SteveC wrote on 2022-11-07, 13:49:

I have a Packard Bell Celeron 700 here with PCI only graphics and it also bluescreens with the cvxdsamp error at about 60% loading. I've tried a couple of different graphics cards but they do the same - GeForce MX200 and a Matrox Mystique.
The motherboard is a Gigabyte GA-6WMM7 Rev 4.1

Have you tried changing Display=1 to Display=0 in the cpuz.ini file?

red-ray wrote on 2022-11-07, 14:15:

SteveC wrote on 2022-11-07, 13:49:

I have a Packard Bell Celeron 700 here with PCI only graphics and it also bluescreens with the cvxdsamp error at about 60% loading. I've tried a couple of different graphics cards but they do the same - GeForce MX200 and a Matrox Mystique.
The motherboard is a Gigabyte GA-6WMM7 Rev 4.1

Have you tried changing Display=1 to Display=0 in the cpuz.ini file?

Aha that worked!

Thoughts on having a prompt or something for these settings or disabling by default? Obv it’s easy for us now since we are reading this thread but many users haven’t found this thread.

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-11-08, 02:34:

disabling by default?

If everything was disabled by default then nothing would get reported! CPUZ should not crash/cause issues and AFAIK setting 0 is mainly there so Franck can confirm which section triggers the issue.

I'm running a 486BL machine here, mine was originally clocked at 3*25 for 75MHz but with help from a friend I'm using a modified BIOS to set the multiplier to 2x as 3*33 wouldn't even POST. Technically the CPU is underclocked now at 66MHz but as you can see from the second screenshot, I don't lose a ton of CPU performance and in return every other aspect of the system is uplifted (RAM, IO, Video, FPU). It doesn't seem to properly detect the cache, I have 16K L1 and 256K L2, but as I said in the SIV thread even cachechk doesn't think I have L2 even though there is a small (but measurable) difference in latency for accesses below/at and above 256K. Without a CPUID instruction, it seems this really struggles to say anything about the CPU. FPU is an IIT 4C87DLC at 33MHz.

The .zip attachment is the .cvf validation file it generated, I don't know how much use that is to you.

I just wanted to add my 2c and say its absolutely awesome that you are doing this CuPid !

@ Cpuid

Re: Confused about CPU Speed, Multiplyer and Cache K6 2/2+/3+

I tried using the vintage version of CPU-z on my pentium 4 systems (willamette etc.) but it tells me that the system is too recent, this with WinME as operating system, it strikes me as weird since i was able to use it on XP and with an athlon XP.

So i guess for now i can't validate my P4 machines? is the vintage edition still being updated?

Does the normal edition work?

Sphere478 wrote on 2023-05-11, 17:16:

Does the normal edition work?

The latest one nope, it's too new, and i can't use the previous versions validation file.

iraito wrote on 2023-05-10, 14:06:

I tried using the vintage version of CPU-z on my pentium 4 systems (willamette etc.) but it tells me that the system is too recent, this with WinME as operating system, it strikes me as weird since i was able to use it on XP and with an athlon XP.

That's strange, my Northwood P4s (2.0a and 3.0c) runs vintage edition just fine (in both 98 and XP). I didn't even know it was possible to get that dialog as I assumed if it didn't know what was in it, it'd just all be blank.

Maybe your particular CPU's ID isn't in it's database so it just assumes you're trying to run it on a later setup. Do you have a S code for it?

gen_angry wrote on 2023-05-17, 11:46:

iraito wrote on 2023-05-10, 14:06:

I tried using the vintage version of CPU-z on my pentium 4 systems (willamette etc.) but it tells me that the system is too recent, this with WinME as operating system, it strikes me as weird since i was able to use it on XP and with an athlon XP.

That's strange, my Northwood P4s (2.0a and 3.0c) runs vintage edition just fine (in both 98 and XP). I didn't even know it was possible to get that dialog as I assumed if it didn't know what was in it, it'd just all be blank.

Maybe your particular CPU's ID isn't in it's database so it just assumes you're trying to run it on a later setup. Do you have a S code for it?

Sorry for the late answer (hellish month) i don't want to disassemble the CPU so I'm gonna use HWinfo to get serials etc. For the CPU.

Hopefully they can fix this, i have other PCs affected, always P4 i think.

EDIT: Yep my northwood is also affected, i think validation stops at PIII, it wouldn't be a bad idea updating CPU-z vintage for less old vintage PCs.

iraito wrote on 2023-05-25, 17:29:

Sorry for the late answer (hellish month) i don't want to disassemble the CPU so I'm gonna use HWinfo to get serials etc. For th […]
Show full quote

gen_angry wrote on 2023-05-17, 11:46:

iraito wrote on 2023-05-10, 14:06:

I tried using the vintage version of CPU-z on my pentium 4 systems (willamette etc.) but it tells me that the system is too recent, this with WinME as operating system, it strikes me as weird since i was able to use it on XP and with an athlon XP.

That's strange, my Northwood P4s (2.0a and 3.0c) runs vintage edition just fine (in both 98 and XP). I didn't even know it was possible to get that dialog as I assumed if it didn't know what was in it, it'd just all be blank.

Maybe your particular CPU's ID isn't in it's database so it just assumes you're trying to run it on a later setup. Do you have a S code for it?

Sorry for the late answer (hellish month) i don't want to disassemble the CPU so I'm gonna use HWinfo to get serials etc. For the CPU.

Hopefully they can fix this, i have other PCs affected, always P4 i think.

EDIT: Yep my northwood is also affected, i think validation stops at PIII, it wouldn't be a bad idea updating CPU-z vintage for less old vintage PCs.

Not sure about that, my Northwood 3.0c displays just fine (actually it shows as a P4 531 but it's a northwood, not a prescott).

My machine is apart atm but I'll fire it up and post it once I get it back together

edit: I lied, it shows as a P4 3.0. Not sure which utility shows as a 531 but whatever. Attached the screen of what I see, no dialog like yours.

It'd be cool to see the actual northwood-era badge instead of the blue 'later' one though.

Can you validate?

iraito wrote on 2023-05-26, 13:39:

Can you validate?

I had updated to the new 1.04 release which worked, 1.03 gave me the same error actually. Odd, I remember doing it a long time ago because I was going to use the sig on here but opted out... oh well. Maybe my memory is garbage these days 🙁

https://valid.x86.fr/h3hbu9 win98

https://valid.x86.fr/s3s565 winxp

Try the new release, see if that works for you?

It doesnt seem to recognize my graphics card in either version (ati x850 pro).

gen_angry wrote on 2023-05-27, 02:26:

I had updated to the new 1.04 release which worked, 1.03 gave me the same error actually. Odd, I remember doing it a long time a […]
Show full quote

iraito wrote on 2023-05-26, 13:39:

Can you validate?

I had updated to the new 1.04 release which worked, 1.03 gave me the same error actually. Odd, I remember doing it a long time ago because I was going to use the sig on here but opted out... oh well. Maybe my memory is garbage these days 🙁

https://valid.x86.fr/h3hbu9 win98

https://valid.x86.fr/s3s565 winxp

Try the new release, see if that works for you?

It doesnt seem to recognize my graphics card in either version (ati x850 pro).

Well, talk about a timely release, did this new version drop like yesterday?

EDIT:Everything works pretty well now, the only thing that always lack is the GPU recognition.

CPU-Z is too brief about processors of that time, it needs an image refresh including 386/486/Cyrix, etc.

Cocoe

Real hardware i386SX16 ECS HM386SX https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/ecs-hm386sx

Takedasun wrote on 2023-12-24, 22:38:

Real hardware i386SX16 ECS HM386SX https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/ecs-hm386sx […]
Show full quote

Real hardware i386SX16 ECS HM386SX https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/ecs-hm386sx

i386SX16_01.png
i386SX16_02.png
i386SX16_03.png
i386SX16_04.png

Damn! I remember back in the days i was running Win95 on 386SX-20 with 8MB of ram and no cache of any kind. It must be deliciously terrible!