trodas Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 So far, HWbot support Pentium OverDrive 63 and 83MHz: But that is only Socket 2,3 Pentium OverDrive CPU's. There are Pentium OverDrive 133 (66x2) for Socket 4 and mainly Pentium OverDrive 125 (50x2.5) for Socket 5/7, Pentium OverDrive 150 (60x2.5) for Socket 5/7, Pentium OverDrive 166 (66x2.5) for Socket 5/7, Pentium OverDrive MMX 166 (66x2.5) for Socket 5/7, Pentium OverDrive MMX 180 (60x3) for Socket 5/7 and Pentium OverDrive MMX 200 (66x3) for Socket 7: http://www.cpu-collection.de/?l0=co&l1=Intel&l2=Pentium+OverDrive While yes, these CPU's are relatively rare, then still there is no reason why HWbot should not support them. Especially because they have some pretty cool features (sure, AMD K6-III+ is tad faster and with patched bios works in many Socket 5/7 mainboards, but that is different story...) Pretty please with suggar on top? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) Why make work by adding them if nobody has or is benching them? These guys are volunteers here. The object is to try NOT to keep them busy. They have enough to do already. Edited October 10, 2015 by Mr.Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted October 10, 2015 Author Share Posted October 10, 2015 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 What I'm saying is, you average at least a dozen requests a week for bullshit. Your requests far outnumber your subs. Cut those guys some slack. IF you bench one of those overdrives, THEN submit for an addition. That's all I'm gonna say. I'm more than sure I'm not the only one thinking this and I have no problem speaking my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted October 11, 2015 Author Share Posted October 11, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 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. You are a member of many forums, same as I. You do the same things in every one of them, you pick them to death. You find every minuscule flaw in their forum and request fixes. This is just doling out "busy work". Nobody else has ever requested so much crap.....anywhere. Just look at the support ticket section for the last couple months, 90% of it has your name on it. I don't have any affiliation to HWB other than a user, so I can tell it like it is. Sometimes the truth hurts. You are a high maintenance princess. There is medication you can take for that OCD. While I do appreciate some of the posts showing your old school skills and knowledge, it is eclipsed by the incessant need to find flaw and correct. Look, I'm sure you're a nice guy and everything. You're obviously intelligent. Why can you not just let the little stuff go. I mean, nobody really cares if there are pictures or not, otherwise they would have been uploaded already, or at least requested. There are much more important tasks for the voluntary staff here to take care of than to look at your daily bumps because the pic you requested hasn't been added yet. I've already said too much. GL, you won't hear from me anymore. It's HWB's problem, not mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Strunkenbold Posted October 14, 2015 Crew Share Posted October 14, 2015 Ive added all known overdrive CPUs now. I think it is good to have a database which is as complete as possible. I guess more people start committing results when their hardware is already known by our db instead of they have to start a new thread here and ask for it. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted October 14, 2015 Author Share Posted October 14, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Strunkenbold Posted October 15, 2015 Crew Share Posted October 15, 2015 Thats what I meant, instead of looking in our database where you can find those CPUs easily in the Pentium 1 category you write a lengthy text. The key is Pentium MMX OverDrive. Like its written in CPU World and even in your own link cpu-collection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) 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" ... Edited October 16, 2015 by trodas fixed typo(s) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Strunkenbold Posted October 19, 2015 Crew Share Posted October 19, 2015 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) 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. 2. I split Socket 4/5/7 to Socket 5/7 and Socket 4 3. The same like point 1... 4. Also the same... 5. Do a google search... 6. Added Renamed the MMX ones. Still, CPU-Z says also Pentium MMX overdrive. 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. One more thing, how long are you member of hwbot? You know that our search doesnt work like google. It is searching for the exact string. One one more thing, please keep your request as compact as possible. I just need a link for verification or a _short_ sentence what needs to be changed. I really dont want to read essays everytime I open a thread from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted October 27, 2015 Author Share Posted October 27, 2015 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 4 Almost 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 essays Sorry, 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.