knopflerbruce

We did a fair bit of work on this in January, but nothing has been discussed since then. I just bumped that section, let's see if something happens. I think some of the issue is that no-one knows who is in charge of what:p Either that, or we're all waiting for massman to do it:D

Would've been 2nd in the 7000 stage without the quad, with the e7600 score i had on my HDD. Didn't run my other 7000 chips on ln2, though - so don't know if it's possible for me to beat 638 using a dual core.

I didn't discover much, only that my efficiency is beaten to death by most of the guys who know how to tweak:p Grats to madshrimps and ocn

I've been thinking the same I'll boot the rig soon to check what I got in UC with my e7600...

You guys are always like 1pt behind:p

Interesting turn of events:p

30L on all stages combined? That's less than me, and I think I was quick (although I did quick test alot of chips, got 9 (!) shitty e2220's for example)

You guys are so mean:D

Nice run

Allright, I seem to have screwed up a couple of subs by not having the launcher visible... it's listed as mandatory. However, why is it mandatory? It's just a launcher, and AFAIK all info can also be found in the verification link. Is it fair to say that if you've got a verification link then the launcher isn't really that necessary after all, as the same info can be found there? (IMO the launcher not needed in any case, there's no relevant info there that's not covered by CPUZ).

-126 is not too bad for these, the first one I tested had CB/CBB at -110.

Please be adviced that your attitude will piss off any tech support in the world. And we love it:D

You guys are making great progress anyway. Hopefully the last few bugs will be gone soon

What's your max ucbench stable run, then? I heard others say the same... no similar experience here, though. I'm sure you'll still beat my best run, though:)

I definately need to OC:D I'll see what it can do later, atm it doesn't like the REX so maybe I have to go for the E7600 I have here after all:o

Weird. Could've been a nice battle, i see your e2200 is about as strong as mine. I could pass ucbench at higher speeds than this, though.

I got a pcx5900, but the cpu scaling is basically non existant:p

Thanks, keep pushing your chip - if it's still alive it needs higher voltage:D

Tried to run 2c only?

Thanks Your chip could have a frequency wall, too - so a high MP is no guarantee for high clocks. My E5700 is absolutely rubbish, one of the E5800's as well. Both do the same in 14-15/16x. WIll test my E5200's later, got 5 or 6 here that I haven't tested yet.

How can it be M$ fault that 1.59 works and this new version is not as accurate? Solution is still simple. Allow both.

I don't think there are any plans on changing this. I fear the change will he horrible, there is a similar "feature" already in the hardware rankings - you barely get any points at all before there are 21 submissions per category. I'd rather have a few categories that are a bit too rewarding than even more where you don't get the points you deserve. I do agree it's not perfect that you can get 60 points just by running a benchmark at stock.

Yep. I have to rerun a bunch of stuff too:p Oh well, better this way than to get our ass kicked in the last second I suppose (although I fear that will happen anyway, probably more tweaks out there I don't know of)

Yeah, it works correctly at 9x mp, but above it freaks out. Real frequency is detected by setfsb, but I forgot to "unminimize" it for this run. I will rebench the chip next week and use an older CPUZ version instead. The score can be improved i think:)

"seems legit" Seriously, that's silly. Blocked.