knopflerbruce

You may need some LN2 for that Manchester core chip if you really want to push it. My chip worked nicely at -75c, but seemed to hit a wall at that point. Any plans on rebenching this particular chip, btw?

Checked the rules, and: Update 27th July 2009: Photographs are not allowed as verification, so only screenshots. Score blocked. (IMO the content of the screen should be what's important, not the way it's captured - but I guess that's a different discussion).

Screenies are allowed. FYI.

Post a screenshot instead. That always works;)

This is cool stuff:) HW sharing rules: Do not share CPUs for 2d benchmarks (CPUZ, PCMark05, Pifast, superpi and wprime) - and do not share GPUs for 3d benchmarks (3dmark series + aquamark). However, you can share CPU for 3d so you can use the same processor for 3dmark. RAM, PSU, LN2 container, mobo, HDD... share as you wish.

It's an Athlon 64, btw. Just so it doesn't get confused with the new Deneb based K10 chip Thanks for adding these CPUs so fast, btw.

Ticket ID: 655 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=809061\r\n\r\n2.5ghz stock, NOT unlocked multiplier.

Ticket ID: 654 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=809055\r\n\r\n65w, 1.9ghz stock.

Ticket ID: 653 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=809045\r\n\r\nI think this is some kind of Brisbane Opteron style CPU. Not sure. Specs same as the locked 5000+ Brisbane model I think.

Ticket ID: 652 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=809032\r\n\r\n1210 with lower TDP, 65w.

The missing info would be the first loop times, and the "1m calculation" part (Rules: http://hwbot.org/benchmark.application.info.do?applicationId=3#rules) IMO this is just minor stuff, 19 loops means 1m AFAIK too. Plus, the score doesn't look weird. I vote for unblock, but I'd like to have a second opinion.

Maybe we need a moderation button for this type of blocked scores... so that we get a notification... say 6 months after the submission date so we can unblock those that are no longer in top20.

I think liquid helium is accessible to those who have enough money, it's not like you need a special deal of some kind... right?

You lost two gold cups today:p Or you will when I plug the bench drive into my main rig to upload the scores;) 11min40s in wprime1024m on X2 4200+ manchester, and 21.813s in 32m. The chip was missing 7 pins, so gold cups in memory intensive benchmarks were out of reach. Do you sell your stuff after you bench, or do you keep the gear for future use (like me;) )?

I dont think there are much (if any) misplaced results here. I checked CPUZ and found none.

Well done, Sherlock:woot: Can you just reactivate them? Or do I have to add them again?

To sum it up: we need better guidelines, I think. Will reupload the scores later if I find them

http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2299 The thread I made at the time. Deleted the scores after a while as I was tired of seeing them highlighted every time I looked at my profile. 1.5 years is alot of time, but the missing tab is important to be able to verify what chip that was actually used. So... after 1.5 years we don't give a crap about ANY issues, whatsoever? wPrime v1.58 results from early 2008 - I would think the same argument is valid. ("This score was number one since start in 30 April 2008, it never received global points; so less scrutiny ; however don't come nagging 1.5 years later for that same score. that just doesn't work")

Massman's arguments were not about the version, but about how important this tab actually is. In fact, this can be any dual core conroe/wolfdale - we can't tell. If his suicide shot is at 5133, I would think the cpuz speed was a bit lower than that. If you can allow the first spot in a category that has 1174 results to be without a CPUZ tab you can ignore that rule for top 20 global submissions as well. Will that ever happen? I hope not.

http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3859 Consistency => block. I also had a few blocked scores a few months ago because of a missing memory tab (could only open one cpuz window...), and if thats a reason to block then this definately is. Plus, this score is #1. IMO #1 scores should ALWAYS have proper screenshots. That's the one most people look at, and alot of folks will wonder why there is no proof of CPUZ type there... The CPUZ window is without a doubt the most important validation part, except for the score itself of course, and if that's not mandatory then you can't really moderate other scores at all:)

You can buy stuff from other countries... there are always some ebay sellers that ship worldwide;)

...so if the 80nm 7600gt had been called 7600gt+ it would've been separated from the rest? I thought this was about difference in performance/overclockability and not whatever name nvidia put on the sticker on the card.

Different process is a good reason for a split IMO. It's like comparing Conroe to Wolfdale if they have the same cache, and we don't do that... But it'll take forever to check all the 7600gt scores:p (however, the difference in OC capability isn't very big, seems even 90nm can hit insane core speed under cold. On the other hand... the same is the case with 9800gtx and 9800gtx+, and they still got split. Consistency FTW!)

It says "recent" version, which doesnt mean the newEST, just that it has to be fairly new.

Lmao:D