knopflerbruce

Are you stalking me?

I bet this is because it defaults to 1x CPU. Sounds like a small bug, the best way would be to list all results by default, and then have separate buttons for the exact number of CPUs you want to view results for.

This is no bug, but maybe a small improvement. Now that we have one separate list for each benchmark pr CPU/GPU maybe we can extend the default number of submissions to 50 (or maybe even 100)? There's lots of available space below 10th place:)

Because then there would be like 1-2 entries for each ranking:p

If I visit a page for a specific CPU or GPU, it defaults to CPUZ or 3Dmark01 when I click on the 2d or 3D rankings. However, if I want to check some other benchmark, and I click on wPrime/AM3 (or whatever), and open up some interesting result, and I press back to view the list I get redirected to the CPUZ/3Dmark01 rankings no matter what rank I viewed the last time.

Nice new features, but I've found quite a few bugs... new bug thread for v3.5?

The 445 is apparently on the way.

I'll send him a PM, so he won't do it again. As long as everything is clearly visible I don't really see the problem with photos at all. It's just a different representation of the score window and tabs etc.

Doesn't look too bad. Is it possible to show more "data"? Like steps etc. That makes it more difficult to use photoshop.

wPrime is more or less independant on memory, so it makes no sense to block it. However, the owner of the result should be notified so he will correct it for future submissions.

Both are v4.3, so I blocked them. Thanks for reporting.

Man, this is really Xtreme I THINK this is the lowest AM3 score on the bot ATM I did some calculations on how slow it actually was... The slowest possible time (assuming 0.105 FPS): 13h46min The fastest possible time (assuming 0.115 FPS): 12h34min

Sturla aka Stoolman isn't that far away, though... same region:) There are actually a far bit of extreme OCers around Oslo these days, at least 6 that I can think of atm.

Problem solved itself, it was 2nd (I had a look an hour or so ago).

When Fermi comes out... if it's a 01 winner I'll get one:D Then I'll try more than 1.77v on a good board, too:) And FYI, on air, it clocked a tiny bit better on my TPower i45

Thy all! Intel wishes me welcome to the dark side in a nice way I think;)

That's pretty good for an Ultra-D:)

Superpi hasn't been "relevant" for 15 years, it doesn't use much of the CPU. I feel we need some longer benchmarks soon, but not yet. Maybe we need to update superpi someday to display .1ms as well:D

I hope this will be fixed soon:)

I got two on Saturday, but I had a hand-in I had to finish before Monday morning, so I was stuck with it for quite some time. You can always try it, just for fun;)

Congrats

Bug in the ranking. I edited it because you entered it as 2x CPU when it's just 1x, and for some reason that makes the engine give you nothing

The last of my statements you quoted was about hardware categories, not globals. 2.4GHz stock != 3.07GHz stock != 3.33GHz stock.

200MHz isn't really that much, it's 3% more CPU speed. IMO that the first batches are worse than the Q3FE chips isn't enough to block those ES chips from receiving boints. If nothing comes closer than 200MHz after a couple of months and a whole bunch of batches have been clocked to death, then it's time to discuss this perhaps.

If the stock speed is different there should be a separate HW category for those chips, as the specs don't match the 3.33GHz ones. We can't check what's handpicked and what's not - which is the same for ALL users, not just the top 20 in the global ranking.