PCMark10 not recognise A10-7850K???

[AlwaysHope]

Just ran this test suite to check if my G.Skill ram is ok with "real world" load. It's not listed on QVL list for my mobo, but its still working ok.

Anyway..... UL Benchmarks should get there shite together. As most of us know this APU is already few yrs old, yet has issues with this APU.

Latest version used - v1.1.1722

https://www.3dmark.com/pcm10b/296225

 

[MrGenius]

What does that even mean? It's showing what the processor used was.

Anyway, if it bothers you...get on their support forum and ask them to fix it. I did that when my R9 280X was suddenly showing up as an HD 7970. It took them a while to fix it. But they eventually did.

 

[AlwaysHope]

What does that even mean? It's showing what the processor used was.

Anyway, if it bothers you...get on their support forum and ask them to fix it. I did that when my R9 280X was suddenly showing up as an HD 7970. It took them a while to fix it. But they eventually did.

I know, its crazy. Its reported in result but not "officially" acknowledged...
Not going to waste time on their forums. Apart from that, system was stable in the run. It's good enough for my usage.

 

[Bill_Bright]

It's not listed on QVL list for my mobo

There are way too many RAM makers and RAM models for motherboard makers to test them all. So unlike CPUs, you don't have to buy RAM that is listed on the RAM QVL. But to ensure compatibility, you should buy RAM with the same specs as listed RAM.

As far as processor not recognized, that just seems like a little bug in the report because it clearly is properly identified down in the Processor sections as, "AMD A10-7850K Radeon R7, 12 Compute Cores 4C+8G". That said, is also says it has 2 cores, 0 nm process and TDP of 0 watts instead of 4 cores, 28nm and 95W.

I would not mess with the forums either unless you can contact someone who actually works for UL Benchmarks.

 

[MrGenius]

I would not mess with the forums either unless you can contact someone who actually works for UL Benchmarks.

They stay on top of it over there. By that I mean they have an employee who responds to each individual thread, and passes along all pertinent info to the code monkeys.

 

[Bill_Bright]

If each thread, then you really can't ask for anything more.

The bottom line is, if the problem is not reported, it will not get fixed.

 

[AlwaysHope]

Thanks guys for that help. But in over 13yrs of benching with Futuremark stuff, & hundreds of submitted results, I have never seen a bug like this before from that lot.

 

[Bill_Bright]

But in over 13yrs of benching with Futuremark stuff, & hundreds of submitted results, I have never seen a bug like this before from that lot.

But that's a good thing! IMO, it's a reflection of how well the developers over there has stayed on top of things. That suggests to me they would be happy to be notified of this "bug" so they can fix it ASAP.