Barton

Shouldn't points be awarded for this score?

Looks like I'm facing a similar problem. My points seem stuck. Submissions by me don't add points. Deleting golds with good points don't lose points. Point just seem to decline when someone posts a better time, but don't change when I submit winning scores. Nor do they go down when I delete winning scores. What's causing that? ==================================================================== Update, after posting the above within a few hours the points from the deleted submissions are no longer showing in my "total points". Still no explanation on why the point count isn't automatically recalculated after every submission or deletion....

What is the relationship between the individual member total points shown on the TEAM/Members tab and the total points for individual members shown on their profile pages? It seems the rank order is different. Sometimes members with higher total points on the Team/Members page are shown with lower relative total points on the individual member profile pages. And vice versa. Is that the way it is supposed to be? Additional questions: How often are the total points shown on the TEAM/Members page updated? Likewise, how often are the total points shown on the Individual members' profile pages updated?

Is there a "Force Recalulation" option in Rev 4 like we had previously in the earlier revisions? Also, is there a way to tell which benchmarks and hardware items are responsible when we lose points? Finally, how do we see what points we have lost and how our positions in the rankings have changed?

Is there a category for Celeron D processors? Specifically for the Celeron D 340? If so, I can't find it using the "search" feature. Here's a link to an Intel web page describing the 340: http://ark.intel.com/products/27120/Intel-Celeron-D-Processor-340-%28256K-Cache-2_93-GHz-533-MHz-FSB%29 ================================================================== For that matter is there any sort of a master HW Bot list showing all processor categories that we can view such as was present prior to Rev 4?

The new Rev 4 forms allow you make submissions by including only your score, processor, and "proof". Everything else is optional.

Good call, IMO, Massman. I support that.

This may be the wrong sub-forum for your question. Perhaps you should move it to submissions and moderation or to the benchmarks sub-forum. As to the question itself, I have the same problem and have not found a solution to it. Could it be that PCMArk 04 does not run on WS7 ?

Exactly what are the alleged cheats and exactly how would they be detected and moderated if they are prohibited? That's the problem. We can prohibit certain things, but if there is no way to detect them and enforce the rules where does that leave us? ========================================================================================= On a separate note, in another forum linked here, it is alleged that unnamed cheats are being used to lower Pi Fast scores. Is that benchmark also to be eliminated? http://www.hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=28784 http://www.benchtec.co.uk/forums/threads/8526-PCMark05-RIP?goto=newpost

Something is wrong. Many pages for the Turion 64 Mt-28 submissions cannot be viewed. It is not all of them. Some submissions can still be seen. Others cannot. For example, I can't see either of the Super Pi 32m pages from this link: http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/turion_64_mt_28/ http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2146485_barton_superpi_32m_turion_64_mt_28_27min_56sec_766ms http://www.hwbot.org/submission/818068_cupido_superpi_32m_turion_64_mt_28_48min_49sec_670ms

Okay, sounds like you guys are on top of it. Hope to get the Socket A processors back where we can submit new times and benchmark scores to them again...

How do we find results for Socket A (462) Semprons? When I search for a Sempron 2600+ a link drops down, but when you click on it an error message appears that says: "Page no longer exists."

The white paper says on page 22 under limitations essentially that individual component test scores are affected by other component test results. That's the point I mention in the post above. What we don't know, and what the white paper does not seem to tell us, is the exact mathematical amount of that effect.

Sweet, it's not that one run is bugged. Mr Paco has indicated that these runs are consistently repeatable. Virtually every PCMark 05 benchmark session on his 8 i-ram set-up with that processor ends with high total PCMark 05 scores and high sub-test scores. Without access to the PCMark 05 algorithm for the final score and for the sub-test scores we can't explain the internal mechanics of how the benchmark program computes those scores other than to say everything is on the up and up, and run totally within the HWBot rules for PCMark 05. I understand where Christian Ney is coming from with his initial comments. All we can say is that the extremely fast hard drive test times attributable to the i-rams must also affect favorably various other sub-test scores in XP. If the results are repeatable time and time again, it's not a "bugged" run. Rather it is the result of extremely fast hardware and a great deal of skill on the part of Mr.Paco in putting that build together and getting it to run that fast. HWBot doesn't prohibit fast hardware, it encourages that. Please mention the above points to the other members of the staff and see about approving the run. There appears to be no valid reason to deny it. It's not bugged. It's just darn fast. ;>)

It's not just the XP load times, look at the hard drive general usage score. It's almost identical to the XP load time. That in itself greatly raises the final PCMark 05 score. Mr. Paco is running on an array of many I-rams, he's got one of the fastest 460 video cards out there and he's overclocked the heck out of it. He's also got a nice overclock on the processor and reasonably tight timings with decent cooling. The results speak for themselves. It does not appear to be a bugged run. To the contrary it looks to be a darn good run by a relatively new member here. Mr. Paco wouldn't cheat. It's not in his character to do that. If there is something wrong here, Mods, please point it out. If not, please re-instate all of his points - including any Global or WR points if applicable.

Nice run, III.

Thank you. And thanks for calculating the exact number of seconds, too.

I'm doing nothing different compared to successful submissions yesterday, but today my Super Pi 32m submissions are failing. An error message appears that says there is a "java.lang" error... I haven't a clue as to how to fix that. Would you do so or explain to us how to fix the problem on our submissions? Here's a link to an image of the error message: http://postimage.org/image/9xzl8ykk/ Note that the submission IS using decimal points, not commas. I don't know what else to change. The normal submission image was attached as was the photo that is required now.

Here's a suggestion for Rev.4 that doesn't require that you change what you have, just that you add something in addition to what's already there. The purpose of this suggestion is to create more ways for everyone to compete and to therefore keep old members active and to attract new members to the site. Please consider adding three new classes to the existing Hardware Masters competition. The existing hardware masters class is unlimited hardware points with everyone in the same class. Keep that. You can call it the "Hardware Masters Open Class". That class lumps us all together: with novices, air and water folks, extreme cooling, and pros all competing against each other. It's not an even match or an even competition, but keep it anyway. Then add: 1) A Hardware Masters Professional class with just the "Pros". 2) A Hardware Masters Hardcore class with just the non-pros who use any form of Extreme Cooling. 3) A Hardware Masters Ambient Class just for those of us who use only air or water cooling. 4) Optional - Add a Novice class for folks on air or water who have less than 50 submissions. This proposal would allow more folks a fair chance of doing well within their own competitive grouping and might keep more existing members active. It could also get more new members involved in overclocking and benchmarking. The proposal is also good for you and the Bot's corporate sponsors as the more folks we have doing this the more potential customers they have. If you've ever competed in golf matches or tennis or many other sports you'll see the immediate similarity of creating more classes for more competitors to give everyone a greater chance to do well, or even win, within their respective classifications. ================================================================ An additional suggestion is to add a Legacy Hardware League for folks with older hardware. You'd need to decide what "older hardware is". Perhaps anything before the Core architecture for Intels and anything before K-10 for AMD processors.

This very nice run looks like it is filed in the wrong category. http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/1050401_taisto_superpi_phenom_x3_8550_27sec_710ms?tab=info Would you please check out the CPUZ screenie for this one and all others like it in the Phenom 8550 x3 Class. If they are the same processor marketed under two different names, shouldn't there be a separate category for each processor?

Would you please create a new AM2 Athlon 64 category for this processor? http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon%2064%202650e%20-%20ADG2650IAV4DP%20%28ADG2650DPBOX%29.html It should be in the same general category with existing processors like this one: http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/athlon_neo_mv_21?tab=2drankings#/manufacturer.rankings.do?applicationId=3&manufacturer=amd&hardwareTypeId=CPU_2120&hardwareType=CPU&tabid=cpubenchmarks

You bet. Thank you for the prompt action, Sweet.

what would that mean, massman? "Rev-OC"? it's a serious question. I don't understand the meaning.

This is not a valid submission. The screenshot shows that the run was made with an error in the calculation. http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/1074826_speedoo_pifast_athlon_xp_1500_68.69_sec?tab=info Therefore, it should be removed.

Good work, mr.P!