knopflerbruce

It's possible to lower the clocks with SetFSB after the important tests are done, I think. If only GPU-tests add to the score, then doing this after they're finished shouldn't harm the score (right?). You need to be quick, but it's possible to do it that way..

Ticket ID: 97 Priority: Medium http://hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_1527 - if you look at bwanasoft and flo\'s scores you\'ll see that they both are 2600+ mobile semprons, but one of them is 90nm and the other is 130nm. Split needed.

...because the site only allows cvf files made with the newest version to be uploaded. You cna either re-bench the setup with the most recent CPUZ version, or ask the maker to manually add the scores. Not sure he'll do that unless they're really good...

I think it's too early for a poll. The idea rich cam up with is decent, but the first "revision" has too big drawbacks:) Perhaps it needs to be "tweaked" a little bit?

The problem here is that alot of people don't think. On one hand you have the people who yell "SHARING SHARING!!" without even considering the possibilities of something NOT be sharing, and then often look like idiots after it turned out that everything was pretty much OK:mad: This causes alot of anger and problems (like users quitting HWBOT - the best benchers need to be here, or else this will turn into a database of mediocre overclocks:rolleyes: - not a WR database), which could be avoided if people wouldn't post topics with aggressive titles, as this one. If I was mickeymouse I'd just report the score the normal way, without making alot of noise. Perhaps write a PM to jmke as well, if necessary. On the other hand, everyone who reads the rules and visit this forum knows very well about HW sharing being in the spotlight these days. It's obvious that when a few users use pretty much the same setups someone will wonder if it's sharing or not. *sigh* ...I just hope this doesn't turn into some "sharing accusation revenge mania". Sometimes people act like little children, we all know that:rolleyes:

The results from these events can't be "forbidden" - as I think someone here suggested. HWBot would lose something important if people would have to go elsewhere to find the top scores. And I also think that the teams deserve the points they get when members bench together. If the definition of a pro bencher is a bencher who either borrow or is given HW, we have a problem. A friend of mine gave me a 2gb kit of DDR memory, and another friend gave me an old turion CPU. Does this make me a pro bencher?? And if you get 1 piece of HW for free once, does that make you a pro bencher for life? A solution to the last problem may be to have some check box in the submit screen where you check the box if you used sponsored HW;) If a sponsored bencher uses only stuff he bought himself, he's just a regular bencher.

If you don't have the cash to buy a dozen chips, just make sure you get a good one when you buy. If you buy from newegg/komplett etc etc (where they just pick one for you) it's your own fault. Those who have sponsors got them for a reason. If you get some nice results with limited resources, someone will notice. That's how the game works (I think).

LOL - they didn't:confused: wth!

I know my post didn't help any;) I've seen a few times that the mods deal with "fresh" requests before older ones, and I was worrying about this being another case like that. Sure, your problems needs to be looked at - but it's important that they take of the older ones first;) If you wait 6 weeks (which I have done with one of my helpcentre-requests), you'll see what I mean.

The owner of the video cards can submit the results. If both submit scores, that's sharing;) But there's no reason to block both...?

Well, you just have to wait until someone has the time to help you out;) Your case isn't anymore important than others. I'm used to wait for weeks here, if they want to reward impatience and yelling, it'll be fun in here:) I made some polite requests before this one, hopefully they'll deal with those before spending time on a fresh complaint like this one. Just my .02.

I'd say it's OK. The point of having CPUZ/GPUZ is just to show type of HW and speed/timings, and as long as the version does that it shouldn't be an issue.

Situations like that happens quite often to me here;) I noticed it once last night. No idea why it happens, but is there any other reason that this may be a fake score? Like a score that doesn't match the HW?

Ticket ID: 86 Priority: Low http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=401398\r\n\r\nThe \"rated FSB\" is probably 800 stock. My board either defaults to 1x on all chips, or CPUZ \"forgets\" to include the multi.

Ticket ID: 72 Priority: Low http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=401449\r\n\r\nThis is the chip discussed here: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=49105\r\n\r\nIn core temp it says Dual Core Prototype btw

Perhaps it's a good idea to make some kind of announcement about teams taking some HW photos from time to time just in case we see more of these situations in the future.

I'm not sure if photographs are forbidden all the time. if you have all the info required (like CPUZ screens for superpi1m + superpi1m window itself) there's no reason not to allow the score, as the fault happened after the benchmark was ran correctly. The rules just state what you need to include in the screenshot - it says nothing about how you capture it. Would be quite crazy if someone broke into the 6.xxx's in superpi1m, and then wouldn't have the WR because the screenshot was taken the wrong way:p

They don't need 4 pots;) Pot-sharing is allowed (I hope!). But a pic of the 4 GPUs would be nice, to eliminate some doubt.

The problem with today's GPU benchmarks is that they're all very CPU dependent. When benching a CPU you can get a nice pi score by using an FX5200 PCI card:D But benching 3dmark05 with a celeron isn't much fun, is it? I have tons of AGP cards here. Someday I'll buy an ASRock board and an X6800, just to get a lot of points - which will be quite easy (I think) when I fight agains Bartons etc. It would make things alot more interesting if there was a bench that wouldn't benefit from greater CPU speeds - max frequencies don't.

We have only two categories for GPUs here, single and sli/xf. If a card like 3870x2 goes under SLI/xf, what about two 3870x2's? it would be pretty weird if BOTH go into the same category (SLI/xf). Suddenly it would be NO use to buy just one of these cards. Maybe it's an idea to create another global category for these dual GPU cards only, if it's really that much of a problem. Btw, if these cards can't compete with dual-GPU cards, then what about single core CPUs vs dual core CPUs vs tri-cores vs quad cores? We need some serious splitting if everything is supposed to be totally fair:D

True, true... but there are very few scores of that kind;) Once you have like 8-10 results usually one or two got a "golden" chip and maxed it out. What's the effort worth? 2.7 points and a slightly higher rank in a list that "no-one" cares about:rolleyes: Even if you showed just as much skill as someone who got a 7.7s score in superpi1m on an LN2 cooled E8500-rig. If you disagree with me when I say it's hard to get #1 spots for old HW, I invite you to try to beat my scores for example;)

First of all you need to make a TICKET, 2nd... because of holidays etc the mods don't have time to add new HW atm - you and me just have to wait (I requested a couple of CPUs a month ago...)

The best solution would be to make a new version which has BOTH calculation methods, as well as the cheat protection from 1.55. On the startup screen you could choose between 1.53 and 1.55 versions of 32m and 1024m.

I'm getting a socket 940 board soon. The board has 2 sockets, but I think it works with just one CPU plugged into the board. My question if there are separate rankings for 2 CPUs and 1 of the same kind (like 2x Opty 856 won't be compared to 1x Opty 856), so I can score twice as many cups by removing one chip and re-bench everything?

I'm *SO* glad I don't bench that old HW, this problem would make me go nuts:) I'm usually happy with the decisions made by the crew, but not this one. Sure, it's not easy to find a solution that works, but leaving a benchmark "unbenchable" is unacceptable IMO. I wonder if 1.55 would've been approved if C2D/C2Q-scores were affected in the same way... that would make things interesting:)