anvil

Great! It will then be easier to compare our results.

Hi all, just wanted to ask if it is possible to add the "view top 100" in front of each benchmark of GPU page, just as all CPU pages already have. Thx.

Just try a manual submission.

Ticket ID: 179 Priority: Low Hi,\r\n\r\nplease can you add Nvidia Quadro NVS 160M.\r\n\r\nAll you need is on the following screenshot:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThank you.\r\n\r\nanvil

Up, 'cause I think the topic of this thread is really important.

Hello guys, just to stay in the same mood... There is a validation number for Wprimes benchmarks, same as super pi. Because of cheating and problems with the validation number of super pi scores, Hwbot asks for big screenshots when we want our scores to be validated. The validation number of Wprimes doesn't give any information about the material used. I think it should be better (more fair play and all that stuff) if Wprimes scores were validated by others informations, such as CPU-Z screenshot (CPU, memory, etc.) as for the others benchmark in fact. What do you think about it?

I would enlarged it to the top 50 at least, if it is not enlarged to all Hwbot users.

Thx! EDIT: Now it works!

During the two later days, ranking is slower than it used to be. For me it's the same, you just have to wait a little bit more.

Does Wprime validation checksum have to be supplemented with a screenshot, like all the others benchmarks?

Hi all, I have been moderated some of my results, because of the lack of CPU-Z memory screen. This was done on small processors or graphic cards such as pentium 4 s478 or geforce 6200. I understand that when a rule is applied, all the components have to be treated equally. A rule is a rule and with Sarkozy in our country I know what I'm talking about... Just wanted to say that I found unfair that my scores have been deleted when others can keep their Wprime results only by the validation number. What means the validation number of Wprime? Does it refers to a rig? Where can I find the corresponding material used? Also, it sounds unfair for me that "small giving-points results" are so strickly moderated as "high giving-points results". I know that no one but me has to be blamed for my deleted results, but I think that sometimes moderation has to be smoothed. If I miss anything, please just tell me.

Really good job made by jmke! Thank you very much!

Hi all, I just wanted to know why the HelpCenter is so permanently full of requests. Does it work fine or does it cost a lot of time for the crew to make new categories? I'm not telling that the crew is not doing its job and I can imagine how hard it is to maintain updated such a big database, but I was just wondering...

Ticket ID: 91 Priority: Low Please add this CPU.\r\n\r\nhttp://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=406169\r\n\r\nThank you.

Ticket ID: 14 Priority: Medium Hi can you please add SiS 760GX intigrated chispet.\r\n\r\nI don\'t have any GPU-Z screen because it\'s not supported, even by the last release.\r\n\r\nHere is a link : http://s.trepout.free.fr/Others/OC/Benchz!/GPU/SIS%20760GX/760GX%20-%2001%20-%201642.JPG\r\n\r\nThank you!

This is happening often. The first person to submit the score has the better score.

Ok thank you.

Hello, this results seems weird... http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=724540 There is no information about the GPU used and also we don't see which resolution was used. If a proof of a high overclock of the CPU was given I could believe this score... but no screenshot the CPU... I think it has been submitted at the wrong place. Thanks for your huge work!

Thanks, The resolution is lacking... I just have to do them again.

Hi, I submitted several results with my Geforce 6800 Ultra AGP. The 4 3Dmark benchmarks were submitted and only the 2001 and 2005 are valid. I can't understand why... Here are the links: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=693069 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=692246 Can anyone (a modo) tell me why these results have been moderated? Thanks.

I don't know much about the technical aspects for the connection between the two GPU on the 3870X2 board but in CPUs the connection between two cores (as in a C2D) is diferent from the connection between two CPU sockets on a motherboard or not? Or it's just shorter? If we put 3870X2 boards (and the futures multi GPU graphic cards) in the CF/SLI ranking don't we take the risk of having - in the future - no new card in the single card ranking?

I voted for Single Card ranking. I think that the fact that there are two GPUs on this card is the evolution of the material. Dual Core CPUs are becoming the minimum configuration and the same thing will happen for graphic cards. There is no difference in the ranking between single core CPUs, dual core CPUs and quad core CPUs ; Wprimes, and 3Dmark06 are dominated by people who own a more than quad core CPU solution. This will be like this until octo core solution arrive. For the HD3870X2, it's the same thing, they are on the top of the ranking, but just before that, Geforces 8800 were at the top level. The ranking will evolve by its own when new graphic cards will arrive. CF of HD3870X2 exists so I think we have to consider that we can't do less than one HD3870X2 so it have to be considered as a single card solution. Regards.