Antinomy

You don't get the point. HWBot is not about competition (I hope nobody sees this ) it's about a hardware database. When you can look through results that others achieved and grab info from there. It's not about result moderating, but making browsing easier and more convenient.

Looks like you definitely aren't familiar with Jack Sparrow's words from Pirates of the Caribbean when he was "lending" a ship He went a bit more far in similar thoughts. And no, I think you don't (hey, you started talking about you, not me, OK?) understand the reasons. It's not about authority. It's about what people expect others to do and what those others do actually. And if it's up to my words I wasn't speaking of you personal. I don't want to make biting jokes cause you take it too close to your heart.

Ticket ID: 1122 Priority: Medium If you remember, some time ago the CPU-Z validation moved to Canard PC. So did the validation links.\r\nThe old links looked like this: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc?id=122261\r\nIf you look at it, it won\'t be available.\r\nBut if you make it \"show_oc\" to => \"show_oc.php\" then it works fine, like this:\r\nhttp://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=122261\r\n\r\nSo I suggest RB to run a replace script using this mask so that all links will be fine. They can be both in validation link and comments so if it\'s possible, replace all.\r\n\r\nThanks in advance

Some might think so. I don't - I prefer to ask whether it is so

That's only half of the answer

There should be an apostrophe in the last choice. "Where's" And the logo made me laugh, it's a great one! I'm afraid, my GF won't let me print it in A2 format over my bed

Yeah, it's always like that - about 3-4 messages from the accused and accuser and ten pages of posts made by yelling friends from each side So I agree about invisible threads if I understand it correctly.

Since the first reason to report is suspicion, sometimes you can't be 100% sure. So it's about one user claiming another cheating which is quite serious. If the reporter was wrong it gives bad reputation to both sides. Can you explain what does non-visible threads mean? The won't be visible to anyone except the reporter and moderators? And is this a "forget the old stuff and start from a blank page" or will you return to cases reported to you, RB and Maxi via PM and here: http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1787 but left without any attention? Or is it about politics when someone is uncomfortable to be punished so the punishment shrinks to a silent clean-up? Thank you in advance I sincerely do not understand starting a new level in processing such cases without closing the old ones.

Yes it is. That's why I suggested to attach photos for CPUs that can't be verified by sure using software. The staff said that they won't accept this. Still, there is a way to add protection to CPU-Z. And we can work on it together right after I finish at least some of my projects

Well, that ones pretty easy to answer. The CPU string is set by BIOS. It sets a rating according to Quantispeed formula (if anyone remembers what it is). If you boot at high FSB speed, the BIOS will read and set rating according to the frequency. But you can boot at normal speed and overclock via Clockgen this will save the CPU string. And yet there are others ways saying short - the CPU string isn't a source for info, unfortunately.

Mr. Scott, that is not the full answer. There are ways to make CPU-Z detect some of the cheats with Socket A Though, there are more simple things to fix in CPU-Z that's why I'm working on them at the moment. And there is a way to tell a Sempron from a AthlonXP-M Just need to confirm it works in all cases and add it to CPU-Z

Thanks!

Massy, by feedback do you mean ideas on what it should be able to trace out? As I understand, the cheat-proofing feature list is closed from public? I'll give you some ideas soon.

chispy, it won't help to avoid cheating As for the database - you can fill in the MoBo line if you like in the results description.

Bruce, that's why http://hwbot.org/community/submission/1067426_

Very nice, Ananerbe! You always show impressive middle-end hardware fun

Done

Voted No! Reasons are the same as the guys before me said - stability, fittability (sometimes it hard to get even Spi+2*CPU-Z). Get an S3 Trio 64 and make a run at 1024*768. During 3D the Aquamarks and 3DMark06 windows are very big and you need to open GPU-Z in addition. If you want and are able to put it on screen, do it. And I do sometimes (kinda lazy, but I'll try to get it more often). Otherwise - it's not vital. And it won't help with cheating for sure (is that the main reason to make in mandatory?). Cheat proofing should either not make life harder or 99% make cheating harder. The subject doesn't fit any.

It's not a "CPU-Z with Banias" problem. It's a "CPU-Z with Dothan" problem - no model numbers.

Yes, and it's not the only one. I suppose it's a CPU-Z mistake that the model numbers of Dothan CPUs are not detected correctly and people posted them in the wrong place. I'll figure what the error is, report on the submissions and write another letter to Franck Delattre, don't worry Karl, This isn't totally true http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium_M/Intel-Ultra%20low%20voltage%20Pentium%20M%201.1%20GHz%20RJ80535UC0051M.html http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium_M/Intel-Low%20voltage%20Pentium%20M%201.3%20GHz%20RJ80535LC0131M.html http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium_M/Intel-Pentium%20M%201.5%20GHz%20RH80535GC0211M%20%28BXM80535GC1500E%29.html The interesting fact is that earlier versions of CPU-Z showed Pentium M 735 correctly and the latter don't. And CPU-Z doesn't differ the usual Pentium M from LV and ULV and that is bad since there were model from both families working on the same frequency.

Very nice work, Opty! I'll give you a few tips for your benching

Massy, you mean this thread? I do see 3 pages of replies here, don't you? Or you mean another thread?

Not answering is not equal to being a good listener JK.

OK, you've been speaking about BM rankings, which kinda confused me And about the "novice" question - this is true but OTOH instead of teams moving intense - to most point-awarded categories they'll go extensive - to the rare ones. I mean - 3-way and 4-way SLI for a big variety of cards, oldware, rareware and so on. I think this is very positive as starting from rev. 3 the rare and old categories were deserted as the weren't awarded good. You can compare the number of results for 3-way and 4-way SLI/CF for non-top cards. I think is pretty low - it's better to bench another popular card than two identical ones going falling into an unpopular category. Oh, your article is nice but big, reading it out ATM

You're talking about benchmark ranking. Does this mean that the Powerteam ranking will be about global points only? So what about hw boints?