Bones

If you'll look at his FSB and HT speeds, you should see something like "743.14" or similar to that. CPU-Z shows the FSB and HT speeds with 2 decimal points but his "Validation" shot doesn't have it at all. The numbers do align as they should but the lack of decimal points is extremely suspect, even if it were dead on 743 it should still show "743.00" for his FSB speed and the same basic thing for his HT speed. I do know the program itself shows this and validations I believe show it too.

I'll have to give this another shot soon and see if I can get anywhere near these results. Good work guys!

I've seen before when I've been benching there would just seem to be a "Wall" or something - Going a little higher doesn't make any real difference in results but then going up just a touch more, the score/result jumps noticably. Could be the case here - I've seen it happen with WPrime, Super PI and others before including 3D benchies. I'd bet the OS change/refresh had an effect on it too. It is weird when it happens but in a good way. Nice run!

All I can say at this point is why continue to use this bench since even with default settings it can give a bugged result? This one should be disabled period until the problem is fixed or you guys will still have work to do in the near future. Once the bench has been fixed, then allow subs with it again OR find a replacement - More difficult to do I'll admit but the issues with bugs and UCbench has turned it into a moderator's nightmare no matter which option is chosen. I would say see if it can be fixed before ditching it of course and that's probrably what would happen anyway and probrably the best choice..... If it can be fixed. That's just my viewpoint of it.

When your girl asks about trying a "Three-Way" - You run out of the room all excited, them come back holding some NVidia GPU's......

In reference to the above: Who else has got a pair to remove their bugged runs like I did - Voluntarily? Lost 11 trophys in my case, 7 being Gold but I don't care. I've removed suspect or outright bad runs on my own before when I discovered they had a problem and this is no different. I hear all the complaints about bad/bugged runs but when it comes down to it, next to none actually help make the situation better on their own without griping about it provided they even do that. I know, it hurts to lose boints but don't go talking about how things could be fair or more honest if not wanting to set an example on your own. If I were a mod here, some folks would be mega-bunnying-pissed at me as a mod over some of the things I've seen here before but it's not the job of a mod to "Please" anyone/everyone, it's to enforce the rules as they are currently written. Even now there are still some questionable entries floating around with even a few that's outright impossible but again, it's not my job to moderate things except to keep myself straight and prove myself as being "Honest" with actions, not words.

Already went through mine and got rid of the bugged runs I spotted. Mr. Scott, check it again and delete any others that may appear to be suspect please.

Do you score bonus points if you have a piece of hardware Gigio doesn't have? I have a Premio 219-H MB Socket 7 board with the 5571 SiS chipset. Here's a link I found to what the board is with some stuff on it as well. I also used it for an entry here sometime ago, don't know if it was ever added to the database. http://support.premiopc.com/faqs/219hfaq.htm Nice collection Gigio!

Thanks Christian. Hopefully you'll find something useful that will solve this and let all of us finally get back to benching these A's without having to worry about it. I know the older versions are accepted for now due to this problem but validations with Socket A are problematic for many of us wanting to run these setups.

This has been an ongoing issue since version 1.60 came out. Locks up the entire system when you try to open CPU-Z to get the required tabs for a screenie, this issue is making it impossible to use the latest version for.... Well... Anything Socket A related, including CPU speed validations. If it's truly a requirement to run the latest version of it for your screenies, that would make a fix for it all the more important, or at least a way to make it work. I've tried it with several mainboards and CPU's; In every single instance so far it has failed, always locking up the system when the dialogue box says "Processors" while starting the program. I'll just say it - With the amount of time that this has been a known problem, just seems to me this issue has been ignored. I do know some have found a way to make it work or at least some kind of workaround. Whatever was changed to make the program different from ver 1.59 vs ver 1.60 and later is the apparent cause of it. Some have said simply making a change to the config file would fix it, others have said to use the install version, then change the config file and yes, I've tried every way I can think of to get it to work but it doesn't. Could it be something that's board model specific? My AN7's, NF7's, A7M 266-D and A7N's will not work with the program. I have noted some models such as the DFI LanParty Ultra B's have ran it with success. How about it guys.... Is there a real fix for this we can rely on or just forget it?

Personally I woudn't mind going. Really depends on where it would be held and probrably not close enough for me to make it with the limited spare time I have. Not to mention work has been beyond wide-open related to how busy we are and I'm so far behind, I'll never see daylight again it seems. However if it's close enough, well... You never know. I do know if it were held here, you guys would have access to the local casino and maybe win more than just a contest.

I've seen this before with my submissions. When this happens, what you'd need to do with the new entry, simply recalculate your result and that should fix it and give it the correct points and ranking whenever this happens. You'll find the recalculate function directly under the edit and delete functions/tabs for the entry itself. Circled the tab in red so it's easy to see in the screenie.

I too believe it's possible BUT how many PCI based cards can actually run it? I woudn't believe too many could since PCI cards based on a much older style slot are being phased out in favor of PCI-E slotted cards and production of PCI cards isn't what it used to be by any means over the last few years at least. That would mean the PCI based models capable of it will be very few so pickings of what cards available to use might pose a problem if really wanting to go for it in this category, esp if having to shop around for one. Maybe some folks here could do some testing and see because I just don't see the playing field within this category being too competitive as it looks ATM. I could be wrong and maybe there are several that can and I do understand that but believe it is a valid question to be asked as in "Are you sure about this" or somewhere along those lines from a competitive standpoint. Hoping I'm wrong and maybe things will turn out it won't be a real problem with it.

Please add this CPU to the database. Thanks! http://www.cpu-world.com/cgi-bin/CPUID.pl?CPUID=36474 http://valid.canardpc.com/4fgts7

While browsing I noted a mix of 9600 Phenom chips being in the same class as 9600 BE chips with entries shown, no actual 9600 BE class seems to exist that I can tell - I've seen the 9600 and 9600B classes pop up with a search but no 9600 BE class popped up at all. I know the 720 and 720 BE chips for example are indicated as separate classes with the BE chips having a clear advantage, hence these being in different classes. Could it be the "B" class was supposed to be the BE class? I know there were B versions of the 9600 to correct the errata bugs in earlier versions and was thinking this was the case here with the 9600 B class itself. Probrably an oversight but it's my thought this needs to be corrected to keep things fair.

Please add the Xeon L5240 to the database please. Thanks!

That worked, thanks for the help.

These chips are already in the database yet I can't get the correct category for it to come up. I can get a desktop 3000+ Clawhammer to appear in the box but cannot do this for the mobile version of this chip. The exact chip affected is a Socket 754 Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ Clawhammer CPU. Thanks!

Finally! Some Socket 754 action I can dig!

Feels good to be back at it guys.

No, you don't need a web connection to run WPrime. What's happening is one of your OS processes has been stopped that WPrime needs to function properly. I don't know what you are stopping that's process related when you set things up but that's what it is, I've seen this many times before myself to know when I was doing the same with my stuff. Mind you it's been awhile since I've ran into this and I can't recall the exact process you'd need to leave running (I think it's related to "DHCP" in XP by name in the sys admin process tabs) but best thing would be to leave all processes enabled and kill off these unwanted processes one by one until you figure it out. Might take some time but once you have it figured out, you'll be OK.

Just starting out with this 3770K chip and it did over 5GHz with around 1.41v's used on regular watercooling. I suspect once I do get it cold it will do much better. http://hwbot.org/submission/2480615_ Batch # 3246C530 - Costa Rica

You'll have to be quicker than that! http://hwbot.org/submission/2464584_

Spotted it in the 1M Super PI FX 8320 rankings earlier. There are two entries listed with points by the same user with the same CPU, one of these should have dropped off but it didn't. It's also showing the slower run of the two being ranked higher. http://hwbot.org/submission/2441385_darkage_superpi___1m_fx_8320_14sec_289ms and http://hwbot.org/submission/2444254_darkage_superpi___1m_fx_8320_14sec_180ms The bencher who ran these has done nothing wrong but it's a bug that's affecting the 8320 rankings.

Mission accomplished. http://hwbot.org/submission/2461792_bones_superpi___32m_fx_4300_14min_32sec_859ms