knopflerbruce

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=696983 I'm wondering if perhaps Rich would explain what's wrong here, this looks very weird to my eyes. http://www.hwbot.org/browseHardwareProcessors.do?cpuSubFamilyId=5 ...here you can also see that the score is way to good for the HW anyway, 10s lower than other, similar scores:D

The CPUZ memory tab is missing, that may be the reason.

I agree that the wprime checksum/online validation is useless, as it doesn't give us ANY info whatsoever about the system - even the CPU could be wrongly matched! But all scores are equally important. Why shouldn't they be? A wrong result is a wrong result, which is what matters - the hwboints are irrelevant here.

IMO it's the user's responsibility so keep track of screenshots. If a score has no proof of any kind it should be removed, unless the rules at the time didn't ask for ANY kind of evidence - no matter what kind of reputation the bencher has, good or bad. If the forum moved Hipro's screenshots, and someone blocked the scores because of that, then all Hipro has to do is to find the screens and update the submissions. These kind of problems is the reason I upload everything to the site instead of using a third party to store screens;)

Questions can be asked, in a polite manner. Not like the whining and bullshitting we've seen in this thread. Perhaps these guys would've been alot more helpful if you asked QUESTIONS instead of making ACCUSATIONS.

There are ALOT of boards that are not included, my DFI Venus is not... none of the 790fx boards I've tried have been there as well. But IMO it's better that the mods add new HW to the categories and take care of scores, than fixing stuff like this;)

http://www.hwbot.org/result.history.do?resultId=762558 If you look at this result modification log you'll see a score with no memory tab has been "OK'ed" because it has a CPUZ validation as well. I've given a link to my CPUZ validation in the first post, so please spend a couple of seconds to unblock these two scores;)

Vanilla (that is... 6800 - no gs, le or anything).

This is the card you have: http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=GPU_1271 I have 2 myself

Sure, you can fake validations. The only thing that can't be faked is if someone is watching;) Perhaps we need a new rule, global top 5 scores must be approved by x number of other users that are not friends or members of the bencher's team. There is no proof of cheating here, only some (very) high clocks. Why bother cheating for a 2nd place, btw? Obviously there is another dude who has better HW than mrlobber. If this score is so unbelieavable, then how could it be just 2nd? If the memory and CPU are both beyond any imaginable limits?

It's not mrlobber's responsibility to prove that he's innocent, so he really shouldn't have to travel around the globe proving stuff. Those who want to see the results should come to his place. I thought he shared a couple of validations that supported his clocks:confused:

It's easy to solve - those who don't believe in the scores pay for the trip etc etc etc:)

You're 32nd and 33rd in the qx9775 wprime rankings, and you have better global scores in both categories:)

What scores are being questioned here? I can't see any links... PS: It's quite possible to find a few golden pieces of HW, if you know what to look for. And it's also possible that someone finds a nice tweak no-one else knows about.

...not to mention the Yorkfield(?)---> P3 Xeon mixup:p

I've seen a few times that wPrime results with a checksum have gone into the wrong category. Like AMD Athlon X2 4800+ Toledo, alot of these scores should be in the 4800+ Brisbane category. PS: what can we do to view memory timings etc for these online submissions? It's nice for other benchers to look at those numbers sometimes, but they never show up... Perhaps it's an idea to ask for screenshots? That would make it easier for everyone:) It's not THAT much trouble to open 2 CPUZ tabs and paint;)

Ticket ID: 158 Priority: Low http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=440184

Like I said, that didn't work at that time;) I don't really see why there is a need to block the scores, they are all consistent with average memory clocks and the CPU type and speed in the screenshot. I also uploaded a CPUZ validation with the same clocks that should give you the missing memory timings/speed as well. I'm not complaining against the rules here, but there have been a few posts from mods where you asked the users to not report all scores with missing resolution, tabs etc but only the scores which actually need all verification to be 100% believable. I'm confused, do you want "us" to report every score that don't follow the rules or do you allow some kind of common sense here? PS: I don't care much about these particular scores, it's the principles I'm after. I can rebench this chip anytime i want to.

Just wondering what's the difference between low, medium and high priority requests. How do I, as a user, decide what requests belong in which categories?

If the score is unreasonable for the hardware, it should be blocked anyway. IMO in these situations, if there's doubt - it should be removed. A screenshot is always nice to have, both for the benchers AND the other guys who wonder how they got the score:)

The problem about these verifications is that it doesn't work right, so even if all you have is a not valid checksum the result can't be blocked:rolleyes:

Maybe this email problem is related to hotmail and not hwbot? Try gmail;) @massman: what made you delete his scores? I can't see that information being posted here, so hard for me to write my opinion without any facts:D

For some stupid reason, Linux isn't allowed when you bench superpi:D This is a bit funny, as there were a few hot discussions about cost of software, and OS cost was a huge part of those discussions. WIth Linux it would be totally free!

Ticket ID: 155 Priority: Medium http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=437681\r\n\r\n200x8, 1.20v, 55w stock (some are 1.15v, too)

Ticket ID: 154 Priority: Medium http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=437674\r\n\r\nStock specs same as Opty 152 (s939), except socket and core.