Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

1Day

Members
  • Posts

    601
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 1Day

  1. 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.

     

     

    Yes - dual GPU cards are allowed.

     

     

    Or

     

     

     

    No - only single core graphic cards are allowed.

     

    Based on what MM has said :P or not. My interpretation is this.

     

     

    Any single DX11 graphic card regardless of number of cores can compete.

  2. 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. :)

  3. 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.

  4. 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 ...

  5. Speaking frankly, given that I have shown that all CPU-Z versions work correctly, and that is the only proof that can realistically be excepted, I think the submissions that are supposedly mis-read should be placed in the category that CPU-Z reads them. Any other excuse is simply exploiting a hole in the verification process, and opens the database up to intentional mis-representation of identified processors using the same excuse.

     

    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

  6. I don't know what to say man. Only your submissions are mis-read?

     

    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. :)

×
×
  • Create New...