knopflerbruce

+1, was going to report that. it's not that much of a problem when you have to select other benchmarks and the go back., but with mobo benches, we have only ref clock, so not possible there.

It's a HWBot "bug" - right click the image and open it in a new window, and you can zoom in and see everything perfectly:)

Thank youuuuuu:D

Ticket ID: 1346 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1951423

Ticket ID: 1345 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1951421

No backups, but I'll rerun it later on a better OS (this one is beat to death, and I don't think it was well tweaked to begin with...). THEN I'll have backups Fought for 2h trying to get #3 spi1m, but the one time I got it I got a BSOD before I could save the screenshot:( Edit: It's not THAT inefficient, is it? I'm about 10 MHz CPu speed behind you Sam, and from what I can see you don't have worse memory performance than me at least:p The chip is easy to work with though, FSB-wall is pretty hard. I know what it can do, and I know what it can't... hehe.

Can someone sum this thing up so far? I see a bit of mud throwing, but what's this all about, really?

We'll see how this works. We can always remove the cap later if we need to, even if that means that the scores posted from today until the time we remove that ridiculous rule are "worthless":) It's no big deal, right?

Got an FTW on the way the ud4 deserves blowtorch treatment, nuff said...Weakest overclocking board I've seen in years. OK, it does what you want, it just takes 30 minutes of rebooting and BIOS tuning to get there - and if you get a freeze, it gives you the finger and you must start all over again. Fail.

I don't think 7/10 is that awesome. Average is 5, slightly above average is 6, and above average is 7. Good is 8, very good 9, and awesome (=flawless, or at least close to it): 10. Ditto below 5. Another point.... should a product get a worse score because other products are better? I can't think of many boards that deserve less than 4... maybe the 6/7-series nvidia chipset boards, but not many others. A board must have some fairly severe issues if it's not worth 4/10 or more. Today I feel most mobos are at least average, so it's not so strange that we don't see really bad scores, although there aren't as many 9's and 10's as the reviews tell us I think we set the bar too high if we want mobos to have some really good features just to get a 6 or 7. A 5/10 board should do what it's supposed to do, and nothing more as I see it... add some overclocking functionality and on board power button/couple of similar features and you have a 6. The way I see it...

You know very well that that's BS. This is about principles too. I don't want pcmark to be about who has the most skill in running the setup as slow as possible to meet a fancy and unneeded rule. Better to show your skill by getting high xp startups instead. Or you can't get good scores with unlimited xp startup?

This won't solve anything, as people will still submit using the older rules, and we'll still have problems moderating the results.

Then the best would be to remove the limit, or make it so high that you can actually run an acard setup without having problems. Invalid score because "you hardware is too fast" is ridiculous... maybe interesting in some way, but it's totally against everything overclocking is about - we do this ti INCREASE the performance of our systems, not cripple it. Yes, it will make older scores worthless to some point, but that's what will happen anyway if we end up allowing more tweaks than before, which is pretty much the only outcome anyway, as it's impossible to moderate it like it is today.

The best would be to eliminate the xp startup from the score, but not sure how that's possible.

L103A907 53x and 54x (2 chips tested) Any chance of this thread being updated?

AM3. I don't see how the scores are comparable, the test seems different, and the avg. FPS must be multiplied by 1000 to get an AM3-like score, and even then you miss the two last digits because of rounding in the avg. FPS result. But perhaps i got it all wrong, and this is in addition to the old AM3, and not a future replacement?

Does this mean the old aquamark will be retired? I cant see a similar score in this window anywhere, only average FPS perhaps?

+1, calling cheat left and right is wrong, and some sort of punishment is fair. As for device manager storage tab - great idea!

If we ever want to remove the xp startup cap, now is the right moment. We're still changing the rules, so older submissions will already be at a disadvantage to new ones.

66.6 mb

Thank you, bro!

Well, benches like 3dmark99 and 2000 are here just for "fun", and not die hard competition.

Well, I don't know anything about these "cheats", this is the first time I've heard of it. Care to explain what this is about? I think Pifast can be cheated by manipulating the windows clock, but it's easy to spot that because the subtests won't have the same relationship as real scores.

IF we say that all these tweaks that are classified as cheats now are allowed, then why not lift the startup as well? PCMark05 is retired from the ORB, so validation links aren't needed. XP startup is also real world performance, isn't it?

I have never ran sandra, but isn't it memory related? So a memory benchmark should replace it?