knopflerbruce

His boints are 48.9 in one link, and 0 in the other it seems...

Perhaps you can ask for some kind of compensation. This isn't normal at all...

If you continue to post lots of scores with those after being told not to (and how to disable them), some kind of punishment would be fair. That list of yours makes sense, if you don't look at the number of submissions, but on the number of times he has received a message from the mods to stop it.

Ok, I got the difference:p

Hasn't Dell screwed up the delivery twice now?

I bet there is a user names Super as well:D

Capture-a-screenshot-user here:D. I'll try this, though... seems very light:)

Nope. Why not just use superpi, when it's the same? We don't allow E-leet for CPUZ validations either, btw.

We can't change the way the bench is run after all these years. That's final, and Rich will agree;)

If there is a difference, then there should be a new category. If it's not, then they just tell you to put it in some other place.

If we had suspected cheating, you would most likely be banned;) Edit: to me it looks like SM2.0 and SM3.0 are too close... but could the reason be a bugged low SM2.0 instead of high SM3.0?

Perhaps it's a good idea to remove the memory info if it actually doesn't matter for the card? If it says 256mb, it should be 256mb ONLY, or changed to 256mb/512mb:)

Nice HTT! And ditto score ofc:p

Personally I'd say the most fair way to bench would be with your own CPU for 3D, with the massive CPU dependance of today's tests. However, the current sharing rules were made so that people wouldn't have to spend a million bucks to be able to compete, and with Gulftown coming that will be the case if it's not allowed for more benchers to use the same CPU. Yes, it can be abused, but let's hope people use some common sense;) Nothing wrong with sharing a golden chip with a couple of folks, but to pass it around the whole team is not the intention here.

I'll have a chat with the others about the possibilit of PS. The score looks weird, like one PII 925 and a Athlon II 250 have been "merged". The screenshot shows v1.55 and a different time, so I changed it - 19.5s sounds more reasonable for that CPU at that frequency:)

If the score was valid at the time of submission, then we can't block it now. If you report a similar score from 2009 it will probably be blocked, but there's no need to moderate stuff when there is no reason to think there were cheats involved, or the score was misplaced - or something like that. Feel free to continue to report scores, if we agree we will block, if not just check them.

You need v1.55.

I have a surprise for you! Guess what:p http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=928504

2 old scores checked, screenshot links broken and nothing weird about the time vs clocks, either.

If you do stuff after being told not to, then you risk getting banned. Submitting to the wrong category isn't what we want to ban people for in the first place. X3 unlocked to X4 => post in original (x3) category.

I don't really see the issue here... blocking just for blocking hasn't really been the idea - ever. However, scores that look suspicious and don't have validation will be removed. There's no need to block a score that's not very efficient for the clocks, just because the memory tab is missing, for example.

The rules have developed alot over the past couple of years, pre-2008 scores (or so) with alot of missing info were valid at the time of posting, and it would be wrong to moderate because of that reason - unless it's a bugged run or something not related to the screenshot itself (cheats have always been cheats for example). Lots of forum links are dead too, but that's not the fault of whoever posted it. Personally, I hope people don't use forums and other non-HWBot related services to host pics anymore, because they're 100% safe here. What scores are you thinking of, btw?

40.062s with FX55 San Diego FINALLY a half-decent score for the competition.

How come everyone starts writing these threads in other languages?

I have some plans... the FX57 isn included in those:p Need 3.93GHz or so for the magic sub-39s. I remember I ran it at 3773 on dryice without pushing it, but the last time I tried it I could barely hit 4ghz. However, some FX53 I tried just after hit a wall at 3760 or so, and when I fooled around with it a couple of weeks ago on a different board I could get 3900 easily. Maybe the same "bug" affected that FX57;)