George_o/c

Wow, have you tried it ? What's the score ? Less than 100 marks ?

Roflmao !

What CPU-Z incident ?

No

But after some point, more irams won't help, am I right ? You won't be able to publish your score to ORB, if a lot of irams in raid0 are used ... BTW, yesterday I spent an hour or so to bench PCMark Vantage ... Nice benchmark, but futuremark indirectly forces you to buy the advanced license With the trial key, you can only view your score once

Οf course you can't ... it's getting ridiculous though ... How are we ever going to know if something is valid or not ... Validation ---> can be hacked Screenshot ---> can be edited/photoshop-ed Video ---> Cheat program could easily run at the "background", without being spotted

No, you mis-understood me ... I saw that Pieter replied to me, and I told him, that the aim of my post was to inform the HWbot crew I didn't want in any way to insult the rest of you guys, on the contrary I admire and appreciate the hard work coming from all of you

Ok Pieter, I just wanted to inform the hwbot crew in case you didn't know I'm not in a hurry or sth

Pieter, same thing happening again While the results I was talking about in post #6 are now ranked, 2 results I submitted this morning are not ranked

I can confirm that too I posted 2 scores yesterday, and still no verification ... (1 of 'em updated so, it's actually 1 score )

There is something weird going on here ... But I can't figure out exactly what can be blamed for that ... I did my testing in two different Win XP installations (sorry gpr, but my Vista + SP1 nLited installation wouldn't run wPrime - have to create a new one ) ... One of them is my crappy one year installation (win xp pro + sp2), and the other one a fresh Win XP pro + sp2 nLited one ... In the first one I used Olive Luna theme (from my tests, it's giving me a 0.5 - 0.7sec boost against the Classical one), and in the second one the Windows Classical Theme ... Now, as far as the first one is concerned ... Take a look : v1.43 v1.53 v1.55 v2.00 beta 3 after five runs, with v2.00 beta 3 Then I changed to an other hdd, the one with XP + SP2 nLited (nLited setup) ... classical theme used ... Now I have the photos on my other hdd (so can't post 'em), but I have some videos ... Same mobo, bios settings, rams, ram timings/sub-timings, cpu frequency ... v1.55 = 85.187sec v1.53 = 84.391sec v1.43 = 81.360sec v2.00 beta 3 = 80.422sec What the heck is going on here ??? I have the videos and the photos, I can upload them tomorrow if you want In the meanwhile, you can check out the boost I get from Olive Luna theme ... P.S. Tweaks used ... Real Time priority ... only one ... //EDIT: Just read the thing about beta 2, beta 3 and how they are automatically re-named in beta 1 I've downloaded the beta 3 package, so it's beta 3 anyway

Will do same thing too

So what happened with that ? No CPU-Z DDR/DDR2/DDR3 rankings, no GPU-Z higest freq ?

Coolaler crushed again the WR with his E8600 @ 6320MHz, did 7.203 seconds ... Is it real though ?

Guys what about that ? http://www.hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=22591&postcount=119 Thanks in advance, George

I've noticed that too ... Don't know what this is ... Maybe a problem of imageshack or what ? That's a great idea, about old scores ...

Hello everybody Wanted to show you sth ... AppleWolf (here is his profile http://www.hwbot.org/searchMembers.do?userId=8542&name=AppleWolf), has posted 4 results in the X1650 AGP category, however done with a X1650 PCI-E ... (look at his GPU-Z tab ... ) AppleWolf's 3Dmark 2001 - with a X1650 PCI-E http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=749436 AppleWolf's 3Dmark 2003 - with a X1650 PCI-E http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=749431 AppleWolf's 3Dmark 2005 - with a X1650 PCI-E http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=749432 AppleWolf's 3Dmark 2006 - also with a X1650 PCI-E http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=749433 I reported the scores, and told the reason I did that too, but I've noticed that now I can't report them ... I can assume that means, that hwbot.team has seen them, and didn't notice that we 're talking about a PCI-E X1650 here ? Why didn't AppleWolf ask for a new X1650 PCI-E category, instead of posting scores done with an E8500 + X1650 PCI-E in the AGP category ? Please remove them ... Also : Serban's 3Dmark 2005 score (here it is : http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=746643) has no verification AT ALL ! ... If you press the link to forumpost you will find yourself here ... http://www.xtrempc.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?p=612268#612268 In Serban's post, you will find the submission but no image (unless they have removed the image 'cause the result is two years old ?) ... Here's what I see anyway ... Monstru's 3Dmark 2003 is also wrong ... He is using a X1650Pro ... http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=752369 <-- his score http://forum.crazypc.ro/showpost.php?p=84401 <-- his link to forumpost (where you clearly see he's using a X1650Pro running at stock clocks (600/800) ... I think we are now ok Please create a new X1650 PCI-E category so that AppleWolf can enjoy his scores Do not delete them, just move them I would be also pleased if you could move the other scores too, in their right category Thanks in advance, my best regards, George

And what about OPB's QX9770 SPi 1M ... I don't exactly remember his time, but I distinctly remember that at 5900+ MHz he got 44.2k pp, while Sam got like 44.77k pp @ 6050MHz ... We all know, that the more MHz are increasing, the more difficult it is to have a pp under 45k At least at mrlobber's SPi 1M WR over at xs, all the tweaks that Sam used were clearly stated He also said that thing about cw (which is amazing, at this speed ), and how he can win about 0.05 seconds), or about the 3 services running and the custom win xp setup In that way, he's coming clear, and everything's fine, his score is no longer questioned, and his SPi reputation is still good [btw Sam, can I ask you sth ? Did you play with MCHBAR ? I think that with your tweaking skills, and some MCHBAR messing with, you are going to be surprised - I'm pretty sure you already know that, don't you ?] But OPB is all the time, hiding ... Why doesn't he mention his tweaks ? Some say that he doesn't mention them, because all the other guys are going to use them and "overtake" him in that benchmarking race ... That's bullshit ! You know why ? Pedro is clearly THE best tweaker in 3D 01 Although, I'm pretty sure that you have seen his threads over at xs, every time or ok, sometimes he mentions the tweaks he used But he's still the 3D 01 tweaking KING, no matter what, and he still posts amazing scores, that NO ONE can touch at the same clocks Every man that has some self-respect should come out clear You cheat ? Admit it ... You don't cheat ? Prove it ... We all know that we live in a world, that telling the truth isn't an ordinary thing, and it's extremely difficult to trust someone, unless he's your friend and you know him personally ... But you guys, are trying to convince us, that we should all trust someone, that we don't know ... IT'S AN INTERNET WORLD FOR CHRIST'S SHAKE !

Dinos, I like it : Keep benchin' it ! Cool Guys well done, I can't even imagine the hard work it takes to get up there ! Hipro, everytime the same thing At first one or two results only to tease us, and then all WRs posted together I'm wondering what your thread title is going to be that time ... So far, " Let's talk about SEX ....... " rocks !

Is sth wrong with that guy ? ... Seriously now ... WTF ? I like Tim's reply in post 2 ...

Congrats man on your 5GHz SPi run with the E8500 I've noticed that you were more careful with your photo this time

That's why in case the validation of xs is not working (it's been some time now ...), we make a nice screenshot with CPU-Z and if you want memset ... Nobody's gonna tell you anything if you do that For example, how on earth can someone know that this SPi 1M run of yours, is an outcome of an E8500 and not a QX9650 for example ... ? http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=706152 Take a look at my screenie for example ...

Where is the problem ... ? I think that the guys were pretty clear about the reasons the blocked your score ... Like it's too difficult to rebench with the latest version of 3D Mark ...

Thanks a zillion times guys !

Holy shit ! This guy's 3D Marks have no resolution AT ALL ... So, that means that he could have faked them all by not using the standard benchmark resolution ? ... I think you 'll have to wait like all of us do ... They have to compete with a huuuuuge amount of results, unfortunately ...