| Author | Message |
|
|---|
Quan-Time
Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Trash bin | | *sigh*
CPU-ID still has bugs. If i load CPU-Z FIRST, CPU-ID works fine, but if i load CPU-ID by itself, well, i have the best damn CPU ever.
Would it happen to have anything to do the way the hardware calls are done ? ie,, asked directly in ASM rather than making a call to the OS thru C# ? |
|
Quan-Time
Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Trash bin | | wow.. image came out bad. Guess you can fix that aswell, oh, and fix how you cant use line carriage. Zif i talk in one continuous line. http://users.on.net/auska/cpuid.jpg
and make hot-links work aswell.. mucho easyness. |
|
Roadkil
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
South Australia | | CPU ID as you can see by the window title was last updated in 2004! Its a little behind the times i know.. ill have to put some work into updating it as soon as i get a chance..
As for the speed being super fast... seems your computers timer is a bit strange.. .basically it does a loop of instructions for 1 second and counts how many are done.. it could be something to do with the dual core giving the strange answer... Also, my jump to Ring0 routine doesnt work under vista as they finally fixed the bug that let me do this.. So some information wont be available.. ill have to work out a way around this one too! |
|
Quan-Time
Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Trash bin | | Its strange that the multi is always correct. And as i said, if i load cpu-z first, it reports correct.
You should be able to make a call to the memory to ask what the FSB currently is, along with any ratio it might be on (4:3 for example). Times the 2 together, and check that against a CPU call. Instead of doing a loop instruction and counting, why not just ask it ? 99.99% of CPUs / mobos (bios) support it now. Its a standardised call from memory aswell. |
|
Roadkil
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
South Australia | | | It is very strange.. have to look into it when i get the time! As for just asking the CPU for the information... A CPU can report something just doesnt mean it is actaully running at that speed.. just for accuracy i prefer to test the chip directly.. |
|
|
|---|
