knopflerbruce

Ticket ID: 403 Priority: Low The name of the CPU is a bit wrong, compared to the others so it\'s at the wrong place in the listing. Please move \"5400+\" in front of X2

Ticket ID: 402 Priority: Low These CPUs don\'t exist, all the X2 4000+ Toledo cores are mislabeled by wPrime, and the others belong to other categories (at least that was the case the last time I checked). The other two are empty and there is NO chance that AMD managed to create a 2.8GHz stock Manchester part.

Ticket ID: 401 Priority: Low These two are the same, please merge

Rejected doesn't really mean anything these days because of that issue. But it's not a real problem, as you WILL get a link with all the details. A REAL problem would be if the file wouldn't be uploaded at all:p

What's interesting is that only a small part of the vista scores get that kind of PP;) Someone should look into it IMO... I'm not a great fan of asking every bencher to reveal his tweaks, but this could very well be a bug. The difference is just too big. Agree? It's like someone starts posting 1m scores at sub-6.5s:p

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=763110 1.55 XP http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=608872 online submission http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=652561 1.28 vista http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=712943 1.55 vista http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=723934 1.55 vista http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=752347 1.55 vista http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=654304 1.28 vista http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=748928 1.55 xp http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=807804 1.55 vista (?) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=731455 1.55 xp http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=587019 online submission http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=816027 vista 1.55 To me it looks like some kind of bug/tweak that happens in vista;) Maybe the xp scores I listed here were done with xp skin in vista, I'm no vista user so I cant spot the small detail differences.

I don't have a clue... http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Opteron%20165%20.09 http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Athlon%2064%206400_%20X2 http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Opteron%20170%20.09 http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Athlon%2064%206000_%20X2 http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Athlon%2064%205000_%20X2%20Windsor http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Athlon%2064%204600_%20X2%20Windsor http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Athlon%2064%204400_%20X2%20Toledo http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Athlon%2064%203800_%20X2%20Windsor http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/Athlon%2064%203800_%20X2%20Toledo There are some scores with WAY better performance products than the rest if you look in the top 3 of all these categories. I don't have a clue what that special tweak is, but it certainly makes it close to impossible to break their scores without it.

There is some special tweak that cuts off like 10% of the total score, too. Some use it... no clue what it is, though:rolleyes:

Make a sticky, massman;)

Nothing has been deleted, it's just a bug... it WILL be fixed!

I lost one golden cup, no idea about silver etc - which makes sense if this is a GPu score bug, since nearly all my scores are for K8 CPUs:D Being robbed for 1700 points would be a bit... OMG:D If it was the other way around.

You can still get the wprime scores;) It's impossible to beat them with a single socket, so there is a similar problem - but in the other "direction", too.

I think every global top20 score has to be approved by the mods before it's added to the ranking. Or they check the scores themselves. It's not that they all get reported at least:)

I've had a couple of nasty experiences with CPUZ lately... I use one CPU, and press F7, but when I upload it the link may lead to a different CPU. For instance the Athlon 64 2600 I asked Turrican to add. It WAS OK, but now it's linked to my old LE1660-validation. Since I have no chance to eliminate this bug by using a validation file, I'm asking for an exception to the validation rule, so I can upload the BMP file you get when you press F5, as that one can't be messed with;) Ticket ID for 2600: http://www.hwbot.org/forum/helpcenter.php?do=ticket&tid=257 Result: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=866062 Edit: same happened to the 2650e-validation. Same solution as well, I uploaded my F5 screenie

Ticket ID: 380 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=585791 - 200*11.5 stock... There are two other models available, 1354 and 1352 (11 and 10.5-multi), you may want to add those as well

The rules do look a bit strange to OC'ers, but WE don't decide who should be invited etc etc. However, if there is no qualification etc - just handpicking of benchers - it's not like it's a competition that decides who is the best overclocker out there or something;) As long as no-one claims that that's what it is, then it's fine by me:p Hopefully this "test round" will succeed so the REAL stuff can come to life later on.

This isn't really a CPUZ issue (I think), more a processor problem:)

I don't think it's a good idea. Even if "the gentleman way" would be to tell those who wonder what batch/stepping you've got, it shouldn't be mandatory. It's close to revealing all tweaks in a notepad document:p Plus, it's very time consuming. (make screenshot, take a shot of the CPU, edit it, paste it into the old screenshot).

GPUs have never been cheaper, why split them now that more people than ever can actually afford top end gear?

It's allowed to buy HW that has been used here before. That's what I've been told at least...

OK, small difference there;) Thanks.

I thought the rules were pretty clear - borrowed CPUs for 2D are not allowed. Or did I miss something? IMO there is no difference if it's Intel or Joe the Tweaker downtown who lets someone have a chip for a session, it still is the same - a borrowed CPU.

It's not illegal to share mobo, PSU, memory, GPU. Or HDD for that matter;) In this case it's proven that the CPUs are the same, so then there is no illegal sharing. However, if the CPUs were the same model, I would agree with you that it's indeed a bit suspicious.

If it's an ORB problem I'd say that's a valid reason to make an exception (but I'm no result mod, hehe...). Can't you view the details and post a screenie of the "private" result? I haven't been to the ORB for quite some time, so my apologies if I wrote something that sounded stupid:p

AH, I thought you meant CPU support, not support of the application itself:D