Mr.Scott

I've already heard and seen enough. Bottom line is you have no CPU-Z validation and the rules state that you need one. It's up to the staff. If this sub stays, you can bet I'll submit without a CPU-Z validation also. That's a fact.

Your excuse doesn't even make any sense. Why would you run a divider on a ram clock contest? The object of a divider is to keep the ram in check while running a higher FSB, thus lowering the ram speed. If anything you should be running the 133's, just to keep the PCI bus closer to normal. Who do you think you're trying to BS Austin, some noob?

Zinggg! http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2443360 Fair enough Chris?

TR, you don't need a CPU-Z validation for Pifast. You DO need one for ram speed in the comp. That was my only beef with the submission. If that rule is negated by the mods, I'll be sure to post up a much higher ram speed in the SDRAM class.

No prejudice involved. Your ram speed may indeed be valid, but without any verification other than basically your word, the submission is unacceptable. Everybody else has to have proof, so do you. I'll check out your claim later. I do have a 1.4 Tualatin or two that will go.

Calling BS. I have the board. Unacceptable submission reported.

Nice run Al.

Why wouldn't it? You think Asus is just being picked on?

Noted. I'm not using it. It's obviously not rendering everything. Too much chance of controversy. I don't need that.

I get that it's allowed after I read that link. Now I'll be using it until I get a definitive answer telling me that I can't. I haven't submitted any runs on it yet.

Both of us though? We're not idiots. We're just missing something. Still plenty of time to figure it out.

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.