Mr.Scott

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.

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.

LOL. You're a very generous guy. GL in rest of comp.

Efficiency is not at it's best.

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.

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.

Yup. Still missing user points and team points.

Me too.

What I get from this is you would like your WR points from the OC league while having your e-peen stroked by being ranked #4 in the E league. Everybody in the world would like to have their cake and eat it too. Generally it never works out that way. I don't see it being any different here.

It's absolutely allowed.

Good solid run for a Sempron on an AN7. Very nice. Ram booster too, very smart. GL in rest of comp.

If Quadro4 isn't allowed for Geforce4, do you really think Quadro2 would be allowed for Geforce2?