ZorchThatCPU

Ay, thanks! This chip did much more than I expected from it.

Many thanks for your hard work, now and always! And noted about using the Help Center for future requests.

Would greatly appreciate if someone could link me to an existing category for the Xeon L5639 or add one if it is not already present. This is the CPU: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon%20L5639%20-%20AT80614005076AB.html Thanks in advance...

Obviously, it's up to the 'Bot what the rules are, but yeah, depending on what those rules are, the benchers then get to choose whether to bother with certain benches or not. And I certainly understand being sticklers for detail in regard to world record runs, because there's actually money involved there. But at the phase-change level where I am, it's just the satisfaction of winning sometimes that we stand to gain. It wouldn't be much fun to cheat and know you cheated and stand to have gained nothing materially for it. Why would anyone pretend to be an above-average bencher? (; What I find somewhat perplexing is that there are tons of old submissions on here that don't adhere to the newest set of rules, so why are those submissions still valid? I mean, either it was okay to do it the way it was done back then, or it wasn't okay. Either the results are admissible or they aren't. For that matter, many of my entries were done back when they rules were the same as what I was doing. But I enjoy benching more than I enjoy submitting results, so I have flash drives full of older screenies just laying around here waiting for me to get around to entering them here. But I guess I might as well not even bother to submit my PCMark 05 runs that were run according to the rules at the time, because they have apparently expired. And I'm not going to run right out and buy all of those CPUs a second time just to run PCM 05. Anyway, those are my thoughts. I won't be losing any sleep over the matter, so don't anybody bother to be mad about it if you happen to disagree.

I'm not your "homie" (or anyone else's for that matter). And dry observations about the fact that you are a dreadful excuse for a human being hardly constitute "drama." It's more a recitation of the obvious. Hey, I see you (or some other schmuck like you) did go back and flag some of my entries! Gee, I sure hope it isn't my precious PCMark 05 scores that I never gave a damn about in the first place or I would have used more than one SSD. (; LOL at you, sad little man, as always...

I'm amazed that any grown man would have that kind of time on his hands, compulsively rooting through people's trash in hopes of finding some dirt. I get it... the classic "angry loner" profile. Congrats on being essentially expendable to the entire rest of the world, so that you can spend all your time here being the George Zimmerman of HWBot. And actually, my guess is that you'd enjoy being compared to Zimmerman, which should tell any bystander a lot about your character (or lack thereof). Hey, I've seen your submissions using engineering samples that weren't reported as such. But I didn't bother mentioning it because I don't care. I have an actual life. If you need that kind of false validation in life, that imaginary success to get you through the day, then I'm willing to let you have it. You actually cheat when you can. And here you are chasing me on protocol issues when you know damn well my results are reported accurately. Sad. Anyway, enjoy being you. Must be a joy every day. (;

Scotty, apparently this would come as a surprise to you, but I certainly would have opened it. On numerous occasions I have found your behavior objectionable (and no doubt you would say the same of me if asked), but I am not sitting around nursing some pathological hatred of you. If anything, I should thank you. It was your treatment of me at your site that appalled enough other people besides myself that I had a ready-made group asking me to start my own site so they wouldn't have to go to yours any more. So really, you're like the third partner directly responsible for launching Overclockt, and come to think of it, I may just add you as an honorary Admin. But seriously, I've always said to anyone who asked that everyone, including you, is welcome at OCt. That still stands. If you ever expressed any interest in burying the hatchet, I'd be receptive to that because life is too short to waste time or energy on hate or even strong dislike. (Although sniping at my 'Bot submissions is not a terribly promising start to mending fences, and color me unsurprised that it turned out to be you doing it.) Any real acrimony between you and me was years ago by now. Might be time to let it go because it's not worth giving a (bleep) about it anymore. In the meantime, I'll even offer you a gift. I recently (within the past week or so) submitted a whole bunch of screenshots dating back to a year or more ago in some cases. All of the PCM05 submissions would be lacking the new info, and they were all submitted after 1/1/13. So if you'd be interested in going back to flag each and every one of them, be my guest. I've said my piece about it, and the HWBot mods can handle it however they want from here.

I appreciate your direct and helpful response. Many thanks.

Hmm, I can only assume that you mean the unfamiliar-to-me part displayed in the upper middle of the screenshot. If such a thing is desired by the Bot, how does one access it? Thanks in advance for any help, as I have never heard of this before. EDIT TO ADD: If that seems crazy or like an excuse, please be assured, HWBot community, it is not. Feel free to check the pattern of the dates of my submissions and observe me disappearing on a fairly long hiatus until recently after several years of frequent benching. I just haven't been around, and didn't anticipate that the rules for an old benchmark would be changed after all these years. I guess what I'm also saying is that I hope there will be no serious consideration of invalidating my submission, because again, it wasn't even all that good. Not exactly altering the landscape of high-end benching. It's enough of a nuisance to keep up with the latest version of CPU-Z. I'd rather not have to be blindsided by another angle informing me that what was completely valid a year ago or a week ago or yesterday is suddenly worth bupkus. It takes time invested that could have been spent on other things to get these results, and hearing that somebody would like my time to have been wasted is a bit annoying. I wish that whoever "reported" my linked submission had just dropped me a PM to tell me what the new added rule was and how to display it for next time.

I was notified today that someone said there's a problem with one of my recent submissions. This is the one: http://hwbot.org/submission/2427079 I'm not a big PCM05 bencher, since I don't usually have two or more SSDs laying around to put in RAID in order to make a serious attempt at it. So it's possible I may have overlooked something, and if so, let me know and I'll gladly take that into account on future submissions. I assure you any oversight, if there was one, was not intentional. If I were trying to cheat, I'd be posting much better results than that one. (;

Many thanks for your quick, friendly, and helpful response!

Hi, can you please remove this submission: http://hwbot.org/submission/2262952_zorchthatcpu_pcmark_2004_athlon_64_3200_clawhammer_5340_marks It was accidentally mis-filed as a desktop 3200+ Clawhammer, when it is in fact a Mobile 3200+ Clawhammer. It has been submitted correctly already in the mobile class, and the submission linked here needs deleted. (I used to know how to delete my entries myself on older editions of HWBot, but I do not see how to do it now. Forgive me if I should know how to do this.) Note: The version of CPU-Z used is "too new" and does not correctly identify the CPU as being a mobile, but it is. You will find this to be true of more than half of the submissions from all members the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ Clawhammer class. Thanks, ZorchThatCPU

Oh Scotty, don't take yourself so seriously. Believe me, no one else does. (;

What are you, his mom? You don't speak for HWBot, tough guy, so get over your sad little self.

(: Says the man who owns it! Many thanks for clearing that up. You have some amazing runs there too, by the way. Wow!

Hi, I think he was asking about the socket 478 version, this one: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Celeron_D/Intel-Celeron%20D%20340%20-%20RK80546RE077256%20-%20NE80546RE077256%20(BX80546RE2933C).html I was going to ask for a category for that CPU too. (; Thanks for everything you guys do!

Many thanks! Speedy service with a smile, no less! (;

Okay, I think I am in the right forum to request this now. (; Please add the 3400+ Venice for Socket 754. There is already a 3400+ Venice category, but it is for Socket 939. If you can include the 754 version, I would be most grateful. Thanks!

I guess I should be happy about that... for now. LOL - I was hoping you wouldn't notice that. Okay, thanks!

I have several runs to submit for a processor that is apparently not already in the database here. It's a 3400+ Venice for Socket 754. I see 3400+ Newcastles for 754 and 3400+ Venices for 939, but not 3400+ Venices for 754. So anyway, I'd like to enter my runs, but the submission form won't let me do it. If this is the wrong place to ask about this, then I apologize. But I sure would like to enter my scores, so if anyone can help me, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! Zorch P.S. Here's a CPU-Z validation just to show that this CPU exists, if there is any doubt. http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1153922

Everything is now taken care of. Mods, thank you for your help!

Hi, I posted the other day with a couple of results I submitted for the Turion ML-37 category. They had been erroneously reported by someone as "invalid" but all of my other results for the Turion ML-37 that were done at the same time in the same way have already been approved by a moderator. This one slipped through that cracks, so I would like to go ahead and get it officially off of the reported list: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=878716 There are two others that were actually correctly reported as having broken verification links, but I have fixed the links: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=871343 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=860340 Thanks for your help in getting my profile page cleaned up! (;

Thanks for your help! And yes, I have already switched since then to the version 1.52 and I will definitely use it.

A good point. Here is the the actual verification link itself: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=621113 And here is the page for CPU-Z and the Turion ML-37 here at HWBot: http://hwbot.org/searchResults.do?direction=&applicationId=13&teamId=0&userName=&gpu=&numberOfVideocards=0&cpu=Turion+64+ML-37+%28141%29&chipset=&model=&manufacturer=&minScore=&maxScore=&gpuId=0&cpuId=886&chipsetId=0&modelId=0&manufacturerId=0&offset=0&displayAdvanced=false&countryId=0&dateFrom=&dateUntil=&minGpuCoreFreq=&maxGpuCoreFreq=&minGpuMemFreq=&maxGpuMemFreq=&minCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&system=&minTotalPoints= Let me know if there's any other information I can provide, and thanks again.

I posted a CPU-Z link for the Turion ML-37 category, and it is fully validated by CanardPC, yet a guy called Marecki306 keeps reporting it as invalid. He's making a fuss because CPU-Z 1.51 was used, which is more than a little ironic since he used CPU-Z 1.49 for his screenshots. He's making complaints that are showing up on my profile page, and I would like to know how to make those go away and how to have the issue settled. I checked the rules for CPU-Z and all of the other benchmarks I ran, and it does not specify any particular version of CPU-Z. It only says to use a "recent" version, which 1.51 is. Anyway, thank you in advance for your help. ZorchThatCPU