yee245

UL/FM is actually pretty quick at adding hardware (at least in my experience with sample size of 1). I think it took them about 1.5 days before they added the i7-5775R, Pentium G5500, and Quadro P1000 to their database after submitting a support ticket.

CPU-Z validation link indicates 493.2 for the memory, but I could only get a screenshot with it showing 493.1. Close enough?

Can I get one of my submissions removed from the competition? https://hwbot.org/submission/4589377 I accidentally forgot to change the cache speed down to 4.5GHz, and it was at 4.8GHz during this run. I've already submitted a (lower score) replacement for it.

Can this motherboard be added? Thanks in advance. EVGA X299 Micro 2 (121-SX-E296-KR) I added the part number, since that's how the other EVGA boards seem to be in the system (the manufacturer product page) http://valid.x86.fr/2z0exg

Can this motherboard be added? Thanks. Dell 0HN7XN http://valid.x86.fr/4a0q4s

Dell Latitude E5470

Damn, I thought I had figured out the cheap/easy way to do that 4-way SLI. ?

Are Xeons allowed in general anywhere that they meet the requirements, or is it only where explicitly stated? For example, a quad core Xeon for 3D06 DDR4, hex-core Xeon for 3D03 DDR3, etc.

I suspect it is messed up somehow, since my submission for that stage hasn't shown up for a week and a half (though MetalRacer's would replace mine, as it's higher on the same socket), even though we only have 5 submissions that are registering, and it should allow 6, and we don't have an LGA 1366 score counted either. It's probably because keeph8n has a submission on a R3E of 266MHz, which is essentially out-scoring mine and MetalRacer's, causing neither to be counted, but also has that M9A score of 463MHz that is counted. From stuff that had happened in a previous team event, I think he (or a mod) would need to go and delete that submission to "open the door" for other team members' scores to be counted.

I was actually looking at some theoretical combos for stage 8, and I don't think just having a really good 2080Ti score is sufficient to guarantee winning the stage. Looking at the 2080 Ti scores for 3DMark06, it looks like the top score is 77,446, followed by 74,928, and those are with 8-core CPUs, so I'd imagine with the 4-core limitation, scores would only be lower. Having a good Vega 11 score for integrated graphics score seems like it could bring in somewhere around 24k points (or somewhere in the 20k range with other integrated graphics (and I'd have no idea how the Vega M's would do, since there are no results with them yet)). Then a team could add another 9-15k from an AGP card (because there's already a couple submissions at around 12k and 15k). Being able to bring in close to 35k points from just integrated and AGP could potentially overcome a high 2080Ti score, I would imagine. And I'm not even really sure what the hybrid category is (is it just an AMD APU crossfired with a select dedicated cards?)... I feel like it's still balanced enough that it's not just a "how has the fastest 2080Ti" stage. If anything, it's more likely going to be a battle of the teams that can muster really any PCI card, since they're realistically only going to be adding a a few thousand points anyway...

The main Team Cup 2019 thread mentions a restriction of up to 6 cores for server CPUs for Stage 7 (dogpile), but I didn't see any mention of that restriction on the competition page. As such, it looks like there are a handful of submissions with 8-core Xeons. What's the ruling on this? https://hwbot.org/submission/4232261 https://hwbot.org/submission/4226821 https://hwbot.org/submission/4226820 https://hwbot.org/submission/4226818 https://hwbot.org/submission/4209929

I think it's because Frito's submission with a GTX 780 Ti with 4327 (https://hwbot.org/submission/3977017) is somehow registering in the system as being higher for the GTX 700 series, but at the same time not being counted towards the team score. I thought that his score might have been glitched, since it was one of the first submitted after the stage was changed from Time Spy Extreme back to normal Time Spy (if I recall), but marco.is.not.80's GTX 1080 Ti score is being counted, and it was submitted prior to Frito's.

Just curious for stage 10 (Time Spy) why Frito's GTX 780 Ti submission (https://hwbot.org/submission/3977017) isn't being counted towards the US team score over either the GTX 580/680 scores. My submission with a GTX 770 (https://hwbot.org/submission/4006549) I would presume is being "blocked" by Frito's, and is therefore not being used either, but both of the submissions are higher than either of those other two.

I was just poking around at some of the scores, and for Time Spy in Stage 10, it looks like my submission with a GTX 770 at 2789 points isn't being counted. Looking at it more carefully, it looks like it wouldn't be counted because of a prior submission by Frito with a GTX 780 Ti with a score of 4327, which also isn't being counted towards the team total. Just curious why the system isn't picking up either, as they've both higher scores than the lowest two for the USA. It also looks like Stages 2, 3, and 10 have some submissions from one user using a Xeon E5-1650 v3.

For stage 10, can the number of submissions required be added back to the title?

The duplicate entries hadn't gone away yesterday when I looked, so I had initiated another recalculation, but they still seem to be there.

Doesn't appear to have done anything, unless the recalculations usually take longer than a few minutes. I think I had tried the recalculation before I had posted previously as well. I'm still seeing my duplicate on R15, and the many duplicates on XTU.

I was poking around the other day, and I noticed an issue where multiple submissions for the same user and same benchmark (and same CPU) would show up multiple times in the rankings. I have (at least) one instance of it myself in the Core i3 8100 Cinebench R15 scores, where both of my submissions (615 and 621) show up. I appear to be getting hardware points for both submissions (only a half a point each), where I assume it's supposed to give points only on the best result. The bigger offender that I saw was the Core i3 8100 XTU rankings, where one of the users (claudiohonio) has 14 of the top 21 results, each awarding hardware points (9.1 to 16.7 points each), and also giving him the silver and bronze cups and both the 4th and 5th place medals. Taking a look through his other submissions, mainly XTU, it appears this is happening in the Core i7 8550U, Core i7 7500U, and i3 5005U XTU results, among others. In his top 40 hardware points, five of the Core i7 7500U scores, three of the Core i3 5005U scores, and another couple duplicates are all being counted towards the hardware points for the league ranking. I'm not trying to single out that one user, but I just happened to notice the i3-8100 XTU rankings and figure it could be a system-wide bug that could allow for points padding by effectively submitting multiple top (similar) results for a particular benchmark, boosting the number of submissions, which would cause more points to be awarded, all to the same user. Or, the issue might have been fixed, and these sorts of results wouldn't have been resolved.