knopflerbruce

Edited. Looks like it's working. No idea why it's listed as "rejected", but CPUZ does screw up from time to time on AMD CPUs:)

Lmao, it's not Opteron 838's in that rig - it's Opteron 2378's. Please make a new category where he can put his scores:) wPrime CPU detection @ fail again:o

If there's any (dis)advantages, a new category should be made.

Then you make some arrangements;) I live in Norway, and I don't feel that "US only" limits me at all.

I remember I ran my own PCI card not so long ago, these things don't need core OC:p Mem FTW!

Haha, pushing the mems to the limit?

Ticket ID: 810 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1030472\r\n\r\nNote: Not the XP-m version.

Ticket ID: 808 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1026931

If the score is bugged (high), it will be taken down at some point. It's easy to compare your score to the others, and see if the result is reasonable. In your case it looks quite a bit too high. Could 128mhz pcie explain it, perhaps?

Don't forget socket 754:D

If it's a different model, I think it should be added. It's pretty obvious that the extra stuff makes the card different from the other 3650's, although the clocks aren't that different. It's common practise to separate pci versions from pcie, which is roughly the same thing as well.

The 2100 category is also there, but is listed as LE-1210. Need a change IMO

http://hwbot.org/hardware/chipset/nforce3 "unkown" should be corrected. (Capitol U and an extra "n")

One of the CPU tests is way better than normal, pretty easy to spot.

You just wait... someday I'll post 1000 boints of results and kick all of you:D j/k... won't happen soon, but I have enough CPUs for 2500 - but no board or psu:o

I moved it. Everything OK now?

Usually my 24/7-rigs are made of retired overclocking parts. Yes, I also OC for 24/7 usage of course), but I NEVER benchmark my 24/7 systems, untweaked, low clocks etc... feels useless for me:p

Ever since the 220mb/s limit was made (to prevent scores from "fake" harddrives - that don't display the real performance of the pc, either) people have been limited by it. Removing it is unfair, no matter how good today's HW is. I can understand it's frustrating that you have to make your HW underperform, but at least the rules are equal for all - not just the ones posting scores today, but also for those who posted yesterday;) HWBot isn't all about the highest tech, you know... it's just as much about older gear.

The hardware boint changes doesn't change much, all benchmarks still have the same limits - which means older and newer scores were made using the same set of rules for the benchmarks (more or less). However, when changing the pcmark limit, all scores with 200+ mb/s or so are easily killed by the new 280+mb/s ones (if the limit is 300mb/s). If you can point out a similar change caused by rev. 3, feel free to tell us;)

We can't increase it just a little bit here and there, that makes no sense. It's better to just leave it at 220, so people who benched it in the past don't get beaten because of a rule change;)

1.55 Only:)

We will see how high they go. I KNOW 420 is possible.

Sounds like another bug (although one of my scores got reported the other day, and the notification went away after it was moderated)

Hopefully this bug will be fixed soon... if Chiller checked the no boint box, then he did his job. If 12 reported the score for the mods to fix it, then he did his "job"; too. Now we have to do our job, which is to find the cause, and change the code

IMO, if this info is not visible, put it in the max # of cores ranking - it can't be more than 4, and if it was 3, then he has to prove it.