knopflerbruce

8m isn't necessary, as we already have 1m and 32m. If we need another single-threaded benchmark, I'd say it's better to use something else.

A ranking of DDR1/DDR2/DDR3 frequencies sounds great! Tweaking memory is a skill, just as getting the highest CPUZ validation. GPUZ valid's would also be great. It's nearly impossible to get an "ever-lasting" hardwawre record for GPUs atm. Old records will be beaten once faster CPUs are released. It's not fun to get a really good result, and see it get owned because AMD/Intel released a faster CPU.

Exactly;)

***************** I know a ton of hardware myself, and I promise you - I would NEVER have spotted the different bandwidth. When I bench, I usually write down the top scores on a piece of paper, so I know what I have to beat. If I beat the second place by a few points, I wouldn't bother looking at the screenie, as I already beat it. Just because Bwanasoft owns alot of stuff doesn't mean he knows every spec and expected bandwidth of the cards he bench. I have a bunch of old video cards. I couldn't care less about the bandwidths, what interests ME is that I can get points by benching those cards. Bwanasoft didn't make fun of anyone, unless he cheated. Which hasn't been proved. All we know is that the scores look weird. You can say "oh, it looks like photoshop", but if there is another explanation, then that explanation has to be proved wrong. And perhaps that explanation is that the card was flashed by someone else. Not Bwanasoft's fault, is it? You can't expect people to double-check everything. Who found him guilty btw? The MODS are the judges. The +1-noobs are just the mob demanding an execution. They have the right to express their opinions, but what they think and feel is totally irrelevant for the judges, who look at the proof. If you can show me that jmke, rich, massman or some other mod said he was guilty of cheating, please show me.

It was the photoshop-accusation I was referring to. If you say that someone is using photoshop you call this person a cheater. And I don't think everyone did agree that he was a cheater the last time this kind of stuff was dicussed. I don't complain about you reporting the scores, I'm annoyed by the way you do it. You find someone guilty, but you're not the judge. Let the mods decide who's a cheater, and who's not. All your job is, is to tell what's wrong with a score if you think it looks weird. I wouldn't bother explaining these kinds of accusations here if it was me who was the "photoshopper". Bwanasoft doesn't have to give you an answer to your questions. If the mods want something from him, they can do it via PM's. Perhaps he did it that way. We don't know. Btw, if this 8400GS-stuff is a flashed 8500 - could it be flashed by someone else than Bwanasoft, before he bought it? A pure accident?

...and why not make it 10^24 threads while we're at it? More (useless) threads = better? I don't think so. Using as few threads as possible, combined with as much performance as possible is what's the best. It's not like wprime tweaks your subtimings and has a built-in copywaza, or something.

Whiners? Said by someone who sees a weird score and yells CHEAT CHEAT before anyone has had a look at it!!! Sure, the screens are weird, but it's not a cheat until the mods say it is. I hope the mods here would ban people who call people cheaters if they end up being totally innocent. You can't call someone a murderer just because you find a bloody knife in the thrash:confused:

By following the same logic for GPUs, we must ban 3dmark05 and 06 until it exists a patch that makes the CPU tests run in the same way as you want wprime to run, as well as running multiple "3d-threads" (1 per gpu at least!). I don't see the problem with a program like this. It gives you a valid score, and it uses 100% of the CPU power available. Btw, benchmarks compare one CPU to another. You can count cores, or look at the frequency, or any other relevant difference - what makes the number of cores so much more important than everything else? I don't think comparing a quad to a dual core is much worse than comparing a PIII to a Celeron-L. 3dmark compares 1vs2 as well. No way you'll get a top score in 06 with a single or dual core, and same with 05 for single cores. Oooops, soon most of the benchmarks are gone:D Only 01, 03, AM3, spi1m + 32m, pifast and cpuz left:rolleyes:

Didn't it exist dual socket mobo's for these CPUs? It looks like the time is exactly HALF of what it should've been;)

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=731549 Needs to be moved - this is like a fat chick in the miss universe contest:D

The online submission-stuff sucks, as most people don't like to have that kind of stuff enabled on a benching rig, and I bet alot of people bench in a room with no connection (I do at least). I'd say it's Ok to try this, as 3dmark has been supported for a long time. However, someone (rich?) should tell FM that if they don't make the next 3dmark version more bench friendly, it won't be added to HWBot. About the "bench for fun"-discussion, I bench for WR's. If i can't get the WR I bench for boints. I no longer think it's fun to fight for 20th place. Maybe others do, but I don't. My attitude is perfectly fine, the problem is that some people don't understand that people are different - some are happy with ANY result. and others aren't happy until they cracked the WR.

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=716595 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=610013 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=609947 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=591118 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=630147 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=575960 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=629393 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=569497 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=591117 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=573659 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=629395 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=569513 - not sure if these are valid or not, so I'll let you decide (most have no CPUZ windows). http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=580575 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=561622 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=575952 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=572507 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=565161 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=561621 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=581306 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=572938 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=566722 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=561865 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=571062 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=561800 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=562167 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=571059 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=614156 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=561801 - invalid checksum http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=574608 - NO verification http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=660937 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=563714 - missing CPU info http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=684149 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=684511 - 1.58/after 1.1.08 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=700068 - screenshot link broken (?) These are all the questionable scores I could find for dual core s939 opterons. Is it possible to validate illegal versions, btw? Like if I bench with 1.58, and upload the score, will the checksum be valid?

The performance product is the product of some (2D) bench result and CPU speed for that specific run. Quite a few people use it to find out how well tweaked the system is etc. Would be an interesting addition to the scores. I can't imagine it would be too much work to add it either, it's just a product of two variables:)

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=729893 -No CPU description, and the superpi screen looks... weird:o Compare with other runs, too! http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=618530 - obviously wrong pifast version (10 sec difference to #2) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=617702 - NO verification at all (I know it's a bit old, but lack of proof is an understatement) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=491165 - really old result, but no CPU info (which makes me think it may not have been valid when it was submitted) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=617490 - NO verification (same as 617702) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=556050 - same as above http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=617563 - same as above

A fee of that size shouldn't be a problem. If it was $50 or more, it would be a different story. But is the $7 version good enough for users who want to bench alot of cards? Also, do you have to be online to get a score (unless you pay $500)??? I think the ones who don't like this bench should just ignore it. Alot of people seem to want this bench to be added, and a dx10 only benchmark would be a nice addition to the older stuff. What version to allow? High + Extreme both need huge monitors, and a $20 license. That's a little too expensive. I don't like that you have to buy a new monitor just to bench ONE benchmark. Performance is supported in the $7 version, and is what looks like the default benchmark.

v1.54 after 1.1.08 (which is not allowed, right?): http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=702154 This result seems very... weird to me. Compare with other scores of A64 s939 dual cores. Bugged run? Seems a little too incredible. Fastest 939 chip in wprime32m is a chip @ 3130mhz?? (not even an FX60 @ 3.5ghz is CLOSE to that score - http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=624575) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688407

Lol, let's keep it civil... yeah right:D:o

If we want to find out if these results can be duplicated in a normal way, we have to try a socket a rig I think;) CPUZ has weird bugs sometimes.

Quad-slot? But nice stuff anyways:)

This thread is messy already, PLEASE don't spam here:o

Jeez, I'm not sherlock holmes;) But - with the VERY little knowledge I have about CPUZ - I have no chance of explaining that one. Indeed a bit weird.

F7 creates a cvf file, and F5 creates a .bmp file with no id (because it's just a screen of the cpuz window). To my eyes, such a screenshot looks exactly the same as the one you call cheating. To upload as an attachment I have to convert it to jpg, and I'm too lazy to do that. Try it. Btw no id on these screens either: http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=27574 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=24729 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=23739 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=44352 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=18626 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=53782 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=44398 (black line on top, compare that to the white line on bwana's screens) http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=16529 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=16552 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=79911 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=94120 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=93888 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=95221 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=93899 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=94736 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=94118 No mem tab on these, btw: http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=79913'>http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=79913 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=96822 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=79913 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=94124 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=93896 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=94738 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=93902 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=94131 http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=95217 IMO this sounds alot like someone wants Bwana's first spot, but don't feel like benching his ass off:p You don't have to be a rocket scientists to figure out who will benefit from banning Bwana... As for the last couple of screens submitted by Gradus, I know something is weird about the two imageshack pictures. But so what? Bwanasoft's scores were correct:)

+1 mania lol. OK, I say -7:) Tbh, what people think about Bwana is irrelevant - 1000 people can post +1 and it won't change a thing. So no need to spam the thread like that.

He has marked the resolution with a red square. Is that not enough? I'm juas asking so I don't mess up my future 3d bench screens;)

This thread is a mess atm... What are the results so far? Bugged CPUZ-versions and proof that Bwana used dual monitors once? And I really don't see the problem with that Opty 185 result. Sure, everyone wants a validation link - but as long as a screenshot is enough, then it's a valid score. Prove that the image is a fake if it's weird. The only thing weird about the result is the 512GB ram he ahs installed on his PC:o (hehe) This sounds like BS to me. Looks like someone if after Bwana here;)