Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

knopflerbruce

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4290

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by knopflerbruce

  1. knopflerbruce
    That could just be by design. A score of 0 marks is hardly a score at all... You can get a score in 01 without Nature, same thing. ...not to mention 03 http://hwbot.org/submission/942327_blackwarriors_3dmark03_geforce4_mx_440_8x_570_marks 1/4
  2. knopflerbruce
    If you feel something could be wrong about a score you can report it. It doesn't have to be a 100% sure case. I don't know how anybody could know this score without being notified unless they checked it out on their own. However, it's not that common to look at every new submission looking weird stuff.
  3. knopflerbruce
    So, what should I look for if I want a chip that's good on air, but scales like shit? Need a chip for my bro's new 24/7 build.
  4. knopflerbruce
    Excuse me, but it's not in the moderation queue:D (I assume it's not reported, as I doubt it would be checked without further proof. I can't take a look at a score that I don't know about.)
  5. knopflerbruce
    There is no active thread on removing points for PCM05 in the crew section, just to make that clear. That'll be the last thing we want to do, so need to worry about that for a while
  6. knopflerbruce
    Then you can never use that dual areca setup for HWBot. Simple as that But I guess you know that already...
  7. knopflerbruce
    What the heck does lcn mean, anyway?
  8. knopflerbruce
    One can always remove globals, but not right away. I think the community should be warned a few months before that happens. As for the Fusion IO device, 10k sounds too high to my limited knowledge. Seems more likely a bug than not.
  9. knopflerbruce
    Way to go Must be awesome to pull off a run like that!
  10. knopflerbruce
    I usually check newegg feedback rather than reviews. If I check memory reviews it's because I want to check OCing potential and/or ICs used
  11. knopflerbruce
    Ticket ID: 1782 Priority: Low http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=150-SE-E789-KR\r\n\r\n\r\nPlease add this one
  12. knopflerbruce
    This one was bad. Lol @ newegg Though I wonder if one really should give high ratings to any sticks these days. We've had hypers for over 4-FOUR years now. PSC for 3.5 years? Still BBSE/PSC are the ones we use for benchmarking. If you think of it that way, NO memory kit in the world made with newer ICs should be given more than 6-7/10, and most probably from 3-5/10 simply because the performance does not increase with time. Given the cost of these Avexir sticks relative to their performance, I'd say 2/10. 2 because 3000+ is sexy and the sticks do run what they're specced at. Other than that a complete failure measured against 3-4 year old sticks. I want thumbs up for this Strict reviewer style!
  13. knopflerbruce
    If we want 100% secure benchmarks only I think we can remove globals altogether. Even the wrappers are not safe (though safer than no wrapper at all!). I wonder if superpi/pifast are safe. My guess is that they're very easy to manipulate, especially pifast.
  14. knopflerbruce
    Good
  15. knopflerbruce
    If you change the timer to one that actually works, and then change the bclk, I guess those results won't be marked as invalid?
  16. knopflerbruce
    A "safer" word would be "ambient cooled" or something, perhaps. Strictly speaking, these entry level kits ARE defined as water cooling, so air is wrong. I'm with hyperhorn here, water is water, not air.
  17. knopflerbruce
    Any Ivy-E BIOSes out? Seems like f11z wont work...
  18. knopflerbruce
    Perhaps it's a good idea to make the error message a bit more informative?
  19. knopflerbruce
    We could have a workaround: make the score calculation slightly different, instead of avg. time, we can use avg time divided by threads run. So, a 10 thread chip with an avg. time of 1000 seconds will have a "score" of 100. Then these singlethread results will be worthless This is just my idea, nothing that has been discussed internally. +1 for a wrapper.
  20. knopflerbruce
    If you ask me, either we remove the benchmark, or we block subs with less threads than the cpu is capable of. It's clearly the purpose of the benchmark to run the same number of threads that the CPU is capable of. I don't feel sorry for the folks who have chosen to run just one thread, it's CLEAR that this benchmark is just superpi32m if one thread is selected - and that it's not supposed to be run that way. Rules are rules, but mistakes happen, and why those who read the # of processor sentence in the rules didn't scratch their heads a bit is quite strange.
  21. knopflerbruce
    Not for a while, no, as I'm away. Not sure when I'll be back, could be a couple of weeks. How do I check it, btw?
  22. knopflerbruce
    I get one when a thread is made, but never after that.
  23. knopflerbruce
    A bit bigger than the OCing scene Don't like that game genre at all, so I have no idea what they were doing
  24. knopflerbruce
    I have nothing to do with this. I swear
  25. knopflerbruce
    I just hope the older ones can still be used. That's a solution that could work as well. I have like 50 subs here that I can't submit
×
×
  • Create New...