knopflerbruce

There ya go... I don't like your language, but about verification photos, I'm with you. If your photo has all the needed information, then it's valid - eod! It finished superpi, it completed the benchmark. Whether it froze after the run is totally irrelevant:D Yes, I'd like to see that statement about photos myself. I'll be pretty pissed if a CPU that's now dead would have one less WR because some used a non-existent rule to block the score:rolleyes: But... a photo isn't more secure than a screenshot. All you need to do is save the screenshot, open it - and then make a photo of the screen:o

No need to get upset. The resultion is there, which is reason enough to think this was some kind of mistake by NeoForce:) I don't have a clue about what you needed in the past to be allowed to submit scores, but score, resolution, CPU info and GPU info sounds enough for me - since you're using the free edition.

...which would've been OK if it was written down somewhere so I could have looked upthe rule before I benched. I'm pretty sure that 99% of the overclockers out there think that CPUZ is a program used for proving max CPU frequency. Suddenly it's a bencmark, where you have to save a validation file to complete the test.

It's a CPUZ result - of course it's not stable;)

As the title suggest, I'd like to know why photos are not allowed here. I did that to save some time because of the damn coldbug freeze problem on AMD CPUs. My scores are clearly visible in the pictures. Blocked score #1: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=671222 (this one was first blocked,then approved, and then re-blocked(!!) ) Blocked score #2: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=671223 Now, please tell me, what reasons are there to block these scores? Sure, I'm probably one of very few people who do this from time to time, but just because others don't do it is no reason to block the scores. If you go here: http://www.hwbot.org/init.results.submit.do?applicationId=13 it says UPLOAD VERIFICATION IMAGE! If that's not enough, it says: "required for top 20 hall of fame" below the validation link box. Doesn't this mean that a validation link to the x86-secret site isn't needed at all? That you can upload a picture instead? If no-one has actually DEFINED what a VERIFICATION IMAGE is before I submitted my scores, I'd like them to be unblocked. If I ahd known that this was an issue before I benched the CPUs I would've spent more time and got the validations the normal way.

Errrrr, I don't even get the problem with those scores. If you can see the score, gpu model, cpu model, resolution - and the score is what you expect from those clocks - why block the score? Sure, rules are there for a reason, but there must be room for honest mistakes. If the scores obviously were the result of a fair run - and no CRUCIAL information is missing (like gpu or cpu info) - then the score should be valid. Perhaps a note should be written to the owner of the scores so he can add the missing info in the screenshots he will amke in the future, but nothing more than that. PS: Bwana, how many CPUs do you have atm?

4000+ SD - not clawhammer http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=719563

A long test isn't such a bad idea. There are too many fast tests already, let's have one that proves a little bit STABILITY:D

Rich, please make sure that the benchers know that ONLY wprime 1.55 (and NOT 1.58) is allowed! There are quite a few scores that are submitted using 1.58 and not 1.55, I have a feeling that most people think the rule is 1.55 and NEWER.

after 1.1.08

Photos of Superpi runs must be acceptable. If all the other stuff is in there (CPUZ with CPU and memopry tabs), of course. I don't see why a screenshot of a completed benchmark is any different than a photo taken with a camera. The benchmark is completed, after all. I can under stand why my CPUZ screen was blocked, as there is alot of info that's missing (mobo etc) that would be visible if the score was validated. But an SPI run? If a PC freezes while after the benchmark is completed, what difference does that make to the score?

1.58 is allowed afaik. 1.55 and newer versions are allowed.

1. I see no screen. 2. It says AMD 64 3500+ in the description. Very few knows that semprons for s939 exist at all, and if this was really a sempron I guess the bencher would've written it in the forumpost to avoid confusion. 3. http://www.hwbot.org/listResults.do?cpuModelId=257&applicationId=3&filterUser=true&filterBlocked=true&limit=100 - as you can see the score fits betetr in this category, the time needed for the sempron is a little higher (same clocks as athlon) because of 256kb vs. 512kb cache. Compare with my spi1m score for sempron 3500+ http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=683265

Yes, but on the other hand - say the older versions give better scores. Then we could be in a situation that the top scores would be impossible to beat. And I hope the rules will be WRITTEN DOWN soon. No rule has been broken in this case, at least not a written one. If it was possible for him to find that info about newest version etc on the site, I'm sure he would've downloaded the latest update.

I checked some screens and you're actually right. It's impossible to spot the difference (except if there is a different layout or something but I don't know about that. I only looked for the 3dmarkxx version on the images). And if you say there is no "rule" about using the newest available version, then I believe you. I just had a strong feeling it was actually a rule, a rule that MOST users follow anyway. Maybe I was wrong. But I'm pretty sure that it WILL be a rule in the future, so you should update asap Orb link should be mandatory, as well as a screenshot IMO. Btw, if you sm2.0 score was very much higher than expected, then it could be a bugged run. Such things happens sometimes. I can't compare for myself, unfortuantely, as I'm unable to see your scores.

Older 3dmark versions are not allowed. You need to have the newest version.

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=248768 The e2220 exists (but very rare, only ES's I think). But the #1 CPUZ result belongs to the e2200 category, and maybe a few others (didn't check more than those 2 results)

The 2 scores were made using 2 CPUs, not one. Both valid.

The whole geforce 6 category is a huge mess, because of the HUUUGE number of cards. Hopefully, this will be fixed someday, but it's ALOT of work I think! I have a feeling there may be needs for more result mods.

Is it really that far away from the rest? http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=696845 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=691995 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=700573

I saw it's your 26th B'day on the front page:D Hope your day will be a great one!:woot:

First, why are Omega drivers illegal? They're tweaked for better performance AFAIK, which gives a better score in benchmarks. And why BAN?? WTH! Has this guy been told that his scores are not valid because of missing verification before? You can't ban people for that, anyway. I know that in some countries you chop people's hand off if they steal a loaf of bread, but this is no such place (I hope).

Can't... resist... OWN3D:D

It will create a mess with all those lists, but it's not silly. The penalty for using agp cards is huge, as you can't use the hottest CPUs etc. WHich means that no-one with the agp version will be able to compete for the top scores. Which means that a new category MUST be created to make things fair:)

Lol owned! Learn the rules yourself, I guess:D As you just noticed yourself, sometimes people make (stupid) mistakes. No reason to get upset because of that, all you need to do is post the link and perhaps explain the problem if it isn't obvious (like NO verification at all). And... It's VERY good advice to actually verify that the list for your GPU exists before submitting scores, there are so many different sorts... DDR2/DDR3 agp/pcie etc etc. Makes it alot easier for the mods if they don't have to move a whole bunch of entries to new categories.