Antinomy

jmke, you replied on two non-informative posts, but didn't say a word on Gradus' arguments, though asked for them. Isn't that irrational? Well, I not such a braincracker as Gradus to check every CPU-Z screen, whether it's text boxes are on the right positions, but this is a quite good one. Gradus, the AMD Athlon text in the CPU string can be achieved if the MoBo doesn't know the processor. It gets it's CPU string (named in CPU-Z specification) from the frequency table, but if it's o/ced, then it doesn't find a propriate and writes a default text, exactly this one. But this can't explain the position of the text. And can't explain the screen with "Processo" string. Should be Processor And again, jmke. A man shows you an invalid screenshot, but you show him his invalids. In this thread we discuss a certain subject. But you're reversing the situation to the author. Try to find at least 5-10 inproper screens of mine that's not the theme.

I agree with S_A_V completely, we have discussed this issue and that is the best way.

jmke, Jigit painted screens, the result - ban. Bwana painted at least Palomino, the result - deleting them and saying "I won't do like that". Maybe doing in another way, but not getting caught? ;-) http://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=750pt6.png =-O you say that a cut edge is a multimonitor bug? Isn't that too much bugs on one man? :-D And you say that the strange white line right under the window is because Bwana has modified a black wallpaper? There's nowhere to get the white there from, except MSpaint, or what he prefers. I just don't get the clue - if the screens are fake (or what for do they have to be deleted?), then their author is a cheater. If there is a cheater, then he should be banned. Just like Jigit. We are having a competition between benching teams in our country, and Neoforce at the results said a great phrase, when one result wasn't accepted: "You thought you can cheat, and after it didn't work out, you can instead use a correct, but lower result?" That's what I wanted to say. One can, others get ban. And no normal explanations this far. Then why is the paint task on this screen? Or you want to say, that you can select, which tasks should be on the other monitor? :-)

IMHO, no bugs can explain a 0,13um CPUID 681 Palomino, like Gradus said. If I see this screen with the combinations of three parameters. Only after that I will believe. Not a screen on my Photoshop projects, but validated by CPU-Z only. Yes, there are a number of minor bugs in CPU-Z but this is not a minor bug. At least the Palomino case is an approvement. Anyone show me a datasheet were a AMD 0,13um processor with CPUID681 will be called Palomino - I'll shut up. Not a handmade 'course. LOL

richba5tard, what about the tons of results I reported on? There were obvious cheats in them. Especially the processor ones. No reaction, only discussion between the moders as I was said. But a usual user would be already banned. Like jigit as I remember, the same case. No - he wasn't an admin, the only difference as I see. I hope there were others.

High for that clocks? Did you get that RAM is 310 not DDR? It's 620DDR - and that's the main reason. As for the default settings, I didn't change anything. I'll try to rebench it today and make an ORB registration.