GENiEBEN

Yes.

Open source, that's how we like it. Looks like I got a new DIY to start and never finish

Taken away 2 years ago

Do you mean this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7LwI1tJ08joTHpneEMyaXNaeEE/edit?usp=sharing

Yes, post here or PM the pictures.

Fixed.

Nice, 10pts from SSE3>SSE4 switch

I think you will have to add it again, I can't edit the validation link for some reason...

Exactly, the Passwords checked have to be in ascending order. Try 2,4,64 SSE2(or 3), should be good.

nop, it was ok until thread 52

Try running just one instruction set at a time, SSE2 should be the fastest for that chip. You can try my settings as well, http://hwbot.org/submission/2544557_genieben_ucbench_2011_core_2_p8400_(2.26ghz)_303.5_mpt_score

http://forum.hwbot.org/showpost.php?p=308543&postcount=29

Still bugged.

Yeah mate plenty bugged results, even I have 170ish bugged ones.

Why did you pick 58 out of ALL those threads before it, score was bugged starting with thread 5, and how did you even end up with 58/2=14 (29)

^ Started working on it, just on hold until I can deal with real life stuff. Yes we (I) would, it's just the crapload of PM's you have to answer after you delete the scores that's going to take time :\

SlimKat, Dalvik, sio gov.

Please correct the screenshot according to rules: http://hwbot.org/news/10034_application_93_rules/

I wasn't aware you (still) had my Cinebench copies

Yes, please no bidding.

Except it never is bugged on default settings, I know what you meant. Will update my post tonight with the answers I gave through PM's.

You are correct.

What Crabby said. Thanks for pointing it out, you are correct, those numbers were for the dual-core cpus, should have picked new ones for 4c/4t. The cpu can actually complete those even threads without carrying over to next thread selection. X3 with 3,15,60 = good X3 with 4,16,64 = bad X6 with 6,24,60 = good

If you're reading this post than you probably had a blocked UCBench score. What we once considered "luck" turned out to be a design flaw of the benchmark, documented by a fellow member of the HWBOT community (credits pending) and personally tested for veracity. TL;DR: The Passwords Checked column must be in ascending order (A<B<C etc) How to make sure you're not going to get a bugged score: Make sure that thread selected divided to total available threads (cpu threads) is not an odd number. Let's take an example: -cpus=24,53,60 ; with a physical CPU that has 4 threads (4c/4t, 2c/4t). Benchmark only cares about every other second thread (24,53,60 -- A,B,C,D,E,). This example will be bugged since 53 divided by 4 will result into an odd number (13) AND is also second in line. If we were to rearrange our original choice, we could return a valid result using: 24,60,53. Notice that since second number divided by 4 is now an even number, the result won't be affected. We will refer to this rule as "A<B<C", in case you're wondering what mambo-jumbo were talking. Speaking of which, scores that resemble "A>B~C" are technically bugged but they will be at moderator's choice, with the chance of staying in the rankings. =================================================== UPDATE 16 May 2014: TL;DR UPDATE 22 June 2014: Typo in A<B<C

Bugged.