knopflerbruce

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;)

That's the most stupid post I've read in a LONG time:o Including other forums. Do you have anything against russians, perhaps? Since you talk like that? All you need is a link to the result in the FM database. I haven't benched 3dmark alot, but how could it be so hard to find one of your own results?

The rule is that you add it in the rank of the best performing single-card, in your case 3870x2. Why it was DELETED and not moved is a complete mystery;) Unless there was something missing in the screenshot, and you had no orb link.

...and different CPU, different memory, different cooling. different mobo. Also notice the date - 2 months difference!

I think rich (or maybe it was jmke) once said that if the score looks normal (in terms of CPU clock, GPU clock, memory clock/timings), then there's no reason to block them. I have no idea if these scores are "normal", but if the scores are a little bit better than what you'd expect from a normal (not-so-well-tweaked) run, then they should stay blocked.

How much does the score change from one resolution to another? Just curious...

Ticket ID: 121 Priority: High http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=419535\r\n\r\n2.8Ghz, 200x14. Apart from that the same as Opteron 185 I guess.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we need to compare to 1.43 on older chips, not 1.55;)

Nice work so far, but it's important that older systems can be benched - even if it means that there will be slightly more problems with newer rigs.

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=645970 has to be athlon 3400+, not sempron because of the superior result. Can't verify as there is no screen either... http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=618521 wrong pifast version

http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_1371 Please take a look at the top spi1m score here. Something is weird, maybe a database bug:p This score has no validation: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=731337 - and the score itself is in a league of it's own it seems. Sub 26s on a 130nm with 512kb cache and single channel memory... I'd like to see that with my own eyes ;-) 3700+sd in 3700+ clawhamemr category (PS: nearly ALL scores are 3700+ sd's!): http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=661418 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=719517 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=631559

X1900 CF edition has xt clocks @ stock, so it should be in the xt-category, not xtx. FYI.

Ticket ID: 98 Priority: High There are two versions of the 3700+ and 4000+ s939 Athlons - E4 and E6. The E6\'s are really just Toledos with a disabled core - you\'ll see that if you pop the IHS on an E4, E6 and a Toledo dual core. \r\n\r\nThe difference is just the same as the one between 3200+ Manchester and X2 3800+ Manchester