knopflerbruce

B2 vs B3. (just like 9500 vs 9550 etc)

http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_1686 http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_853 In both these cases, all the wprime scores are matched to the wrong CPU. X2 4000+ Toledo doesn't even exist... (same for X2 5400+ Manchester, btw) Sorry for not reporting these one by one, but it's too much work

There's no need to re-run it if the "common sense rule" is valid. Air or LN2 is irrelevant.

Demiurg doesn't follow that part of the guideline if he can earn 0.1 points himself;) (personal experience) It's not a problem to have a "strict" system here, but then it's wrong that one mod (jmke) says it's wrong to report a bunch of scores that are probably valid, but misses something in the screenshot - and some other mod (demiurg) blocks scores that should be perfectly valid by jmke's posts, so that he gets a higher rank.

100% OC on air:p

Bump....?

Ticket ID: 263 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=535164

...so if the 9400gt 1gb card would be named 9400gt+ and had 10mhz higher core frequency then you would add it to the database..?

Hwbot separated 9800gtx and gtx+ - the difference between those two is negligible. Which is why I'm thinking some mods treat these principles differently... someone must've added that gtx+, and I bet it wasn't you who did it;)

You can always ask a different mod, some mods add all new cards without asking, jmke does not;)

Most of the results are 1gb cards. If they need to add another, I'd say it's a 512mb version:p

It's not allowed, but you can act like you don't know, and no-one will ever find out;)

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=785877 Definately wrong version of pifast (compare Total Physical Memory Allocated with other submissions... not to mention the clock speed vs time), and no CPUZ screenie either.

Use the correct wprime version.

Ticket ID: 257 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=531845 - 200x8 stock

Ticket ID: 256 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=531832 - 200*8 stock...

Been waiting for that moment for a while:p I need some dryice and more CPUs to take the REAL #1 spot, though... If I had unlimited supply of dice I guess I'd have about 16-1700 points;) Didn't do much pi32m or wprime1024m when I always had 8kg and 20 chips to test:rolleyes:

It's obviously a bug with CPUZ, so it should be considered valid despite CPUZ thinking it's faked or whatever;). WHat you CAN do, perhaps, is to make a cvf file on v1.49 and send it to Franck Delattre for him to upload it manually.

Ticket ID: 249 Priority: Low I noticed a nasty bug in the HW master list. It looked as if thery time I puished F5 the top score would disappear! Now the list is empy... (I still have my points and cups, though)

Well, there are alot of comments about this issue on XS. Alot of peoble cant validate their Denebs, even at stock speed if my memory is correct. I don't really see why that red sign appears sometimes, either. If it's a corrupted file, then why allow it to be uploaded at all..?

I agree to that. But your post looked a bit as if you were thinking all of them looked reasonable for the CPU type/speed, which is why I started talking about PP.

He's quite correct about some of the performance products being a "bit" too good for single channel setups of this kind. Deleting them is perhaps wrong, but they need to be moved to the corresponding 939 category. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=527638 84563 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=506003 84480 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=504456 86064. but a8n-e is a 939 mobo so no 754 result http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=511146 84750 These are the sub 86k ones I found in OP's list, but I have a feeling that the "limit" of s754 is alot higher than that. Just need to test some more before I conclude, my 90k runs were not very optimized:p Performance products are quite handy in situastions like this, but I hope there is enough knowledge in the crew about K8 that they see that these PP's are jsut as bad as a 42k PP would be on an E8600, and therefore need to be moved;)

...PCMark05 gives correct results for some kind of HDD's, right? If so, perhaps a solution is to not allow HW that creates unreal scores in these subtests.

...or, to look at it from a different standpoint, you can work your ass off, producing scores no-one would ever imagine yould be possible on that old gear, but what do you get? 200th place (beaten by a bunch of people who have access to extreme cooling + hw, and only fill up the pots to get great scores), when you deserve to be in top 5 because of great skill;)

It's possible to have limits for the subtests that "kill" the benchmark. It's better than no benchmark, at least.