knopflerbruce

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.

If this screen was submitted today it would definately be removed. However, it was submitted a LONG time ago - and was probably valid at that time. Unless the score is way too high for the CPU clocks, there's no reason to block it.

Well said!

To me it looks like the 1m computation time accuracy is not as high as 1ms, btw - which will lead into trouble when the times get fast enough. Perhaps we need another mod-pi soon?

Well, this one looked pretty clear. The message could've been a joke, but why not use or ;-) instead of -__- ? The last one doesn't give ANY hints about a joke, more the opposite. What language barrier, btw? Is "silly" in Italian some kind of compliment?

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=784107 - this score was removed as I didn't include the memory window... which is correct. The problem was that for some reason I couldn't open 2 CPUZ windows at the same time (the other one would never open, after the loading bar was gone nothing came up), and then I decided to only use that CPU window. But I could make a validation, which is also on HWBot (at the exact same clocks as the scores): http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=434658 The scores should match the memory speed pretty accurately, so if "common sense" is used, I'd say it should be unblocked. At least someone once said that there's no point in blocking obviously legit scores because of a missing tab or something. PS: these two score have the same bug as well: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=784106 and http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=784108

Wth:p That must be a joke, but the smiley makes me think otherwise;) I think we all just saw an entirely, undiscovered level of stupidity if that was a serious comment:D Report the score, and see what happens. It's not allowed to write that kind of crap in the description.

I just didn't like the way you used the word "skill":) As it kind of excluded the skill of getting a 3 point score, that sometimes may not be as easy to get a you would think (if s7e9h3n had uploaded his 4005.19Mhz Opteron 154 score to the bot, it would be #2. It was #1 once. I think you know how hard it is to break, as it WAS the fastest Opteron on earth - even if the score that's now above it only generates 2.2 HWBoints or something.). New ideas are always interesting! But I must say I don't think it's necessary to re-code the whole forum:p Tweaks should be enough, today's system isn't THAT bad - I just like to point out what could be done better. I read your first post it was as if the people with expensive gear would sit at their desk with a QX9770 in their hands, putting in into the socket with great fear, legs shaking when the vcore exceeded 1.6v and nearly crying of fear of the expensive sucker's potential death under LN2:p Scores makes you deserve points, not potentially wrecking $1000 chips. I probably read it the wrong way, I guess;) It was late, I blame that:p But equal is the most right, I think. There must be SOME FSB-wall tweaks (I know it's temperature dependant, and it's also important to tweak the MOBO right because of those limitations). I'm just guessing, so I'll leave it at that. The rankings would be different, as the people with less money would buy better HW, and get better scores;) Apart from that there wouldn't be much difference, I think. The thought is quite nice, but in the beginning you could get a decent score just by having alot of HW points - even if there was a limit. I don't know the exact rank, but I'm pretty sure it was within top 50 at least, probably even a bit better. Now, with my 300 points, I'm at 171st place. That limit needs to be doubled! But for some reason, no-one agrees with me. I wonder, in 10 years maybe the #1 has 3000 points and I'm at 800th place with my 300 points - where's the logic and fairness in that? Good;) This is true, but you'll stay close to the top for a while at least. Which was my point;) You have me on MSN, yes;) I don't apply for a coding mod, but as a result or hw-mod I think (it's been a while, and I'm too lazy to check my sentbox)

What a mess! There must be some kind of explanation of why these scores go into this category, that many misplacements can't be all "accidents"? Bad code somewhere, perhaps? I have one of these cards, btw;)

That's true, but how do you define "skill"? It's not as simple as it may sound. It's not harder to bench $2000-HW than to bench other stuff. I never benched that expensive HW, but it just doesnt make any sense - a QX has an unlocked multiplier, and like a Q6600 has NOT, so it MUST be harder to OC a Q6600 than the QX as you have to fight the FSB-wall as well, not just the limit of the CPU. Besides, $2000 is just a number. If you can afford the chip, you buy it and OC the crap out of it. It doesnt make you skilled just because you dare. If so, I should be #1. I bet NO-ONE here except me spend so much cash on HW that they eat bread and water 2-3 weeks per month because the rest of the cash has been used on rent and HW. Period. ...and by having the limit HWBot says that old HW is less difficult to OC than new HW. Which is BS, it's equally hard. To max a CPU (or GPU) you need to do more or less the same stuff anyway, with a few minor adjustments. ...which is fair enough. The only problem is that most people have the (wrong?) impression that the skill is in the overclockers league only. I wouldn't be too shocked if the general opinion is that HW-masters are point-whores who just boot up and run their CPUs to get their 2.x points:rolleyes: I don't hear about the top 10 of the HW league get alot of praise, if the two rankings were equal the same would be the situation with the OC league. Is it? ...and why don't they deserve to be there? Just as it's possible to get alot of points just by benching some kind of old parts on near default settings it's possible to buying high-end memory, a QX9650/9770 + E8600, a good mobo, 3 GTX 280's, pots and a dewar of LN2 and get high on the ranks because of that. PS: I asked about being a member of the "HWBot team" a few times in the past, but apparently there are enough mods here - at least I'm not in atm:confused:

Maybe it's possisble to create some categories for the most common lineups with different cards, like 4870x2 + 4870. Maybe 3870x2 + 3870 is a common combination as well. Dunno... But if it isn't, then it's better to keep the rules like they are atm. If a score with a 4870 + 4870x2 is added to the 4870 category, MANY users will suffer from that. But if it's added to the 4870x2-category, only the ones with this combo will lose points. It's better that like 5 people have a disadvantage than about 90 (the number of 2x 4870-owners on HWBot).

Ticket ID: 147 Priority: High http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=431595\r\n\r\nSpecs same as X2 6000+ 89w version.

If the LT-version is not there, please add it as well.

Is it a goal to catch ANY score that's missing stuff like resolution etc? I don't believe in witchhunts. Those who want that kind of actions to be taken should have NO scores with missing verification stuff themselves. That's fair;)