Barton

Please take a look at this one. It's showing up a #1 here: http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/682865_bolhca_wprime_32m_core_2_e6750_2.67ghz_20sec_860ms That would be first of seven with 2.0 points, but compare it in this page where it shows up as #78 in the list. If this is correct, it should probably be worth more than 2.0 points. http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_e6750_2.67ghz?tab=2drankings#/manufacturer.rankings.do?applicationId=14&manufacturer=intel&hardwareTypeId=CPU_1000&hardwareType=CPU&tabid=cpubenchmarks Maybe it is correct as it is. If so, please let me know what I'm missing. Something looks off about it to me. ==================================================================================== Ah ha. Perhaps his original entry shows it as running on 4X rather than 2X cores... Is the 6750 a quad core? I thought it was a dual core... ===================================================================================== This looks like another list with duplicate entries. This one shows up on a couple of different pages. Compare # 78 with # 82. Are they the same? They look as if they are same entry from here... ...

Massman, would you or Turrican post screenies of what you see for the two pages 0-20 and 21-40? At least three different people I know are seeing some entries on page one that are duplicated on page two. Take a look at #13 and #21 for example. Those both appear as 25.300 secs here. Others are duplicates too. At least they appear that way from here... Thanks.

It's the San Diego Super Pi scores. Look at the top 1-40 scores. They are not in the correct order and some are duplicates. If there is any way to correct this, would you do do? http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/athlon_64_4000_san_diego?tab=2drankings#/manufacturer.rankings.do?applicationId=3&manufacturer=amd&hardwareTypeId=CPU_859&hardwareType=CPU&tabid=cpubenchmarks Compare #13-20 with #21-28.

This does not look like a Sempron 2200+. CPUZ seems to say it is an Athlon XP-M, not a Sempron. http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/556026_aasmaukr_cpu_z_sempron_2200_athlon_xp_2266_mhz Please delete or move to the correct class, or is this one of those processors that appears differently in CPUZ depending on the speed at which the benchmark is run?

This one has been submitted and ranked with points calculated, but something is holding it up from inclusion in the overall PCMark05 scores for the class. http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/1080510_barton_pcmark_2005_athlon_64_3000_venice_s939_9321_marks?new=true

Okay, I'll repost that one and any others that appear like that one. I have backup images of most submissions.

What happened to the supporting image for this validation? It will no longer enlarge - at least not for me, today, on my computer... http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/1017775_barton_pcmark_2005_athlon_xp_3200_5265_marks When first submitted, I know for sure that the image would enlarge. Something must have happened to it.

http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/1078922_barton_pcmark_2005_athlon_64_3700_san_diego_9161_marks Tried the "recalculation" button a while ago. Still no points for that run. It was a good one. Would you do the magic to get the point calculation done, please? Thanks.

Some motherboard are marketed with the ability to use two different types of CPUs - perhaps either socket 775 or 478, for example. Third party manufacturers also offer CPU socket adapters that perform the same function. Is the use of such CPU Socket adapters allowed for HWBot benchmarks?

Thank you. I'm beginning to understand. A few more questions if you would. 1) What is the benchmark resolution for PCMark05? 2) How would people change that if they do? 3) Where would we see that in the submission screenshots if the resolution has been changed? 4) Where did the Orb show the benchmark resolution back when some users used the Orb rather than screenshots?

I don't understand this requirement. Is it about the Windows screen size or something else? By Windows screen size, I mean the resolution settings for the display, the monitor. Some small old monitors run at 640x480 or 800x600. Others run at 1024x768 or 1100x800 (estimated). Newer ones run at 1280x1024 or even higher. So what I'm asking is if the rules require any particular monitor resolution for PCMark05?

What screen resolutions are permitted for PCMark05? Or is there only one resolution allowed? If so what is that one?

Never mind. Looks like it has already been scored separately.

Never mind. Looks like it has already been scored separately.

Never mind. Looks like it has already been scored separately.

This looks like it was run as two cores and should be ranked as such. Correct? If so, shouldn't all the other single core submissions be ranked and scored separately from this dual core submission?

This looks like it was run as two cores and should be ranked as such. Correct? If so, shouldn't all the other single core submissions be ranked and scored separately from this dual core submission?

Hey HWBot mods, Please reconsider your decision to block Mr.Scott's WPrime 32m submission for the AMD Athlon 64 socket 939 4000+ San Diego processor. Apparently a recent server crash at the Bot or some other damage to your database has occurred that has made the same thing happen to MANY other submissions in the 4000+ category. Check all of those shown below. All of them have validation images that like Mr.Scott's are now no longer readable or no longer accessible. To block only Mr.Scott's submission is just not fair. Why do that when you know what happened? http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/766246_snarf_pcmark_2005_athlon_64_4000_san_diego_4871_marks http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/631911_smithofmatrix_pcmark_2005_athlon_64_4000_san_diego_4875_marks http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/699128_ocperformance_pcmark_2005_athlon_64_4000_san_diego_5041_marks http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/607739_bwanasoft_pcmark_2005_athlon_64_4000_san_diego_5316_marks There are many more that are affected, but that should be enough to let you see what we are talking about. Mr.Scott deserves the points for his WPrime 32m submission. Would you please reinstate them?

This is a perfectly valid score. The recent server crash reduced the validation image to a small size that is now impossible to read. That's not the fault of the submitter, however, but an error now in the Database.

Is the use of non-FutureMark approved nVidia drivers allowed for purposes of the PCMark 04 and PCMark 05 benchmarks?

What exactly is the browser tweak in PCMark 05? ..

CPUZ show this processor to be a plain Athlon XP, not an Athlon XP-M. Thus, isn't this score in the wrong category? Shouldn't it be moved to the XP category?

Never mind. Discovered it was a duplicate submission of the same run in the same class for the same processor. Hence no points for the second one. It's been deleted by user. Ugh!

Why are the screenies submitted as "proof" sometimes shown as thumbnails of the image and other times shown as only "placeholders"?