TaPaKaH

http://hwbot.org/submission/2319394 is this your another account, Alvin?

need help?

you might as well have kept the system at stock or even downclocked for some extra humiliation factor

nice board selection

they are allowed for regular submissions (contest rules vary), however, if you use current-gen ES - you will have to move to Pro OC league.

First guy got a pretty automatic ban for score not matching the subtests. Second and third guys are near impossible to prove, they might have just used different cards during a group session, which is allowed.

what an interesting coincidence, when one Hong Kong / HKEPC member is "in trouble", suddenly an new unknown "expert" emerges nice catch, fester

not impressive... ...for Gigabyte

congrats on WR!

I reckon CL4 is mostly for show

I like the voltage

Samsung mem, eh?

you'd have to drink a lot of cocktail real fast for it to contain enough LN2 and create enough pressure to do any damage to your internal organs

@Leeghoofd: are you sure you set CAS write correctly? (either 6 or 7, 8 will be slow)

Try lowering down the CPU clocks to 2-3GHz'ish. If things still don't work well - then it's a compatibility issue. If everything works fine - it's memory quality issue (can't cope with high IMC bandwidth) and in order to have stable behavior at high CPU clocks you'll have to muscle it around with voltage.

what is the batch of this one?

were the mems put cold?

why is a non-knopflerbruce #1 in an obscure AMD category?

internal PSC, no relevance to retail stuff

send this screenshot to Andre, you might get $2.5-3.5k back

this is an old score coming from the times when screenshots weren't mandatory

If OS is indeed the same, then it is normally not possible to have xx.26 seconds as a PiFast time or subtime. Explanation: Normally, PiFast counts time in 1/64s of a second, same as SuperPi. 16/64s = .250s in SuperPi = .25s in PiFast 17/64s = .265/.266s in SuperPi = .27s in PiFast Try looking for 11.26, 12.26, 13.26, ... results in PiFast on hwbot and see how many of those were done using XP. The only way to have .26s on XP is by having OS messed up in a very specific way that both Pi and PiFast will not follow the "1/64s" rule. I remember Hicookie had something similar in Clarkdale times when his records were questioned (5.910s 1M on XP or something like this). From my own experience of nLiting hundreds of XP versions, this bug can emerge only during OS compilation and is permament. Now that you've shown via SuperPi that your OS doesn't have the bug, I have more ground to think that your 10.26s result(s) were bogus. To staff - I'd really hate to derail any tweaking thread, can the "offtopic" posts be moved somewhere else? For example, into the submission discussion thread.

if you still have the exact OS you did PiFast(s) on - can you show any SuperPi calculation at any frequency with any level of optimisation?

You have uploaded at least two different screenshots to your 10.26s submission before selecting that it should be awarded no points. Here they are both still in hwbot database: http://img.hwbot.org/u41156/image_id_847393.png http://img.hwbot.org/u41156/image_id_847721.png On the first one, there is no space between "0.89" and ":" in the division time. Second one is even more badly messed, having "8.89" instead of "0.89", ~0.01 hours next to 10.26s and a letter "g" cut off by the "ASRock Timing configurator" icon. If this isn't photoshopping scores, then I don't know what is.

nice hardware!