HWC Hardware Charts Comments/Questions & Bugs Thread

[DaleF]

More of an observation that a bug, but I've noticed that some processors seems to be slightly off of their official clock speeds. Such as the i7 965 shows 3.19GHz instead of the official 3.2GHz, 2.39GHz for the Q6600/E6600 instead of 2.4GHz.
Also, I noticed two of certain processors (like the 4000+, 4400+, 4800+, 5200+) without any way to differentiate the two versions (same box art, even though the old s939 ones had different art). Not that the performance was really different, but just something to note.
Oh, and the E4300 still does have a result for the virus scan.
Another observation, more a stylistic issue, I noticed that some values are reported to two decimal places (x264 HD benchmark for one) except when there's a zero in the second decimal place. Personally, I think it'd look better with a uniform two decimal placed, so x.y0 instead of x.y (and possibly x in the number is x.00, but that doesn't seem to have cropped up in the charts I looked at).
Also, when selecting every CPU, I can sometimes block out part of the HWC watermark on the bottom chart. But I'm not sure which cases this happens in yet.


PSU efficienty test's about text is missing an explanation (but I'm sure you know about that one already). Also, what do the CL1 and CL2 show there (or will that be explained)?
Also, I'm not sure if the hot system results are showing properly, because they look the same to me.

EDIT: Forgot the most important part: Good work!

[SKYMTL]

Great points Dale.

[Gav]

Excellent feedback DaleF. We will work on getting all those points sorted over the next couple days.

[FiXT]

Excellent points Dale

- The reason for the clock frequency discrepencies is due to the fact that those numbers are determined by multiplying internal clock speed via multiplier, which we physically input into the database instead of the "advertised speed". It is set to round up, but in cases such as the Core i7 965, 133X24 = 3192 or 3.19
Unfortunately, setting it to round up at any number over an 0 digit would result in other numbers being thrown off. And technically 3.19, or 2.39 (266X9) is the true clock speed of those CPU's. We will look into a better method if possible though

- For the AMD CPU's that appear the same, those are actually from when AMD switched from 90nm to 65nm. It can be hard to see as the "nm" is the very last thing in the title. It is something we will look into - maybe try and make it more obvious :)

Top notch for going through it all - much appreciated.

[ipaine]

Excellent work you guys.

I have only looked at it for a brief period of time but so far I really like what I see.

[DaleF]

I meant to differentiate the AM2 and s939 processors when you're selecting them. At least in Opera, they both show up as the same title and it's not until I actually generate a report that I can see the two different ones.

As for the clock speed calculations, that suggestion was more to help not confuse Joe User. From a programming standpoint, I can see where the issue lies and can't think of a super easy fix off the top of my head that will work in all situations, just the specific ones.

EDIT: As a very minor stylisitic thing (sorry if this sounds nitpicky, it's not intended to, more as a suggestion) that a friend pointed out to me, the green/blue in the legend for AMD/Intel are different shades. I hadn't even noticed until my friend pointed it out.

EDIT2: Also noted that not all of the processors show up on the second larger list. Low end stuff like the X2 3600+ and E2140. Is that just to keep the list a manageable size?

Keep up the good work.

[CanadaRox]

This is an awesome feature. It reminds me of the Tom's Hardware charts. This will be a great resource for getting direct comparison's of each component.

[SKYMTL]

My personal favorite part is the CPU cable length charts along with the Feature Comparison. We will be expanding those as time goes on.

Another thanks has to go out to the folks over at Jonnyguru.com who have been more than helpful with providing us with the information needed for the PSU performance charts.

[Ging9]

I just wanted to add a note of appreciation for setting this up. As a self-admitted hardware upgrade addict, I've spent many fruitless hours scouring the net for this kind of info. Thanks for making this site a one-stop shopping resource for all the future info I need.

[Squeetard]

That is fantastic. A zillion times better than Tom's hardware.