knopflerbruce

That's correct. Because allowing that kind of "activity" would make it legal for any team with a golden CPU (or GPU) to pass it around to all team members so they can bench it and get top scores, too. Which is CLEARLY unfair to the other teams. How is it possible for us to know whose skills have been used? if you REALLY want one, you can afford it. You just have to sacrifice something else. But giving up on alot of things just to be able to score high on the rankings wouldn't be normal, eh? Bench 3d benchmarks, that's allowed. Or you can wait until the QX9770's are cheap, buy them and then bench:) They're just as fast next year as they are now. I THINK anything except CPUs (for 2d benches) and GPUs (for 3d benches) are allowed to be borrowed. That's enough IMO.

If the GPU you used for that 6 months old submission is not so common, it's a good chance no-one will spot the faults - even after six months. If more than 20 people have benched the card, I'd say it's a fair chance some of those 20 would've checked the other results to see if they were OK, but with rare stuff this doesnt happen much. If you bench only the popular cards, maybe that's a good way of freeing up ORB space, but with those rare ones... I don't like it. But if that's the general rule of thumb here, I really hope people will upload their screenshots so the bot won't be full of unverifiable submissions.

I'm waiting for someone to post in swahili now;)

Wth is going on here?

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=785877 - seems to be a wrong pifast version. Memory amount is not what it usually is, and the score itself can't be achieved with this chip running at 2640 MHz

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=802259 AMD is back on the TOP!!1! No, seriously... please move this one to 32m:p

Ticket ID: 186 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=465309 (stock 200x12)

Ticket ID: 185 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=465302

Ticket ID: 184 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=465294 (stock is 200x9)

Ticket ID: 183 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=465291 (stock is 200x9)

Ticket ID: 182 Priority: Low http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=465288 (stock is 200x8)

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=710566 - ddr2 memory, so can't be a Newark core;) He has some other scores listed in the mobile sempron 3400+ keene-category (which uses DDR2 memory), I guess that's where it belongs. PS: it's a VERY good idea to ask for a verification image even for wprime benches, the auto-CPU-detect isn't working properly... Just a thought. Edit: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=687005 - this one is not a mobile clawhammer...

Ticket ID: 181 Priority: Low http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=161558 (same freq/cache as 3200+ newark, which is already listed).\r\n\r\nhttp://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=758454 - this score should be moved to that category when it\'s made.

Ticket ID: 180 Priority: Low http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=800600\r\n\r\nSame specs as the clawhammer version, which is the category I used for this submission. I\'ll move it once the new category is added. I can also look through the old scores to see if some of those need to be moved as well.

This is my "territory", you know;) PS: Aiming for top 10 HW master by this evening - finally on the FRONT PAGE!!!

It's a clawhammer, it says so in his signature;) And yes, there were no 3400+ semprons at that time (the highest rated sempron was the 3000+, which was a paris core AFAIK).

Yeah, but still... It's an unreasonable score for that chip on air cooling, if you look into it you'll see that it fits much better amongst the 3400+ ATHLON's. You can move such old scores if you want to, I'm not asking it to be deleted because of the mission screenshot. Just moved to the category where it MOST LIKELY belongs. This isn't the first time anyone put an Athlon in a Sempron ranking...

Screenshot is gone, so impossible to really tell if it's an athlon or a sempron. Since it's 3s faster than #2, I'd say it's definately not a sempron The cache difference makes a huge difference in spi1m... http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=645970

If I had known the submission date was in 2004 and not in 2006 (which is what it says when I look at the details) I wouldn't have reported it. Seriously, if a 2 year old score with no verification suddenly drops into first place, you have to understand that I'm asking questions. But if you say it's real I believe it. If you get a chip that can do the necessary HTT, then this score isn't unbelieavable. But yeah, you need phase:p Or in my case - dryice. PS: that score is going DOWN!!

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=507430 No screen, and I have a feeling it's a little bit too fast for this CPU. My guess is that it's a 3000+ Venice, these are MUCH, MUCH more common than Newcastles. And that speed wouldn't be very unthinkable on a Venice core anyway:)

I have a friend in Hannover, so going there would be great. But I have no clue if I have any exams at that time, or if i have enough money (this whole thing is pretty expensive for a poor student:p).

Is it even possible to bench this card at all?

Keep posting, it's fun to see the HW:D By fun I mean fun, nothing to do with trust;)

Thanks, but please remove the score:D It's 256k, not 1m:p

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=558973 No validation at all (I know it's old, but were there NO rules in 2006?)