I.M.O.G.

Impressive Jonnie!

Nice work Hokie!

When viewing team rankings from your team page and selecting CPU benchmarks, several of the benchmarks display "any" cores, but several display "1x" by default. Could they all display "any" by default?

Nice Work Hokie!

Getting tired of battling dual xeon's at 4GHz vs 7GHz in 8x global rankings. lol

I don't have that issue on my install, weird.

It's a piece of junk with an Asus stamp on it. lol Cheap kits like this can be had various places, but Asus only does theirs thru their marketing people.

Nice run.

It's a good start.

Nice run Dean.

I don't run WEI, but I just enable aero for transparent windows. Don't run WEI and you should be ok.

More often than not, I don't know who a bencher is, but I do know who the top teams are - usually the team is more relevant information to me than the bencher's name. When looking at a submission, it lists their name, their country flag, and their league. Could it list their team name also? I find myself often clicking onto the users profile page to find out what team they are on.

Ahh gotcha. The manual verification makes sense now, it was confusing to look at - there are 11 bulldozers in the top 20, but only 2 listed in the right sidebar. I thought all top 20 globals were manually verified. I see now that there are 2 fx-8150's listed in the right sidebar on that page. For some reason macci's 8.4 shows up lower than tapakah's 8.3. Andreyang's 1st place global must not have been manually verified, as it still lists him in 5th for his old celeron submission.

The main listing at that link is fixed now. The world record section at the top of that page (it lists 8308MHz as the WR), as well as the right sidebar widget on that page still only shows 1x CPU records, not global cpuz world records as one would expect. Again, this isn't really important, but just something I noticed if you want to add it to the backlog as well.

heh, should have titled it "worse than normal" instead of "bad".

Sounds like a pain in the neck. I'd be willing to buy one and ship on your behalf if you want to reimburse. Not hard to get in the US. Better yet, draw my name and you won't have to pay to ship.

Nevermind, I was killing a process that had to do with my 3d drivers, which then caused extra cycles on the CPU. My fx-6100 scores are fixed now, just need to rerun the 8120 wprime submissions.

I'm running on the same OS I use for thuban and deneb, however on Bulldozer if I match frequencies that others are running, my wprime scores suck. For example, wp32m would be .3s behind someone who is running the exact same settings. This happens on both my fx-6100 and fx-8120. I have 1st in most categories on both chips, but to do so I'm running much higher frequencies. I have to run about 300mhz faster than anyone else to match their scores. Any tips on what I might be missing? You can review my submissions at the following url's: http://hwbot.org/search/submissions/permalink?username=I.M.O.G.&cpuId=2398 http://hwbot.org/search/submissions/permalink?username=I.M.O.G.&cpuId=2457

What's in the PCMSecret folder?

Cool, not urgent. Thanks.

Bump.

When on this page: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/ And clicking rankings, I'm taken here: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings#start=0#interval=20 That only displays 1x core frequency rankings. It should display any core rankings.

I've got a cheap temp probe that reads -170-171C if you dip it in LN2 and when its in the base of a full pot at idle. Under load on wprime, it reads -165-166C. That's on the Dark. Do you have any source claiming increased mass on the F1 dark? I've used both it and the original F1EE, and its been a while since I looked at the original F1EE, but as far as I can tell there isn't any difference between them... Other than the outside of the dark looking more blingy. Nice run by the way, good frequency. If the chip does 8.5GHz, what are you waiting for on the submission?

Ya, it is in my testing, but I haven't tested other browsers. But running IE9 and tweaking its settings isn't exactly a nuclear secret dude. People have been around the block with using and tweaking it... Including myself on W764, vista64, and server 08 r2 in the past couple weeks. Submitting a 1st place WR on PCMark05, including a subtest which is wildly out of order with anyone else in the top 20, on a subtest with known exploits. Why are you asking me questions rather than him? Give him the Gluvocio special! @K404: With IE9 and basic tweaks 20-30 pages/sec is especially common. This is me with ie9, disabled addons, disabled security, etc: http://hwbot.org/image/697138.jpg The best scores are grouped in the 40's mostly. There is literally only 1 person in the 50's on this subtest, and 1 person in the 60's. The person in the 50's was running a 5.2GHz Sandybridge. The person in the 60's was using a 5.7GHz sandybridge.

My teammates corrected me, and I just reread this thread and realize that alternative browsers are still not allowed per the rules/statements made by Massman. I'm not worried about which way the rules go - I'll do whatever the rules say we can do. Right now the rules say IE only, but it seems suspicious the highest score ever in pcmark05 has a web rendering score 10-20 pages/s higher than anyone else: http://3dmark.com/pcm05/3119312 Youngpro demonstrated how to hit 60 in web page rendering here, by using a different web browser: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?240156-PCMARK05-testing