knopflerbruce

It would be better if we could improve the submission page so that people don't do that careless mistake:D

it is. Whatever tweaks you have, you still need a good CPU. A fast CPU will give you a good scor,e and a slow one a bad score.

Rex Ftw!

If Chiller can't provide OK comparison numbers, just buy one and test for yourselves. Damn. His numbers are better than nothing, and unless he planned to make a huge comparison review, whatever reasons for this and that are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Plus, I bet the gain will differ from stock PCB to stock PCB, so what we see with a 6670 could be very different from a 560ti for example.

We're checking it out, right now I don't really have a good answer:confused: Can't remember a thread in the crew section with your name in it.

Ah, so the autofill bug isn't fixed yet. Good to know:)

Sounds like a good idea.

Are there any common errors people make?

939 3Dmark06... sounds cool

Maybe testing it on something like a 580 reference could be a good idea.

I'm thinking those chips aren't the same, so perhaps Turrican should take a look at this - could be that we need to att a few categories.

Just type "Pentium 4 Mobile" and they'll show up. Maybe those chips need to be renamed a little bit.

This kinda makes sense. I wonder if massman can post the "score formula" for this one... 5 points could be a tad too high if there's no competition, but it's also interesting to see what it looks like when more teams are competing. I checked my Q6600 PiFast score, and it gets about 95 HTPP. That's 19 times higher than the no competition reward. To compare: the user points for hardware is 2 for 1-20 competitors, and it maxes out at 50. The same ratio is 25 here. If we assume the max is 100 for HTPP, then a similar ratio means 4 HTPP for submissions with no competition from other teams. Edit: We don't want 20 teams to compete before it starts to go above 4 boints just so no-one gets any ideas

Just wondering, are there triple-socket motherboards out there?

IMO the top spot should have a high minimum. 1st place is (nearly) always a PITA to get (no easy ones below 20 cores). Then we can let the points drop faster instead, if there are just like 10 people fighting, then #1 still gets 50p or so, but 5th place won't get too much (maybe 50-35-25-15-10 is a good way to distribute points). I've been battling these type of low-popularity rankings for a few years... the top scores are top scores for a reason, not just because someone bothered benching his CPU while watching a sitcom. Top 5 is usually quite easy, but that's it. Then again, getting 15-20 points in the more popular rankings is also a walk in the park these days.

I get it from the uni at about 2€/L, but if you have to buy it elsewhere - I've heard 5-7.50€/L.

If the batch is unknown, then you just have to try it - newest one I've seen by far.

Blinking cursor usually means you've reached the max mp of that chip.

Good catch, guys:)

Neither did XFX:D

R600 was supposed to destroy the competition, according to similar rumours. It did not... this could be a sign that in fact Kepler will fail totally:p Which is good, I want my 7970 Classified:D

Erm... you get this from nvidia? Oh, right - no need to question if you get the info from the manufacturer, they've obviously done alot of testing and MUST know what they're talking about.

Great! Thius should be added to the UCBench main page or something.

One hit in the first post, 5450 MHz.

It could be that there is no limit, it just doesn't test 40 threads (next step after 32 is 64?). If this is indeed true, UCBench needs a patch:)