Barton

Ticket ID: 388 Priority: Medium Please check out the CP team member rankings from the 6-18-2009 screenshot below.\r\nClick the image to enlarge it for viewing.\r\n\r\nHow come the \"B\" guy is ranked at place 216 with only 400+ points while the team leader, StoneAge, is ranked at place 217 with over 500+ points. Shouldn\'t it be just the opposite?\r\n\r\nhttp://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=aVSde80&code=2

Ticket ID: 385 Priority: High How about creating a new category for the AMD Socket A Athlon XP 3100+ (Thorton) processor.\r\n\r\nIt\'s described here:\r\n\r\nhttp://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K7/AMD-Athlon%20XP%203100%2B%20-%20AXDC3100DKV3E.html\r\n..

Ticket ID: 384 Priority: High How about creating a new category for the Athlon XP 3100+ (Barton) socket A processor?\r\n\r\nHere\'s a link to the CPU-World.com web page describing it.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K7/AMD-Athlon%20XP%203100%2B%20-%20AXDC3100DKV3E.html\r\n..\r\n\r\nI\'ve got one I\'d like to bench and post up some times.

What do we do when CPUZ mis-identifies a given processor? JMKE mentioned recently that it sometimes does that. We were discussing a bench posted by another user and it turned out CPUZ had incorrectly Identified that user's Palomino MP as a Thoroughbred XP. JMKE implied CPUZ can mis-identify other processors as well. As of today, I'm a believer. I was benching an AMD Athlon MP 2200+ AMSN2200DKT3C. It was properly identified by CPUZ as an MP processor up to around 150FSB. At 160FSB and higher, CPUZ wrongly identifies the processor as a Sempron. That's with CPUZ verison 1.50, BTW. What I'm planning to do is explain that in the "Description" box where we submit new scores, and also add some text in the screenie explaining what's going on. Perhaps this approach could be adopted by the mods as an informal guideline as to what users can do when CPUZ fails to properly identify one of their processors. Will that be sufficient to allow the scores to be posted? Are you guys okay with that? [i don't have a camera good enough to take a readable photo of the black OPN label, and wouldn't know how to use Photoshop to include an image of the OPN label in a screenie even if I did.] By examing the screenshots it should be obvious that CPUZ has misidentified the processor because I'm running it at 13x and 13.5x for the benches. True Socket A Semprons are locked and don't run at those multies as far as I know. See this page at CPU-World.com for the known Socket A Sempron multies: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K7/TYPE-Sempron.html Here's the link to the 2200+ MP category where I'm hoping to post the benchmark results. http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Athlon%20MP%202200_ Here are pics showing what happens with CPUZ and this processor as it runs above and below 160FSB. ..

I don't think you can do by taking a simple screen shot. First you would need a very good camera to take a very clear photo of the processor itself. Then isolate and enlarge the black label and save that as image. Then use photoshop or some such program to superimpose the black label image onto the screenie of the benchmark run information. For example, our digital camera can't take photos with that degree of clarity. I tried it once to advertise a cpu for sale on eBay. It wasn't clear enough to read the OPN information. The best method seems to be the one we now have. 1) Rely primarily on trusting the honesty of members here, and 2) Secondarily rely on the CPUZ information - but as jmke says, even that can sometimes be wrong.

Okay I'll respect that and accept your decision. Thanks for looking into it and for replying to the post. :>)

Ah, I see the badge. Curious, though that will all of Bwanasoft's other benches in that 1500+ category, CPUZ correctly detected his Athlon MP as an "MP". Moreover, all his other screenies show that his Athlon MP is an Athlon MP "Palomino" - as it should be shown. The one and only bench in question is the Pi Fast benchmark. There it shows that the processor is a "Thoroughbred" as well as showing it is an "XP" rather than an "MP". http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=645831 I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone's cheating here. Definitely not that, just saying that it looks in many ways like the wrong processor was posted in error for the Pi Fast time. Check out the CPUZ benchmark screenie for the 1500+ and see how it reports the member's MP as such. (It's in the #3 slot for that bench.) http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Athlon%20MP%201500_ http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=638891 Thanks.

For an example, see the 1500+ Athlon MP class. http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Athlon%20MP%201500_ If I'm not mistaken, according to CPU-World, all of those should be Palomino cores, but some users are posting times for Athlon XP Thoroughbreds in the Athlon MP 1500+ category. Here's an example: See Bwanasoft's #1 Pi Fast time of 82.7 seconds in the 1500+ MP class. That Pi Fast time is shown by his CPUZ screenie to be from an Athlon XP Thoroughbred, not from an Athlon MP processor. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=645831 Now that's from a popular HWBot member who posts many entries. It's not unreasonable that he might sometimes get one in the wrong class by mistake. However, the entry modification log shows that the result has been checked by a moderator, but the entry is still there.

Does the "New Rule" that allows mods to ignore what are deemed to be "insignificant errors" allow the posting of times from processors in the wrong classifications? For example is it "insignificant" to post up an Athlon XP processor as if it were an Athlon MP? These irregularities are obvious when the processor descriptions in the CPUZ screenies are viewed.

Ticket ID: 363 Priority: High How about either cleaning up the lower level Athlon MP categories or dividing them into two categories for each speed processor. One for the \"Palomino\" core MPs, and another for each Athlon XP MPs (is there really are such processors at the 1000, 1200, and 1500+ speeds).\r\n\r\nPlease take a look at the 1000, 1200, and 1500+ categories for the Athlon MPs. Users are posting both Palominos and Thoroughbreds in the same categories. That hardly seems fair as the processors are not the same cores.\r\n\r\nHere are links to some examples:\r\n\r\nhttp://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Athlon%20MP%201000 (Thoroughbred 1000)\r\n\r\nhttp://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=114951&thumb=false (Thoroughbed 1200)\r\n\r\nhttp://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=36403&thumb=false (Palomino 1200)\r\n\r\nhttp://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=16709&thumb=false (Palomino 1200)\r\n\r\nhttp://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=41482&thumb=false (Thoroughbred 1500+)\r\nThis one is not even an \"MP\". It\'s an \"XP\" - see the screenshot).\r\n\r\nhttp://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=99321&thumb=false (Palomino 1500+)\r\n\r\n\r\nThose should be enough to give you an idea of what needs to be done to separate the processors into different classes for the Palomino MPs and Thoroughbred MPs.\r\n\r\nThanks. I\'m hoping you\'ll be able to see what I mean once you open those three processor classes. If not, post a reply and I\'ll try to explain it better.

Ticket ID: 362 Priority: High Please see \"Duncan1\" and his Number 1 place in the Athlon MP 1200+ category. The CPUZ screenies clearly show the processor is NOT an Athlon MP 1200 processor. They show instead and Athlon XP Thoroughbred processor. It does not belong in this class. Would you please remove it. Compare Duncan1\'s Athlon XP Thoroughbred\'s CPUZ screenies with the Palomino CPUZ screenied correctly posted by Bwanasoft and Thrasher2.\r\n\r\nThis is not a simple \"insignificant minor irregularity\" that would be allowed by the \"New Rule\". It is totally the wrong processor. It does not appear to belong in this category.\r\n\r\nPlease examine the CPUZ screenies for confirmation. Please take a look. I tried to report this through normal channels but the report was rejected due to \"coding errors\".\r\n\r\nhttp://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Athlon%20MP%201200

Ticket ID: 303 Priority: Medium The top 20 member rankings for the United States appear to be in error. I\'m ranked # 21 with 336 points, while the # 20 member is show with only 308 points.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.hwbot.org/rankings/overclocker/country/united%20states\r\n\r\nWould you check it out and update it, please. Thanks.\r\n\r\n\"Barton\" 5-3-2009

Hey, it looks like duplicate results have been reported for the same member for Super Pi times in the AMD Athlon XP 2000+ (Thorton) and AMD Athlon MP 2000+ (Palomino) threads. Both 46 second scores for the Super Pi 1M benchmark times show the same forum post link screenshot. Both screen shots identify the processor as a "Thorton" , not as a "Palomino". The entry in the AMD Athlon MP 2000+ Palomino thread is not for a Palomino processor. It should be deleted. It is a duplicate entry from another category. http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_1127 That double entry has been reported multiple times, but no action has been taken. Would someone please fix it? If a bot is automatically picking it up and reposting it in the Palomino class then the bot needs to be fixed. ======================================================================================= EDIT: This matter has been fixed. The duplicate score is removed. Thanks for fixing it. :>)

Ticket ID: 297 Priority: High I\'ve asked elsewhere here before with no results. Thrasher2\'s Super Pi time is incorrectly included in the Athlon MP 2000+ category. Here\'s the category. See far below for link to his forum post image link.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_1127\r\n\r\nHis time was run with a Athlon Thorton processor, not with an Athlon Palomino MP. See the link to his forum post. Here it is. It clearly show his processor is a \"Thorton\"... How about moving it to the correct class? That\'s an Athlon \"XP\" not an \"MP\". Blow the image up to full size and you\'ll see what it is. Thanks, guys.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.forumapex.com/628318-post.html

I've reported several erroneous scores for processors in the wrong category. No action has been take to move them to the correct category. Example Athlon XP Thorton scores reported in Palomino categories. So... how do we get that problem fixed???

There is a coding error in the name field for that processor. It is presently too long for the field. How about shortening the name to Athlon XP 3300+ or to Athlon Sempron 3300+ or to Sempron XP 3300+? Any of those might be short enough to work. See this error: org.apache.torque.TorqueException: com.mysql.jdbc.MysqlDataTruncation: Data truncation: Data too long for column 'name' at row 1 Thanks. I'll keep benching in hopes it is fixed soon. :>)

Ticket ID: 242 Priority: Medium Please create a new processor classification for the 3300+ Socket A Sempron. It\'s not presently in the list of choices. I\'ve got one I\'d like to bench.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=Pq1n9Lci