interresting to follow this thread :)

    Whats going on with Team Crazy-OC Germany?

    in Team Discussions

    Posted

    I think it is just fair to base the points given on the number of users that have submitted scores with the hardware in particular (but not on the number of submissions, that could make someone spam the system with results for a particular hardware to boost points).

    What is not fair, is that you end up with "half grade" points for benching hardware that few are taking time to bench, be that newer low-power mobile chips, or older performance chips.

     

    I could perhaps propose a solution that just dropped into my head (not like I don't think you have thought of it yourself):

    Do a complete separation of global points and hardware points, and present 2 different top-lists.

    How does this affect the precious "top overclockers" position? Global top scores will be duly rewarded, and it will show who is the current top dog, and hardware top scores will show who is the most dedicated and hardcore bencher. Team scores could remain as now.

    (PS if you read this, you'll see it's genarally very similar to what is presented today, it just gives hardwarejunkies a separate list, that the extreme clockers won't score well on because they stick to a few top-notch components)

     

    And about mods? I don't think there are enough mods. Score verification (and invalidation of faulty scores) are a tad slow. But you're doing a great job. Thank you very much :)

    Whats going on with Team Crazy-OC Germany?

    in Team Discussions

    Posted

    I tell you, hwbot isn't fair. It will never be.

    The whole design is too simplified to take into account every hardware configuration. Benchers with 2 cards, totaling 3 gpu's are forced to enter their scores as if they used 4 gpus, instead of competing against similar setups. Even the points distribution logaritms are unfair from some viewpoint.

     

    But to limit the total of hardware points one can be ranked with is like saying that one guys effort is inferior to anothers, just because the first guy spends days refining and benching old hardware (which undoubtly takes much longer time. Have you ever tried to run the long pis on a Pentium or Pentium 2 or a K6-2 only to have it crash after 3+ hours?) and the second guy spends a few hours fiddling with insulations and rips out some impossible clocks in just a few hours thereafter. (phew, that was a long one)

     

    I must agree that it is totaly unwanted to raise the limit for hardware points, the limit should be removed. It will not pose any threat to anyone in the top 10, 20 or probably even top 50 anyway, and it will increase the prestige of the hardware-junkies lists.

     

    I don't say I have to solution to hwbots problems. If I had, I'd launch my own site, but there should be room for discussion and brainstorming, and a fair bit of common sense. There are always room for improvements.

×
×
  • Create New...