TaPaKaH

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!

impressive overclock!

an idea for Christian Ney:

how's the IMC in these Ivy i3s?

impressive CH

If I recall correctly, Maxmem was added back in the day "just to see if it works out". Obviously, it didn't, so why bother keeping it?

go perica!

Let the sandbagging begin!

just ask for 840QM to be added

can't you return rejects to the shop in 14/21 days after purchase?

for those who don't understand - it's blocked because it's fake and not because "someone" doesn't want to see this on the top

neither of your chips seems actually good, but if you have only two to select from - I'd keep the second

I just tried it on IE5 and it indeed is not being rendered properly. Right sidebar with ranks and sponsors is at the bottom of the page, also some margins are wrong.

I might pay you a visit once ... if you don't mind

very unusual motherboard selection, good job

I'd bench on the Abit, unless it's a Willamette which it doesn't support