knopflerbruce

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.

5% isn't clear, when nearly nobody voted.

How can "no" be a clear winner when just 35% voted no?

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

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!

If the game costs $20 it's OK;) Unfortunately, it costs perhaps more than $70 over here -and if Vantage had been THAT expensive I'd vote no in this poll;) Crysis as a game is worthless to me.

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.

Why should FM make benchmarks without getting paid for the job? If the community wants a free 3dmark-style benchmark, why don't the users here just make one? Can't be THAT hard if FM's efforts aren't worth as little as $20. I bet that there are a few programmers who are benchmarkers as well.