Mr.Scott
-
Posts
3337 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
59
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Mr.Scott
-
-
From my perspective, this is an obvious fake since it would be way highter then any other GTX670 results but with lower clocks.
What would you say?
You already know the answer.
No proof (link), no score.
-
Had the same issue bro. It validated a bugged result.
-
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2408148
Rasparthe said it was likely due to the board not supporting the chip, but I think this is related to the bug also...
Wrong version for the bug. That version works fine. Rasparthe is probably correct.
-
If you have nothing better to do feel free to report all my "standard stock clocking runs" with bad scores and make yourself ridiculous.
And please go through all the submissions in the core 2 stage that don't have correct screenshots too. Would save us all a lot of time
I also would suggest you as "screenshot prove guy" for Hwbot, you can look for not 100% correct screenshots all day then!
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.
-
Hearing exactly from you that i am "b1tching" and quick on the report button is the joke of the year!
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:
-
Yea, sorry for that, i am quite new to all this "Hwbot rules".
I am not talking about doing the screenshot 100% right here. It was just an example that on the one hand people are taking correct screenshots serious - that is good - but on the other hand the rules are not clear to people who do not read all the threads in the forum.
I just say someone from the hwbot-staff should take care about this, and just set the rules clear on the Team Cup Page.
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.
-
I remember someone reporting me in the last stage because i did not include the "optional" mem tab, and i had to rerun my results.
This is an overclocking competition and not a "who finds the best arguments to bend the rules to his needs competition".
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.
-
Please send email follow this link:
http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=41144
May also attach a screenshot with older version of cpuz vs new one to show them
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'm not writing the rules right now, I'm just participating here:)
Most of the gains from the pcmark tweaks can be explained once you know how they work, right? That's not the case here - I've never seen 32 threads per core be a very efficient way of running a benchmark. What is it with this benchmark that makes it scale that way?
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?
it's clearly that this score is achieved by manipulating the way the benchmark is run.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.
-
The question here is if ucbench calculates different things when forcing 64 threads rather than the default number of threads. wprime is very easy to understand that way, there the work is split into x number of threads and all threads run simultaneously. That COULD be the case with UCBench, but it's not that clear - it just seems odd to me that you gain 20% this way
Slippery slope you're approaching here. The same thing could be said for most of the PCM05 tweaks. You can't have it both ways, so choose your words and battles wisely. Honestly, there's quite a few threads where people have asked if it was 'legal' already. The answer has always been yes, including from the staff. Why all of a sudden is this such a problem?
Anybody that looks at a tweaked submission could easily see what was tweaked and just mimic it.
-
I like to give everyone else a chance, don't want to discourage competitors by being able to get high clocks and run effecient. How fair would that be?
LOL. You're a very generous guy.
GL in rest of comp.
-
Efficiency is not at it's best.
-
Who says its allowed? Because it makes a massiv difference..
The rules say "standard run" not custom.
Might have wanted to ask this before you went ahead and reported every single entry anyway, wouldn't you say?
-
Pretty high bar set as usual Ivan. GL in rest of comp.
-
You are very, very close to me.
I hope so, to.
I know you can do better.
GL in the rest of the comp.
-
Just testing Frank. Quick and dirty. I can do better.
-
Nice clocks. Didn't know standard stock cooling included phase.
-
Well, still not fixed completely, but it works.
Yup. Still missing user points and team points.
-
Been struggling with the weather here. Mid 90f ambient the past few days
Me too.
The official HWBOT Team Cup 2012 - SC3: "Memory Clock" thread.
in HWBOT Competitions
Posted
That's a shame. :nana:
Have fun on the vaca Chris.