HWC Hardware Charts Comments/Questions & Bugs Thread

[Gav]

If you find that something specific is missing, check back soon; our database of components will be constantly updated as new hardware results are added. As always your feedback and comments are more than welcome and we encourage you to post up any inquiries you have.

[chriskwarren]

NP Gav!
Did a comparison between a Q6600 and an i7 920 here:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/index.php?pid=69,73&tid=7

Shows the i7 920 as having completed the "TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress MPEG-2 DVD .VOB to DivX Conversion High Quality" benchmark in 0 seconds. Is this an error or was the 920 never included in such a benchmark, so it shows as 0 seconds?

[Gav]

Originally Posted by chriskwarren

NP Gav!
Did a comparison between a Q6600 and an i7 920 here:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/index.php?pid=69,73&tid=7

Shows the i7 920 as having completed the "TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress MPEG-2 DVD .VOB to DivX Conversion High Quality" benchmark in 0 seconds. Is this an error or was the 920 never included in such a benchmark, so it shows as 0 seconds?

Good catch, we will fix that shortly.

[FiXT]

Should fix things

Unfortunately we ran into an error with the Anti-Virus numbers so they were taken down - but otherwise everything should be showing up :)

[Delavan]

The only thing I have to say is...GOOD work again!
You folks are really working hard to get the best features of all review sites all under one roof. The best thing is it's all done "In-house" and really professional...you guys rule!!!!!!

[SKYMTL]

We should also mention that this is a Beta for now and we are showing it to you guys first to get your feedback before we announce it to...well....everyone else.

[chriskwarren]

These things can be pretty useful for sure....really love the comparisons for PSUs.

I am sure we will abuse it pretty good before it goes out of beta!

[Gav]

Ya, I forgot to put beta beside it. Will fix tomorrow.

[tzetsin]

i would like to leave a comment.

YOU GUYS ROCK.

[sswilson]

Should get the appropriate folks out here to take a bow... I know a few of our reviewers have been working night and day to not only get the benchmarking done, but then to get all of the info entered into the database.

Great job guys!!!!!

[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.