Barton

Time to lock this one.

Good going, MrPaco!

Opty, aka "ANM", to the best of my knowledge no one on our team has used the same piece of hardware on the same benchmark as any other team member. There is more than one nvidia video card in the world and more than one ATI card, too for that matter. This problem you are having is beneath you. AFAIK, even if what you say were true, it is no violation of the rules for this competition. This is a "Team Competition", not an individual competition. Only the best score is counted for each team. Please let the imagined non-fraction go. We'll all (and that includes you, my friend) be happier as a result.

Why do some submission images not enlarge or expand? That makes them difficult or impossible to read on some monitors. Like this one from my team for example: http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/2152495_mr.scott_3dmark2001_se_geforce_9600_gt_1024mb_42487_marks http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=569577&thumb=false&iehack=.jpg No complaint about the submission, just using that one to illustrate an image that wouldn't expand or enlarge.

That's the reason for suggesting two different classes for the PCMark 05 and 3DMark 01 benches. The "any video card permitted" class would allow the submission of scores earned with PCI-e cards... While the "limited to AGP and plain PCI video cards" class would not include PCI-e cards. That way everyone would have a chance to compete on a more level playing field - unless I've missed something there...?

Massman, that would be great. A four part S754 challlenge. Two video card challenges and two long processor benchmark challenges. 1) PCMark 05 2) 3DMark 01 3) Super Pi 32m 4) WPrime 1024m The two long processor benchmarks will be a worthy challenge for all of us. They involve more fine tuning and benchmark skills that the short ones, IMO. Let's do it for May 2011. April is already has a good Challenge. ================================================== Edit: Following up on Bones, idea, How about a six part challenge? 1) PCMark 05 - open class for any video card 2) PCMark 05 - limited to AGP and plain PCI video cards only 3) 3DMark 01 - open class for any video card 4) 3DMark 01 - limited to AGP and plain PCI video cards only 5) Super Pi 32m 6) WPrime 1024m

Here's a Super Pi run with an old version of Super Pi without seconds. Looks like the 29.000 sec score in the data base needs to be manually edited to show 29.999 sec instead. Would you please take care of that? Here are the links: http://hwbot.org/community/submission/629649_curro_superpi_athlon_64_3500_winchester_29sec_0ms http://hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=31310&thumb=false&iehack=.jpg

When looking up Processor specifications, several pages will load, and the browser says "Done", but nothing much is displayed. Just the page margins and a blank page in the middle. This happens with IE and with Firefox so I don't think it is a browser problem. Obviously, the problem doesn't occur on the HWBot home page nor on the Forum pages. One of the pages that won't display is: http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/mobile_sempron_64_3100_georgetown Here's another: http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/mobile_sempron_64_3300_albany What's wrong?

Thank you for the quick response. Keep us posted on when to expect R.4.

The "when will we see the leagues" question was not answered. Will there be any leagues at all?

Thanks, KB!

Likewise, Thank you, Sweet!

Maybe one of the other mods will take a look at this thread and perhaps correct this one.

This one looks like a P4 1.7 erroneously entered as a P4 1.5 category. Note that CPUZ and WPrime both show that the processor is a 1.7, not a 1.5. Shouldn't it be moved to the correct category? It was reported the normal way, but no action was taken by the moderator - just shows "checked by a moderator". Please look at the images: http://hwbot.org/community/submission/639797_manny_wprime_1024m_pentium_4_1.5ghz_willamette_s423_1h_41min_8sec_0ms http://hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=36829&thumb=false&iehack=.jpg

This Pi Fast time appears to have errors in computation: http://hwbot.org/community/submission/606143_vampirs_pifast_athlon_64_3200_newcastle_48.98_sec See the supporting image: http://hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=20188&thumb=false&iehack=.jpg

Is anyone going to fix this or is it, too, waiting on Rev. 4.0?

Yep, looks like the score is out of the rankings now.

Good grief, Paco. That one's out of sight! Well done. ;>)

Would someone (especially a mod) take a look at this? http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/678429_daidalos_wprime_1024m_athlon_64_3500_newcastle_38min_53sec_110ms?tab=more Are invalid scores allowed?

The checksum for this submission says that it is "invalid".

There is no image to "prove" the Wprime time submitted. The checksum says it is "invalid". Therefore, it should be blocked or removed, shouldn't it? http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/678429_daidalos_wprime_1024m_athlon_64_3500_newcastle_38min_53sec_110ms?tab=more

Here's another one to move. This looks like a Venice processor. It is not a NewCastle. If so, it is submitted to the wrong category. It should be moved to the A64 Athlon 3500+ Venice (939) category. See the CPUZ image submitted with the Benchmark. http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/787242_agrasgr_wprime_1024m_athlon_64_3500_newcastle_34min_41sec_470ms?tab=more

I don't believe that is a cheat, Antinomy. It's a simple error that needs to be corrected. The poster probably wasn't even aware that the run had errors in it. It's easy to overlook that when a run finishes with a good time and you're excited about that. Still, under the previous rulings, the score is not valid so it needs to be removed. Perhaps the best thing to cure all the old ills in the data base would be to dump the whole thing and have us all start over by submitting new runs for everything and making sure that all the runs comply to the rules and that they all include valid proof images with the submissions. IMO, there are way too many entries in the data base with no proof at all.

Looks like this is a Brisbane processor. Need to move it to that category? Isn't this category for Windsor Processors? http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/959802_sanders_cpu_z_athlon_64_6000_x2_3565.19_mhz?tab=info

Looks like this is a Brisbane processor. Need to move it to that category? This is for Windsor Processors isn't it?