knopflerbruce

Sounds correct to me:)

You need a crash course in smileys, man!

I dont think we need brand based global rankings, just as we dont need one global based ranking for each CPU type (Yorkfield, Nehalem etc). If the performance isn't there... then too bad. It would be cool to know if the 90% limit is a joke or not. 2/3 of the yes/no votes is alot more reasonable if you ask me:)

Well, not all 2xxx and 8xxx chips fit in the socket - some are C32/G34, hehe... but any Santa Rosa, Barcelona, Shanghai or Istanbul CPU will work in (some) socket F boards.

You're joking, right? A change that only a couple of people asked for got implemented, and 83% says they want the change reversed. If anything, there should be 90% who voted either no boints or HW only before the change was made in the first place.

Would be interesting to see a CPUZ poll, judging by this thread YES would get a LOT of votes:)

Well, I wonder why the lucky ones who had access never posted scores that would indicate those chips were better than the C ones? If chips improve with time, then whatever difference between A and C chips would be irrelevant as an argument to not allow A chips as later batches would perform better anyway.

My 740 is an A sample, and it's a very good one:) But i've got shitty Phenom A chips as well, just to make that clear:p

No difference from my experience. Best chips from each type listed below: FX53: C FX55 Clawhammer: C FX55 San Diego: C FX57: C FX60: C FX62: C FX64. A (only A's available) Opteron: 144: C 146: C 148: C 150: C 152: C 154: C 156. A 165. C 170: L 175: C 180: L 185: C 190: L ...and so on. Plus, this "A=ES" theory hasn't been confirmed AFAIK. Early FX60's (retail ones) were ACB2E 0536 chips.

You can, it says "AMD Engineering sample":)

Here's the complete list for 980x (top 10) and 990x (top 5): 980x: wp32m: 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10: retail, 7: A0 ES wp1024m: 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10: retail, 4: A0 ES spi32m: 10: retail, 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9:A0 ES 2: N/A (thumbnail) spi1m: 6,8: retail, 1,4,5,7,9: A0 ES, 2,3,10 N/A (thumbnail) pifast: 3,4,6,8,9,10: retail, 1,7: A0 ES, 2,5: N/A (thumbnail) cpuz: 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,10: retail, 4,8: A0 ES ES vs retail: 35-19 990x: wp32m: 2,3,4,5,: B1 ES, 1: N/A (thumbnail) wp1024m: 1: retail, 2,3,4,5: B1 ES spi32m: 3,4: retail, 1,2,5: B1 ES spi1m: 2: retail, 1,3,4,5: B1 ES pifast: 5: retail, 2,3,4,5: B1 ES cpuz: 3: retail, 1,2,4,5: B1 ES Looks like even steven to me, but wprime seems better on retail chips, and superpi better on A0 ES. Very few people have benched 990x retails, not even 20 pifast results in the database - ES included, so it's just the 980x story all over again - when enough chips have been tested, retails will be alot more visible in the rankings.

There are retails that are in the same league as the golden A0's (check the 980x and 990x rankings if you don't believe me). Rev. 4 will change the ES game a bit as well, in case you didn't know.

Win

Well, you can always look at it from a different perspective: is it right that a team should be top 10 only because of the number of users, and less because they produce great results? With the new rev it's important for a team to make sure the members run different stuff, this is very different from what it's like now - but people WILL get used to it. Plus, boints still count 100% for your personal total, that part hasn't been changed.

Yeah, FX70, 72 and 74 are all L1/1207. If they fit the socket, it's OK

Well, the picture requirement is the same for all the people you compete with in rev 4 anyway. Atm Rich is updating the server, which could cause some bugs I think. I checked my profile and my cup count is very low right now. I bet the boints are affected as well.

Bus width is also an issue - GPUZ reports 32, 64, 128 and 256 bit:D SDR and DDR

It's already split up as hell, and I think GPUZ is to blame for some of that:p

Wasn't pcmark04 removed for a reason?

I dunno if it's possible to implement this, but is it possible to remove the delete button for scores that have been reported? If so, then it's a good idea to allow users to delete their own results, but if not... then it's better to ask a moderator - too many cases with deleted screenshots in the past...

I don't quite follow the logic behind removing CPUZ for globals either, one CPU type has to be the best choice for one type of benchmark, by applying the same logic to any other benchmark we're left with nothing:p IMO it's kinda cool that old tech can still pwn in some way, even though the performance is shit.

But also bugged (wprime)

Haha:D Nice one!

I've been scammed before - paypal helped me out then (except that one time I paid someone using Western Union... but I was asking for it).

I dont see how this damn fight is relevant to the topic. One thing is pretty clear: this deal was not completed in the HWBot FS section, so keep it off the forums... As for the competition, IMO there should've been some restrictions on socket F - now people will run dual 6 core chips at stock, beating anyone using a board that you can actually overclock. It's too late now, just a thought:)