Hyperhorn

Had the same issue with FF 3.0.10 today (even after refresh), but now it`s gone.

Good idea

Well, the hwbot crew is for sure not opinionated and had its reason to do so. Instead of calling them idiots it might be the better idea to ask for the specific reasons FIRST and tell them, why you (dis)agree.

Don`t worry Sergio. I`ve even seen reviews of new Quadcore-CPUs where they used Wprime and one thread.

I guess you are using Vista 64 Bit? It`s possible. The easy way: Delete "Direcpll.dll" and try to run AM3 again The option: Google for "Aquamark 64 Bit patch" and copy this into your folder. But anyway, AM3 runs slow with Vista so don`t wish too much here.

But rejected is a hint for cheated results, isn`t it? It`s NOT(!) my intention to claim "if you get a rejected result, you cheated for sure" (then I would call myself a cheater...), but if we accept rejected results all cheaters will misuse our trust for sure. So it`s up to Franck to fix this and not to us to accept rejected scores. Well, even validated scores don`t have to be correct, but you know what I want to say...

There`s really a validation problem with CPU-Z (validator). For example this rejection maybe could be explained by the special CPU we used, but today a forum mate explained, that this rejection (6h primestable) also happens at 3.2 GHz (48h primestable) and so on. A Q9550 is neither new nor rare, so CPU-Z validator became bitchy as Monstru mentioned already. There are many examples and IMO the worst about the whole rejection problem is, that this happens so random and there`s no way to anticipate.

Never had such a problem, but have you tried both CPU-Z-version with(out) setup.exe? Does this problem also happen at default frequency, so you can be sure it`s not a stability problem?

Win XP x86 isn`t that slow with SP3 (IMO actually the best choice for x86), but when you talk about Vista and newer ones, you have to differ x86 and x64. @knopflerbruce: 10 % is a lot, not to say a HUGE difference. Are you really sure this is some kind of tweak instead of proper OS selection?

Haha, all hwbot members are presenting their personal tragedies here. It will be fixed like every database issue hwbot had in the past, don`t worry about.

Ok, I´ve got some results which were already moderated, but still don`t fit 100%. The first score is from one of my team mates: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=753325 He told me the CPU-Z-detection is wrong. Because of the "heavy overlocking" CPU-Z can`t detect the L2 cache properly and the Pentium 266 MHz turns into a Celeron. I`m not an advanced oldschool expert, but I know that oldschool hardware leads to problems with CPU-Z sometimes. Because of the fact that - he did tell the same for OC-lists at our forum (so it`s about integrity, not hwbot-specific) and - he would even loose 0.1 or 0.2 points in CPU-Z-category I ask you to move the result into this category: http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Pentium%202%20266Mhz%20(Deschutes) Now I`ve got some old scores which were moved several times before the right category was created by Turrican (Thx )a few weeks ago. So I ask you to move these results: 01: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735565 03: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735567 05: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735568 AM3: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735570 into Radeon X1550 256mb RV515 64 Bit category: http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/Radeon%20X1550%20256mb%20RV%20515%2064%20bit (My 06 score is already there) Thank you so much in advance.

Blind? He`s the only one here: http://www.hwbot.org/searchMembers.do?userId=5776&name=Blind

I remember my 6800 @ 16 Pipelines, AGP at its best. I think the same, but the verb "emulate" made me worrying about it.

Hi folks for sure you read about how to get a Phenom II X4 using a X3-CPU. Now there are rumors about how to get 6 MiByte L3-Cache with X4 800, too. Now let`s have a look at the rules: "if you have a CPU with unlocked multiplier, please only submit results under the hardware category of its original model. Don’t emulate other models to gain HWboints, if you are caught you will get penalized or even banned." I`m not sure if it is allowed to upload scores done with an unlocked X3 or X4 800. IMO the rules are broadly defined, but not explicit.

Ticket ID: 223 Priority: Medium We need a category for RV 515. There are some results @ RV505-category, but GPU-Z shows RV515. \r\nHave a look at RV505-category: http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=GPU_1293\r\n\r\nAnd please don\'t forget to move my results to RV515 this time:\r\n01: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735565\r\n03: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735567\r\n05: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735568\r\n06: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735569\r\nAM3: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735570\r\n\r\nI used X1550 256mb RV 515 64 bit, nothing else. \r\n\r\nThank you so much!

I thought about the same in the past, but I guess one major problem is, that ram-dividers are often bugged. It's very difficult to prove the correctness of a score if you can't even trust CPU-Z-validations. Even if you know about this fact, you can be foold by yourself, if you forget to set the right strap and so on. If you consider, that almost every two weeks somebody shows a SPi 32M "world record" just by mixing up Wprime and Super Pi, I don't think we will see a fair competition there. Another problem is, how much categories do we want to have? Think about FSB, GPU clock, VRAM, Shader-ALUs,...

Here are the Pentium M Celeron: http://www.hwbot.org/browseHardwareProcessors.do?cpuSubFamilyId=20 I don't know if there will be a Celeron 550 LGA775 any time in the future, but the results here are definetively not LGA775, but Pentium M Celeron 550. So please create Pentium M Celeron 550-category and move the results. Thx!

Okay, I will remember that. Thx!

Sounds odd, but I had one time (on Dice) the problem that CPU-Z AND MemSet didn't show me ANY memory details. All fields were empty during the whole session, neither frequeny nor a sinlge latency. I tried half-dozen versions, but it didnt' help, too. What then? Later on on air everything was okay like before...

Because of the fact my wPrime scores with v.1.58 were deleted, you should delete this result, too: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=714606 It's 1.60, not 1.55 like hwbot wants...

Is just 1.55 allowed, 1.58/1.61 etc. is forbidden? Man, that's weird!

Hello, after I was forced to take a time out I logged in @hwbot today, but I detected that I lost "too much" hwboints. I do not know how many scores are missing, but I got NO message about removing some of my scores. I definetively miss my both wPrime scores for the Q9300. Why did you remove it? It was 1.58 (32M AND 1024M), all CPU-Z-information on the screens (CPU/ memory/ mainboard) and wPrime-window was not covered. Got it lost or did you remove it? (Why?) If you removed any other scores please tell me that, too! Thx & Best wishes, Hyperhorn Take a look at the screens: http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/attachments/overclocking-prozessoren/8193d1203205748-q9300-es-hyperhorns-oc-tests-update-492-mhz-fsb-erreicht-492-wp32m-11_034-hyperhorn-small.jpg http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/attachments/overclocking-prozessoren/6186d1200338271-q9300-es-hyperhorns-oc-tests-update-492-mhz-fsb-erreicht-483-wp1024m-359_937-hyperhorn-smart.jpg