Bones

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

Good job D1nky! Now it's my turn to see if I can top that.

You can try downloading the file at the link I found and follow the installation directions that's on the download page. Hope this helps. http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/dll-files.shtml?msvcr100

I keep getting a notification that I've earned three new achievements and they're all the same thing "You gained a new achievement: Use GSKILL memory for at least 50 submissions" and it has done this everytime I have logged in since I earned it the first time.

I didn't do either since I was pressed for time this morning but will let them know about it ASAP or at least get the word out to them about it. EDIT: Shot them a PM.

I discovered it early this morning after I had used the prepopulate function to setup the entry I had for my P4 631 chip. Since I was using the same board and RAM I had previously ran my Pentium D 915 with, I used the function to "Fill in the blanks" except for what was needed to indicate the correct CPU used (P4 631) with the correct speeds and RAM timings. After doing the entry, I saw that I had a Gold trophy - Wait a sec.... This CAN'T be right, no way the entry had scored 1st in that class since the score wasn't high enough to have earned it. So I checked the rankings of the P4 631 chips and noted my entry didn't appear in the rankings BUT was indicated as a best for this chip (#1) within the personal results tab that appears over the category if you're logged in. ???? Went back and doublechecked and realized the prepopulate function had listed my P4 631 as an X2 chip, not an X1 as it should be but was giving me points and all for the entry but it was showing correctly as a P4 631 CPU. I quickly did an edit of the entry and fixed the problem by doing a manual edit and not using the function - Noted someone else had also done this with the P4 631 and had points too in that class - Probrably a mistake as it was with me but it was there. To illustrate the bug itself, I redid the erroneous entry with points disabled so it's not going to affect anything in the rankings and you can take a peek for yourselves: http://hwbot.org/submission/2435592_ This bug has a serious potential for earning "Hidden" points and since it doesn't appear when browsing the hardware category proper, it's all too easy to stash bogus entries for EZ points, skewing the rankings way off and this is not good for benchers trying to do it "Right". This bug needs to be killed and to see how many more of these entries exist in the data base. Once I see a mod reply to this post I'll remove the example entry myself or they can do it, doesn't matter so much to me.

"The best memory" with the worst solder job ever?

Hey - What new stuff? I don't have any new stuff around here..... All of it is at least a week old or more.

All versions of CPU-Z from 1.60 to present have this issue with Socket A, any versions from 1.59 down work OK. The changes made from 1.59 to 1.60 is the apparent issue but exacly how it's doing it I don't know, I too get the system lockup/freeze trying to open it up for a screenie after a run is done. It's done this with every Socket A board and CPU I have. It always locks the system up while CPU-Z is showing "Processors" during the program's startup.

Nicely done!

Did a run with the Stilt's errata fix and this popped up - Makes a world of difference! http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2393184_ This was better than a sub I have but disabled points for this entry anyway. Note that I used the same settings as the one done before for this challenge.

Figured I'd give it a shot and came up with this. http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2385370_