Mr.Scott

Card is hammered. That's as good as it gets. Question should be, "What's up with the low scores on GF2 and 256?" I can't score worth a damn on either of these cards. It's really frustrating.

Sorry Pete. That is a fact. Submission deleted by me.

Subbed for possible fix. It doesn't work on any of my XP OS's.

WTG Eddie.

Bad CPU-Z version.........

Just photoshop the GPU-Z. You remember how, right?

The rule pages are an easy fix. Should have been done as the rules/requirements changed. The code bugs are a bigger concern. They're multiplying faster than they're getting fixed. Before anybody gets cranky reading this, yes I know it's only a 2 guy operation, but the existing problems should take precedence over any new projects.

Same guy as this thread? http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=51440

Thanks for reminding me I had one of these. I'll have to dig that out.

I'll give you a go. You know I'm always close.

That's a shame. :nana: Have fun on the vaca Chris.

You already know the answer. No proof (link), no score.

Had the same issue bro. It validated a bugged result.

Wrong version for the bug. That version works fine. Rasparthe is probably correct.

Not interested. Just proving a point is all. I'm done with this conversation.

Bug still exists. Exactly the same on my system. Bugged version validates initially, but still shows incorrect data. We'll see in a day if it gets rejected or not. http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2429251 EDIT- the link provided is the version thats bugged. The copy that was sent via e-mail to me works fine.

Keep it up. There are quite a few more of your submissions that don't conform to the rules. If I reported them all you'd have like 2 points left.:battle:

You missed the point. The point was, instead of b1tching and complaining about the rules, and being so quick on the report button to try to get submissions removed, one should be a little more concerned that one's own submissions conform to the rules. When in doubt, ASK somebody first.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. http://hwbot.org/submission/2278860_robot_3dmark06_2x_geforce_8800_gtx_27387_marks No subtest details in SS, no ORB link.

Nice freakin' app. Thank you very much.

Done. Thanks for the info CN. SS's are attached in case anybody is interested here.

1.61 totally mis-reads my 965BE. The HT link frequency, NB frequency, CPU speed, bus speed, and ram frequency are all way too high. More than 10% high.

Voting NO globals based on the current UCB tweaking discussion. Matter of fact, I vote no to additional points and or benchmarks being added at all until there is a valid CURRENT set of written rules for each bench that is already in use. There's too much BS heresay being applied already.

I wasn't trying to antagonize you. Here's what I've found after tweaking UCB for quite a while now. There is no set pattern for number of optimal threads. It varies across platforms. The 'sweet' combination for threads for say 939, is not the same combination that you would want for socket A or AM3 for example. Number of physical cores seems to make no difference either. I've been testing thread combinations for UCB before Frank even knew there was a tweak. I turned him on to that. The combinations he uses on his Intel submissions aren't even close to being good on an AMD setup, so there's a difference in the way the bench is calculated right off the bat, based on CPU manufacturer.

Shall I get you a tissue? You mean like all the PCM05 so called 'tweaks' that are legal? There is no difference, and the staff has already said it's ok in many different threads, so stop your crying.