Right or wrong, all submissions should be done the same way. I'm sorry, but your calculation should not be recognized......at least not in the middle of a competition. Mods should clarify if this is legit or not.

This "wrong speed" issue only applies to the KT133 chipset (and perhaps few other VIA sdram-based chipsets using other than 1:1 mem:fsb ratio). Intel 440BX, 815 and 845 RAM speed detection works just fine in both CPU-Z and Aida64 (and therefore shows the same value). I am the only one using this platform, so I don't see a problem here. This score is 100% comparable with others. Anyway... only i815 or i845 based MB can score high enough to win this stage. I have neither of them, so I try to score as high as possible with A7V133.

If mods say this score is invalid, then I will remove it and buy some CPU-Z compatible board.

we all know havli is right)

Scotty, this is clearly a CPU-Z issue. What CPU-Z represents as FSB+33 is in fact FSB+PCI and while you're on default, it's the same. You know better that these KT133 use sync clocks and overclocking the bus overclocks the PCI bus too.

A similar bug you have with dual P2 clocks (though, I do understand that your case didn't affect the total score).

Antinomy:

Well said, thank you.

ludek111:

I am not really sure. I don't have cusl2 at the moment, so I can't test this mem propertly. Last year I tried ECS P4S5A/DX+ and maximum validation was somewhere around 180 MHz as well. However SiS chipset is incompatible even with Aida64. I could only estimate RAM speed by FSB clock and memory divider. This SDRAM module is Infineon 256MB, PC 133 CL2, BX compatible (16 chip). I assume its not that good compared to modern high-density modules. Maybe BGA chips are the best.

K. If everybody else is good with it, I have no issue. No harm done. Thanks for the response.

Mr. Scott, there already was such an issue but the other way around - when CPU-Z showed a higher divider whereas a lower was in use. Results were marked as invalid and recalculated despite CPU-Z showing higher numbers. It was a Gigabyte P35 or P45 issue with 1:2 (and 3:5 for real).

Just've recalled this one. But too young for memory issues

Mr. Scott, there already was such an issue but the other way around - when CPU-Z showed a higher divider whereas a lower was in use. Results were marked as invalid and recalculated despite CPU-Z showing higher numbers. It was a Gigabyte P35 or P45 issue with 1:2 (and 3:5 for real).

Yes, I know about the 3:5 issue.

Mr. Scott, there already was such an issue but the other way around - when CPU-Z showed a higher divider whereas a lower was in use. Results were marked as invalid and recalculated despite CPU-Z showing higher numbers. It was a Gigabyte P35 or P45 issue with 1:2 (and 3:5 for real).

3:5 divider on 400 strap is bugged on all P35/P45/X38/X48 boards, and it is 2:3 in reality.