1Day

Nice reply definitive and to the point.

MM please give direct answers. Not all HWBOT members participating are English speaking and have your understanding of semantics. Clarity is best when discussing rules my friend. I susspect that the OP question would have liked a definitive answer along the line of the two I have provided as examples. Based on what MM has said or not. My interpretation is this. Any single DX11 graphic card regardless of number of cores can compete.

Are we meant to have the official wallpaper as backgorund here for this stage as well?

Seems the result is not valid. Please check that sort of thing before submitting. Nice CPU:)

Congratulations Sam - I know how hard you have been working towards this goal.

@ amir-star You need to include the details of the sub-tests in your screen shot. Or the submission is not valid. Please correct this in your latest submissions. Considering you are in the top 50 I would have thought you where aware of that requirement. Nice benching

Thread no longer servers any purpose. Thread closed.

It is all good mate - we all need to let off a bit of steam sometime. At the end of the day we all want our sport to be clean as they say. So sometimes we have to cull a perfectly good result just to make sure that we can stay as clean as we possibly can. Not perfect, but it is what we have right now. So thanks for manning up and saying that you were venting. Appreciate that. All good. Merry Christmas by the way.

For your information - if you cover the settings that a benchmark is run at, any and all moderators will block those reported scores each and every time. Basic stuff that any bencher should know. Never block the settings that the bench was run at. So do it right and your scores will be bullet proof as Maxi said.

Pieter I think it would be very sad if any historical data is lost. I do not think that any of the historical stuff should be included for ranking however, that would as you say be against the practices of the BOT. A museum of benching and overclocking, or a historical repository if you prefer would be a great idea. Now... What are the implications with respect to hosting, copyright of the material (images and such) do the original owners of the benchmark results have any rights? There is a whole heap of things that would need to be sorted I suspect. But they are mere detail and can be worked out. Great idea.

Sometimes we just have to trust each other.

Yes there was an announcement a few months back about main-board tab being required. Not sure why the rules have not been updated as yet. While the SS has.

Scott I really have no working solution at this time. I wish that we did. But as I said I did not think that CPU-z was/is infallible. Nor for that matter are any of the other benchmarks or validation applications fool proof. All things can be subverted if someone tries hard enough. We do therefore have to take the vast majority of submissions on trust. But it is also sadly true that some members do intentionally misrepresent, or to use my term cheat. And yes I do know that was not what you were accusing Sam of. You were very clear in your concern about how the benchmarks can be abused because of this anomaly. And for that I thank you. Maybe a stop gap fix would be to include a photo of the CPU that was benched, of a suitable resolution to clearly show the official markings and the bridge. Not very elegant, and certainly not enforceable under the generic rules but we can but appeal to the better nature of bencher. And hope ...

The premise that CPU-z is infallible is sadly not true. I have seen far to many submissions that are perfectly valid submissions but have had some anomaly present in the CPU-z. However I totally agree with you that the current state of affairs is not acceptable and the fluidity in verification that seems to be the case with this particular sub-set of CPU's needs some kind of fix. What that fix is I do not know, as yet. But we are working at it as staff I can assure you. Just so we are one the same page here - Intentional misrepresentation = cheating in my lexicon. Edit: Ah to slow to day I am. Alex you are too quick

Hmm, strange that the first result I looked at in the Athlon XP 1700+ Palomino was misread. http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/875171_tiborrr_cpu_z_athlon_xp_1700_palomino_2136.06_mhz I think there is a systemic failure by CPU-z to correctly read and identify the CPU's in this particular sub-set from AMD consistently. Mr.Scott if you think otherwise please speak plainly and state what it is you suspect.

And you can delete any oops submissions yourself. I often have to. I keep submitting 3Dvantage as 3Dmark for some reason. And if it was not for the opps option of delete I would look pretty silly at times.

Personally think it is a bad idea to provide special treatment and 'give' a free ticket to a women s team.. I agree with Kenny on this one. Skill within a region should be the only criteria.

Sure did... The server had a few issues a while ago and about 3000 images (the full size versions) were lost. Nothing the bot could do to get them back sadly.

And freeze the suckers Some how do not think the one goes without the other at this stage. Maybe you have found a way Sam?

Did you notice the ORB url? Select the more tab and to see it

Out of interest just who are you shouting at? You do know that capitals are considered shouting on the web, no you could not have known that becuse there is no way you would be that rude. Or at least I hope not.

Cos there seems to be a small glitch in the system I suspect. Please bare with us till it is sorted.

No the screen-shot that you posted of the 2001SE benchmark will not be acceptable once the new rules are introduced, regardless of the ORB link.

Nick that is outstanding mate - really nice to see the card being pushed so expertly on its first official day out.

To me it seems you still have 214 points.