knopflerbruce

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?)

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:)