knopflerbruce

You miss a decent 2x512mb BH5 kit for the 939/754 benching:p But nice collection, have you pretested the K8 chips?

Ticket ID: 469 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=652835\r\n\r\nStock 2.3GHz. (11.5*200)

If it's a 2.4GHz 2x1mb cache 90nm AM2 K8 chip then it's a X2 4800+ Windsor ES.

O_o It's EASY to get 100 CPUZ validations. You just need alot of time and dedication. And a little bit of cash ofc, but nothing serious. I spend only $250 pr month for computer parts (+ whatever I get from selling my old stuff). It's not exactly a king's ransom if you have the right priorities (unless you live in one of the countries where the wages are very low). I know MANY people who use multiple times what I do on this hobby, but that doesn't prevent me from getting my cups.

5000+ BE uses Brisbane cores, too. So if the CPUZ version is old, it's often impossible to tell which chips that was used. You can look at the submission date (the first few months after the 5000+ release all G2 5000+'s were BE's) and revision (G1 is always locked, so non-BE), and the multi used (13.5+ means BE, but 13 and lower ones are impossible to decide). There are probably quite a few locked chips in the BE list, as sometimes you just cant tell.

...in the same way as the other ranks are about who's GPU, CPU and/or mobo clock the best.

PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 510w:D

Thx. There are quite a few scores that could be either CPU, though. I didn't report those. But the BE is more coomon, so I think most of those actually are BE's. PS: same issue with 5400+, non-BE and BE.

Done

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=819813 regular 5000+ Brisbane, not BE.

A bugged run can happen to anyone. Wouldn't be the first time a score was pulled because of that.

I don't know it - or I'd use it myself (if it's legal ofc) It's got something to do with Vista... that's all I know.

I don't know, but I also questioned some "too fast for the clocks"-wPrime scores, and then I got the message that this tweak was legal. PErhaps it's not the same tweak..?

As long as you submit it under PII 550 and not PII 955 (if you have unlocked 2 cores) it's OK. I think this rule is mostly aimed at Athlon XP users, as those CPUs get different model names in CPUZ based on the multiplier used.

Ticket ID: 434 Priority: High From v1.48 (or something like that) the BE\'s now say Black Edition in CPUZ. Perhaps it\'s possible to split them into two categories?\r\n\r\nAs for the older results (where the name is the same for both), I\'d say that the ones where the 13 multi was used (or lower) should go into the regular category, and 13.5 and up should go (obviously) to the BE category.\r\n\r\nTip: relabel the exiting one to 5000+ Black Edition (or BE), and create a new X2 5000+ Brisbane category. Then less scores would need to be moved than if you did it the oppiste way. I can also volunteer to report the non-BE scores so they can be moved.\r\n\r\nThere may be a similar case with the X2 5400+, but I\'ll look into that tomorrow.

I won't do it, then;) One of the reports were a bit different, though. There was no link in the submission, but I found it on ripping instead (think it was the 2nd placed Opty 146 score), so it needs to be added manually.

Massman told me to report every broken one i could find;) I only checked top 5 of K8+K10 (Sempron + Turion still left).

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=597229 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=615790 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=586149 Dead links. But change "show_oc" to "show_oc.php", then thet will work.

How come this one is not valid: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=671223 and this one is: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=559768 Both show photos of the validation screen;) To me it looks like the first decision was to not allow this type of screenies, so my score was blocked. Then new rules were applied, which is the reason why that other score was not blocked when I reported it. So please unblock my score:p (or block the other one, if that's the final decision...)

Ticket ID: 430 Priority: Low There are 2 categories of Opteron 248 in the Opteron .09-list, one called Opteron 248 and one called Opteron 248 .09. Only one is needed, I suggest you rename 248 to 248 .09, and delete the other one, which is empty \r\n\r\nAnother advice is to write 90nm/130nm instead of .09/.13, AFAIK most people use nm when they talk about this kind of stuff.\r\n\r\nThe 130nm category (or .13 if you wish) has some models where a 90nm part exists with the same model number. This can be a bit confusing, since the categories are labeled Opteron 242 etc (no process indentification), would be better if it was labeled Opteron 242 130nm and so on. (note that 240/840 only exist as 130nm parts )

The following score has no validation or anything, and has been OK'ed because it's old. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=511079 ...which is fair enough, but it's perhaps a good idea to add this validation link (grabbed from ripping.org) anyway It's the same score as the one on HWBot. http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=75282

It's not a cheat. AFAIK.

That one seems to be in the wrong category btw, if it's a Barton:p

That makes more sense:D And I agree. It's a bit like PCMark05 without HDD limits now, it all comes down to who can buy the most expensive CPUs and ditto mobo;)

Singlecores VS dual + quad + hexa etc? Sounds like a bad idea, as there are very few singlecore models left for sale these days:p Perhaps single + dual + tricores vs the rest would be a good solution TODAY, but not for more than a year or two max. WHich means that by adding that category the rules will have to change with time, which is not right IMO.