knopflerbruce

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.

Demo software? Then, what's the "full version"?

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?

Just a quick thought... FM is a company that makes benchmarks. What's so wrong that they want a SMALL FEE from the users? We use their products, what's so wrong in paying for it? If $20 is a problem, we should all use Linux - NO M$ OS's at all! XP costs money, too, it's no Vista-only problem. PCMark05 + 3dmark06 require XP, 05 requires 2000 and 03 98SE. None of these are free:) Why were these benchmarks added if SW expenses are such a huge problem here?

It means that more than 90% don't care about what benchmarks are available, they just run what hwbot allow;) ...which is more or less my opinion, too - even if I actually voted in this poll:D

If you demand 70% yes for all benchmark additions there won't be added too many new ones. Probably just new FM releases. 60% is more than enough, the way it looks now 65% want to fight for the points, but 35% won't let them do it as they don't like the bench themselves. Doesn't sound fair at all to my ears:o Never heard of any real-life "poll" where 70% was the limit. Most often it's 50% I wonder if Obama or McCain need 70% to become president. Then it would be Bush time for anyther 4 years:rolleyes:

Then we point them to this thread;) If you don't vote, then you don't care and shouldn't be upset if something like this happens. Period.

It seems as if roughly 2/3 of the users here want to have the default preset with boints, at least. That's a good start:)

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.

How do you read this poll, btw? I read it like this: 65% want default 32% want extreme 33% want no boints ...this is how it's supposed to be read, right? Btw, Vista isn't free, but XP isn't free either;) No M$ OS is free (AFAIK), so if OS cost is a reason not to allow it, then any other benchmark that requires an M$ OS should be disallowed;)

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:)

The first one is read as pro, so it should probably be in that category. But it's an AGP card, socket A boards with pcie don't exist afaik. Could also be blocked since it's not clear where it belongs - which is caused by the missing GPUZ screenshot. The 2nd one seems correct, the ORB reads it as an x800xt pe. it also says that the mobo is a gigabyte board, model unknown. The user says it's an nf3 board, and I can't seem to find any evidence against that, so it has to be the agp version. But again, there is no GPUZ screenshot, and if there's doubt: block the score IMO.

He used a Gigabyte GA-K8NS Nforce 3 - at least that's what it says in the description (even if it's not proven that he actually did). nf3 is an AGP only chipset afaik, so this seems to be an AGP card, not pcie.