r1ch

I think that statement is very unfair. As a team participating in a competition, we will do what we can to compete with the other teams on a level playing field, within the rules. At the moment, we are at a disadvantage as we could gain more points from taking the approach of having multiple people in a single account but are not. Using your own words, we are not yet "abusing" the system, whereas you seem to imply that these other multiple person teams are? I don't think that's what you meant to say, but that's how you have said it. All that I, and other members from benchtec, are calling for, is a clarficiation of what's allowed and what's not. If multiple person teams are allowed, some of us will not agree with the decision, but we will accept it. We will look into this and organise it so we can gain more points. If they're not allowed, then those teams will need to be seperated, and I'm fine with knopflerbruce's suggestion that this is done over a period of time. Until that decision is taken by hwbot, I think this thread has come to an end.

To really break things down so it's hopefully simpler to understand, i'll try and explain what I think the main issues are. Single Person example: £500 for hardware 10 hours per week for benching = No chance of global points = Same limitations for 2 other members. Group of 3 people: £1500 for hardware (Hardware points without trying) 30 hours per week for benching (Lots of time to share overclock settings) = Global points galore. The problem is that we are all competing in a "member" ranking. How is 1 person vs 3 people a fair contest? The hwbot team are right to say that if you combined peoples current point scores, you wouldn't get more points so that argument is wrong. But the main point is that looking forward, if 3 team members teamed up it would open doors and points not available to a single person. Think about this in the worst scenario and you could have the top 10 "members" on hwbot being groups of people - is that right? No. I'll admit I don't know what the solution is.

Here here. If wprime 2.0 had been made to submit with a version number in the string, then we wouldn't have a problem. As they didn't, and we now have a version of wprime that can 'get around' the hwbot rules, the rules need to be changed. Even if hwbot release a version 2.1, there's still 2.0. If they re-released 2.0, then people would just download un-official mirrors of the 1st 2.0. All that is future thinking though...what about situation today. Why should it be up to wPrime authors when a screenshot is 100% sufficient proof? If you're suggesting a screenshot isn't enough proof, then we've got a big problem with a lot of scores. The rules NEED to be changed, now. If I'm out of order then I hope a hwbot admin will PM me with a good reason.

Another well done from me on the updates, i love the autofill data - I was only saying last week how annoying it was to have to keep typing the same stuff in. Thanks.

I can, and no doubt other people can. I would offer to take screenshots for each step but it isn't difficult. jmke, who is a moderator here on hwbot has said that he knows it can be done - could you not speak with him and come to a decision? I can not understand why the rules haven't changed yet. Forgive me for starting to bang on about it, but people are getting away with submitting wprime 2.0 scores! Make the decision to enforce screenshots now, before wprime becomes a complete farce (pre 1.55/1.55/online 2.0). Please.

Hwbot, please can you sort this out. I raised this with Massman via PM as long ago as 21st January in order to try and avoid it being public, but nothing has been done. Now it is public, I am sure there are wprime 2.0 scores being submitted by dishonest people that would want to cheat without being caught. This situation was completely avoidable.

Kenny, that'll probably be "a litre" in Belgium

I think you're contradicting yourself Kenny... Because the hardware is now good enough to give scores similar to software based tweaks, the aim *should* be to find a way of differentiating. Removing points would not be a "solution" to the problem, it would just hide it.

Based on this theory only, would you like to remove points from 3DMark01 from the 3d tests because it was not designed to be run on GTX 295's? Or 8800GTX's? Or 7900GT's? Where do you draw the line? The whole aim for PCM is OS speed. If you have Vista installed on a RAIDed SSD's or an ACARD ramdrive, even if only with a low end Core 2 chip, it'll still be faster than a i7 965. That's perfectly fine, because it should be. Stick to Superpi/wprime/pifast for CPU benching, 3dmark for GPU and PCM for HDD benching. Some people prefer to bench only CPU, some GPU, some HDD. Let them. What about something incredibly simple like requiring a screenshot showing a specific HDD benching program to verify the drive/drives used like HDTach or HDTune or something? I know it's simple, but is that enough?

SF3D, proste, and all those in favour of banning PCM05, think about it this way. Some people (including me) kicked up a fuss when the 9800GX2 and other dual-gpu, single slot graphics cards came out because those who'd worked hard with LN2 on a 1GPU card (8800 Ultra etc.) were suddenly being beaten by stock 9800GX2 for global points. It's not exactly the same, but the reasoning behind your argument is the same.. i.e Simply buy a piece of hardware that immediately boosts scores because it's better. I-RAM's have been allowed, ACARD's drive, and SSD's are just a newer technology of that. If you don't like to spend money on HDD tech, just don't bench PCM05. Just because you don't want to, doesn't mean there shouldn't be points. For those that do, let them have their expertise in tweaking it recognised. That's my opinion PS. I do think we need to have a way of ruling out software based ramdrives though, but sadly I can't help with how.

DXdiag also shows current screen resolution as 1440x900, and GPU-Z shows the screen is a Syncmaster 19" which is incapable of the 1280x1024 resolution required to run 3DMark06. The user appears to be willing to photoshop both GPU-Z and 1280x1024 onto the resolution. Cheater. *sigh*

He does, but this one overrides it. http://hwbot.org/hwbot.post.do?postId=872 And the first comment by jmke: "if you have an older score (before 15/5) which was blocked for this reason; please don't hesitate to contact the mods in this thead: http://www.hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1787 posting the URL of the score that was blocked; thanks!"

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=689732'>http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=689732 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=673816 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=693269 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=677496 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=689732 Blocked before AM3 rules updated. Sorry I don't know if they'll score points or not now, but should be unblocked. Thanks.

I know I said I wouldn't post again, but I think you missed my point so this is my final reply. Look at the things you definitely don't know, which could contribute to a huge point difference, probably +/- 50%. i.e AMD/Intel, model, cache. RAM and timings. GFX core/mem clocks, driver used, SLI? Sub-test scores. My main point it, it's not about the score, whether it's out of line, or how many points it got. It's about that screenshot being 'enough' for a score that doesn't appear to be 'out of line', which I don't think it is. Thanks for your replies

I understand what you're saying jmke, thanks for explaining the mods perspective on this. However. I understand the results aren't recent, but does this matter? I agree the scores aren't 'out of line' but the required parts of the screenshot, even for 1 year old results, aren't there. That means that there can be results after 6 months that come up as questionable. The one that i'd suggest creates the most debate (the rest are me being a bit picky) is this one: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=638110 There's no proof at all there. I'm not saying it's a cheat, but there's just no justification of anything. It's not about this one result, it's whether a result like this should be allowed to stand. Sorry to drag this on, this is the last I'll post on it so it doesn't carry on. Just wanting to create the point of discussion so it's clear for everyone what the rules are. Thanks

I don't want to have a go at hwbot, I think you guys do a fantastic job here and I am very grateful. From the rules: This is very clear, but what is the point if the real rule is that the score is "not suspicious"? If a screenshot without a CPU-Z window is ok, why is it required? And worse still, if these results are accepted, what is to stop someone running a bench at default settings, photoshopping the points to a higher score and then typing in the requred cpu/gpu mhz and approriate cooling method to make the score 'not suspicious'? I am not accusing anyone of cheating, I am asking why there are rules that don't need to be followed.

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=589614 - FM link broken? http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=658677 - no CPU-Z? http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=676877 - resolution blocked? http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=658673 - no CPU-Z? http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=638110 - no CPU-Z/GPU-Z/Sub scores not shown http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=657566 - gpu-z blocked, no cpu-z, no sub scores Is there a reason that demiurg has allowed some of these results after I reported them the first time without them satisfying the submission criteria? I don't understand.

Great post S_A_V. Will a mod go through his results and block every score that has insufficient validation? I noticed a couple and only clicked a few links. Maybe he'll a bit more polite in asking for them to be unblocked if he repeats the scores. *sigh* Keep up the good work hwbot

I know it's small in the grand scheme of things, but I'm waiting for 5+ gold cups and about 20 points. That would have put me into the top #100 (a major milestone for me) but now I wont make it. Some people seem to get their requests added almost instantly, yet the rest of us have to wait months... I know there's a backlog, and I'm grateful to the people that give us hwbot, but can things at least be dealt with fairly please.

Bump? Please?!?! PS. I appreciate richba5tard was away for a long time.

Please?!!?!

Can I suggest that it might be a good idea to leave this poll open for longer than friday evening as there were complaints that the decision from the last poll was made too early, even though the poll was left open. At least the end of the weekend, as I'm sure there will be a few people sign on at the weekend that will want to feel like they have had their chance. I'm really torn with my choice though, maybe I'm playing for extra time to decide!

Simply, yes. The rules very very clearly state v1.55 should be used. If you do, when the score is spotted by someone else it will be blocked as the notes will show it was not added by wprime v1.55 - it is possible to tell. Plus guys, come on. If you feel the need to run v1.53 just to beat someone in a benchmark and CHEAT, then you really need to sort your life out. I'll admit the rule is frustrating to some, but it's impossible to please everyone with this situation.

XP can officially only support up to 2 GPU's with Vista required for 3 or 4 GPU configurations. Hacked drivers would be responsible for anything different. What's hwbot's policy on this? Anything goes? /Off topic DirectX 10 is posible under Windows XP - I got it working: http://www.digitalreport.net/content/view/90/1/ As all DX10 games are expecting to be run on Vista, there's a whole host of problems you come up against when installing and running the games. e.g 3DVantagee just won't install. Crysis needs you to swap some files around and even then still says it's running DX9 "Very High" mode. Crysis frequently locks up and crashes even when it does run. I'd classify it as a proof of concept or alpha release at the moment, not practical for use or benchmarks yet.

Hi, can you add this graphics card please and move my results into it once it's created please? 01 - http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=756175 03 - http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=756176 05 - http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=756177 06 - http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=756178 AM - http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=756179 Also, there's a Geforce Go 6150 category, but there are two versions. One with 2 ROP's, and mine with 1 ROP (lol ). I have submitted to the category along with the 2 ROP cards, but can another category be created for my Go 6150? 01 - http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=756193 03 - http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=756194 05 - http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=756195 06 - http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=756196 AM - http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=756197 Thanks a lot guys, really appreciate the hard work. r1ch