knopflerbruce

I put it in the moderation queue, but I think it's pretty obvious, yes. IMO it's better that a mot that's not competing blocks scores like this:)

Just curious, do I have 754, 939, am2 and 940?

I assume the idea is that ES chips will still count for hardware boints, as today?

Is it bought in a hardware (web)shop?

That's the plan - saturday or sunday, not sure yet! Maybe I'll try to test all my ballistix one by one to see which two are the best, these two were just picked at random.

Engineering samples are still allowed in the specific hardware categories, right?

Not gaining from L3 is not a bug, there's no "law" that says adding more cache improves performance in ALL programs:) Plus, I think it's cool for the competition that you can get good scores on Athlons and not just more expensive Phenoms.

OMG, I'm stupid... sorry about that. I guess I must rebench, then:p Hope I remember this on saturday night.

Yeah, these K8 chips have nice IMCs! But I think it's correct, you get similar gains in superpi performance products I think. What was strange was that I saw no gain from 3.6 to 3.7Ghz, tried a few settings - but always the same. Pifast contiinued to improve, though. I hope it stays on top, I don't want to push 2.7v+ through my best kit again in this competition:p (had to use them anyway for pifast in the x2 3800+ Windsor category) Allright... X2 4200+ Brisbane next!

Ticket ID: 919 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1245422\r\n\r\nPS: there is no such thing as \"motherboard specifiaction request\" in the dropdown menu, that needs to be added as well

I think all platforms should be added. Server stuff isnt that exciting, but that's not really an excuse to not include those IMO.

How far away from 1000?

Can i see the 939 ranking? 754 and am2 (non-plus, if you split those) would be funny too.

its a good idea, but it must include how many boints each bencher has for each platform (not just some list of oc'ers)

its a good idea, but it must include how many boints each bencher has for each platform (not just some list of oc'ers)

Congrats! Too bad I don't have any non-expert/venus DFI boards, i have 8 512mb sticks of tccd - and my expert hates them. In fact, I think I nearly killed it while pushing the modules.

The problem is that in this case it's too easy to cheat, plus it's really hard to determine what's fair and what's not. Siberian winter vs Arizona desert temps? You run on air in -50c environments, that's within the definition of air cooling, but in reality it's even better than phase change.

He's got less cache, could be the reason. But it doesnt run 312 - it runs 296 K8 only has integer dividers.

My .02: If 3 days is not fast enough for BZ to be satisfied, it's better to just ignore him. The amount of proof he wants has blown out of proportion, beyond any fair limit. Plus, he's the only one complaining... if there was a proper reason for his complaints then more would've said the same stuff. Good move by Massman as well, insinuating cheating in the public forum is "over the line". If you think a score could be cheated, report it and let the mods decide (but I must say... Livestreaming a session with such a golden CPU would be really cool:D however, not when the goal is to prove it's not an ES... )

I fail to see any proof it's an ES (and the same goes for (nearly) any other retail score on HWBot...)

Temporary solution: use the "comment" field while submitting.

I think this would be a cool feature, too, but if it's done "properly" (so that you can search for production weeks, F-batches and what not), it's a bit more complicated. This must work for AMD chips, too.

Hahahha, that's what I call a nice retail Keep pwning!

Needs a fix, the bench itself looks cool:) But i bet there will be some sort of message tomorrow, but I'll leave that to the "big guys" when they wake up in 6-7 hours. Jus for the record: alot of 3dmark versions are bugged as well, "bugged high, bugged low" - we've all heard that a few times. Time to remove them from the bot, so we're left with am3 + vantage perhaps?

Uhhh... I don't get this, is the benchmark just reading some parameters and determining the score based on that, or does it indeed measure some sort of memory performance?