Antinomy

bump :

Usually the user doesn't see reports on his submission - you can check the informer log when reporting. It says smth like "Sent to user - false Team moderator - false Crew - true" So user involvement isn't a big problem.

Except the case when a moderator deletes it, isn't it?

This happened only with the latest Core i7/i5/i3 CPUs. All the rest are on the contrary better using retail samples.

Please, add this stuff to rules That's the only thing I always ask for - the judgement should correspond to the judgement list which are the Rules

Or, you can show a "not exact in round" after the final loop to show me I'm wrong

Don't agree. The exact in round error appears during the loops => making impossible to show the overall result, so it can't be published (like N/A in PCMark05 when you fail a subtest). But here the situation is different, there is an overall result.

Despite the result being shown? Didn't see this mentioned in the rules

Yep it's like banning HT

The result is calculated using the formula provided by the developer. I think we shouldn't make separate submissions for, for example, PCMark which has 13 subtests They decided to do so - it's their right. Though, I agree, it's a bit unfair for a GPU benchmark.

I don't remember such a question to be honest. I usually don't give sort of "when it's done" answers. You want to say that separating people in leagues based by info which is proofed only by our words won't stress overclockers? When there's no need to fiddle things up, it's OK. But when it leads to some profit... There's quite a number of cheaters remaining despite the results and even categories being reported and the way it was done. And you want to open the gates even more wide. Duh. Define "a great factor".

Were did I say everything? Never thought of me being a maximalist. That's what I said, no less, no more.

So it's a low clock challenge everyone gets same speed, it's only up to tweaking, not overclocking. Makes fun, but how can you confirm that it's not made using downclocking after getting the result? We return to cheat-proof again

Bobnova, you posted in the wrong thread knopflerbruce, nice catch. Turbo can be represented on the specs page. For each core count load.

That's what I didn't want to - to quote the datasheet

Damn, I didn't want to do this

The manufacturer claims 2.8GHz as stock frequency. Do we agree with the manufacturer: or not? I can warranty that it's capable of running at 3,5GHz and I say it's stock is 2,93. Not even taking stuff like overclocked samples of videocards in account

M..?

If it's rated to work at 1.6GHz using idle mode. Then why should we treat it as if it were a 2.8GHz processor? Were making a CPU-Z validation in idle, aren't we?

As for the first way - I've said about two samples easily ripping LN2/SS results. I'll have to pick up a more crappy result or only underclock the existing ones? As for the second way, I don't exactly get - we have a result an only by trusting people we tell apart whether it was made using cold stuff or not? Everything below zero - how can the current system tell apart, did I make a zero degrees result or at -15? As I understand, you want to implement this for both leagues, the hw points and global points?

So if we take a Prescott-2M or Smithfield which overheat on a box cooler under 100% load (like S&M) and thus throttle via TM2 to 14x multi - then it's their stock? They'll work on this frequency under load every time unless you change the cooler. OTOH, the turboboost is just an expansion of C1E which lowers the multi at idle. This one only pumps it up under load - the same stuff. So I don't see why we have to change the definition of stock frequency because one technology was expanded. If so, we should re-define the stock speed for idle and because CPU-Z valid is made in idle, we should count it from the low-speed mode The same logic.

And how do you plan to confirm that a result was made on water, not on SS?

I agree with BenchBros - we had a number of cooling limited competitions between exUSSR teams, I don't remember of any successful one. I have Celeron 733 results on air better than SS/LN2 of others. The result can be improved and both my CPUs could do this, I couldn't figure which is better. So it's not a cherry-picked, just two random samples. Yet again - we were talking about h/w sharing and how to weep it out - this discussion sums to that one, replaces it or what kind of interfering is it? If you want to make a cooling limitation - you first have to implement and test/confirm a valid temperature reading tech. If it's all about overclockers (global points) league - the tech can work only on high-end and mass hardware. And only after it's implemented and proved working good - there can be a discussion about limitations. Unless, it's like an Aquamark without GPU-Z, you get me Ambient temperature is below zero six months a year in my city. I don't speak for where's Ananerbe from - they got snow in May this year and below -30 at winter. If it's air - some will use the fridge or LN2 to cool the air. If it's water - they'll use ice and chillers. And you can't differ cause the difference isn't overwhelming, it's less than with switching to a good overclocking hardware sample. The HWBot rules aren't cheat-proof. I vote for not making them more cheat-proof before we make them less cheat-proof or find a way how to not make it easier for cheating when implementing such features.

I'm sure a SuperPI addict sets GMT -5 everywhere http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/cdt.html

Could you insert links to the forum posts in the Hall of Fame in the first post on your forum? It'll be much easier to see the validations without browsing tens of pages