knopflerbruce

You need to manually set the amounts of threads in the "advanced" option of wPrime.

Barron, try to look at this from the moderator perspective. If this is not suspicious, then what is? Would be sweet to get some proof from YOU that you actually had the HW you just told us about. This is usually how these cases are solved. ...not saying you've actually done anything wrong here. Just a few thoughts on how we're supposed to do a good job as moderators in a world where it's hard to find bullet proof evidence. Sometimes we have to do something when scores are "suspicious enough".

Sounds pretty stupid to have separate ranks even for singlethreaded benchmarks (which don't benefit at all from the extra cores). I don't know if there was some kind of discussion during the geforce 6 days, but if there was one the arguments are still valid in this case. Besides... there are alot of CPUs that can be unlocked. If you want one, you can always buy one or two more and sell the old one.

That won't help, as I guess 4.703 is still looks slower to the engine than 4.70... or am I wrong here?

Ticket ID: 517 Priority: High Crap. An error happened.\r\n\r\nWe could blame this on you but it\'s most likely our crappy coding skills. You could try again or nudge our developpers for fixing this.\r\nError message\r\norg.apache.torque.NoRowsException: Failed to select a row.\r\nError stack trace\r\norg.hwbot.persistence.base.BaseResultPeer.retrieve ByPK line 1447\r\norg.hwbot.persistence.base.BaseResultPeer.retrieve ByPK line 1421\r\norg.hwbot.persistence.base.BaseResultPeer.retrieve ByPK line 1385\r\norg.hwbot.web.actions.ResultRankChangeAction.run line 63\r\norg.hwbot.web.actions.HwbotAction.execute line 29\r\norg.apache.struts.action.RequestProcessor.processA ctionPerform line 431\r\norg.apache.struts.action.RequestProcessor.process line 236\r\norg.apache.struts.action.ActionServlet.process line 1196\r\norg.apache.struts.action.ActionServlet.doGet line 414\r\njavax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service line 690\r\n\r\n***********\r\n\r\nI got this one when I tried to check the recently changed scores page. This error only happened after I changed team to PURE, not before. I also seem to have lost 100 points, 24 golden cups and some other silverware.\r\n\r\nWhen I count the gold cups on the old profile page it gives me 528 (should be 552). What on earth happened here?

I dont think I have time to move scores until next week;) But we'll see.

Ticket ID: 512 Priority: Low http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=890130

Because you're not in top 20 for HD4890 CF (2, 3 and 4 cards all get classified as CF).

Ticket ID: 510 Priority: Low http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=889781

Ticket ID: 506 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=674710\r\n\r\nThanks for adding the others so fast, btw

Ticket ID: 504 Priority: Low Same as Opteron 866, but 200MHz lower frequency.\r\n\r\nI will submit scores once it\'s added, can\'t see an image upload tab here

Ticket ID: 503 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=673840

Ticket ID: 502 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=673839

Ticket ID: 501 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=673837

Ticket ID: 500 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=673837

Ticket ID: 499 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=673826

Ticket ID: 498 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=673825

Ticket ID: 497 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=673815

Ticket ID: 496 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=673807\r\n\r\nIt says 939, but it\'s really 940. Check the motherboard, ASUS K8N-DL is a dual socket 940 mobo

Ticket ID: 495 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=673791

Add them and put some chars in the description field That fixed some "duplicate" issues before.

If there is a difference, then there should be a new category. But if the extra memory doesn't give any better performance at the same clocks there's no need for it, then the other category is the right place to post. ...but one point that hasn't been considered often is that more memory COULD mean that those cards will max out at a (much) lower memory frequency than the cards with half the memory. If this is the case, IMO a new category should be made as well.

Use the 720 BE category:) I think the 20 (instead of 720) in the specification line is verification enough to show that it's not a "real" quad.

It COULD be because it's a competition score and not a "regular" one. Not that I don't see why those scores shouldn't get any points... possible bug, yes.

720 score moved to 720 BE. Rejected Phenom validations are OK, as long as they don't look weird (this is a known bug).