Bustah

Any chance of directing me to some modded drivers to get crossfirex to work in xp Massman?

Thats what I thought but there are scores in aquamark and 2001 using xp crossfirex is enabled and 4 gpus shown in gpuz shots? I found the directx 10 patch surfing the net, I think all it does is allow users to play direct x 10 games in xp, has made no difference in benchmarks at all.

anyone know how to get crosfirex to work in xp? ccc says its enabled but gpuz shows only 2 gpus working? should show 4 as it does in vista. and the scores tell me its not working. I tried installing a direct x 10 patch for xp, but that doesnt change crossfire x. I enabled cgi in my bios, no change. If anyone knows something I dont please post here. thanks in advance.

Thanks for that. but click the first link above and check validation link, edited in as x800, but orb reads the card as the 'pro' version, not 'xt'

This card is the 'pro' version not 'xt' which also [i think makes it pcie n0ot agp. the only thing to go by is the orb link which doesnt clarify between 'agp' or 'pcie' a gpuz screen does. whichever it is, its in the wrong category. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=755077 The user also has entries in 3d01 and 3d03. Also this one, http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=750583 No clarification if this is an agp or pcie card here, Id say most likely pcie going by the score. only a gpuz screen offers info on if these cards are 'pcie' or 'agp' obviously the category is for 'agp' cards. both versions were released for this card. If you check my score I show gpuz screens deliberately to show its an agp card not the faster pcie version.

This cant be right? look at the guys in 2nd and 3ed place compared to this? http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=751786

Yes I did enter them into the 3870x2 cf category, thnx jmke.

I just need to check something here. If I am running a hybrid cf set up example 1x3870x2 and 1x 3870 [standard] When I submit scores with this set up I submit to the higher ranked card [3870 x2] category? is that correct? can a mod please confirm here please. I already submitted my scores to that category because I remember seeing this question asked before and that was the reply, I just cant find the thread now. thnx in advance.

This score http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=506119 I reporte recently as having no proof at all. It was checked by a mod who validated it as an old score. My problem here is that this score was not in this category untill june of this year? meaning if its an old score it has been moved here from another category recently? So if it was moved to this category recently then surely it should be updated with proof. I wanted to check the users scores to see if it had been moved from a x800 pcie category but cant even find the user in the team the score has him linked to? I just checked the evolution ranking on this, the score was ranked 27th untill june 08, this category gpu wasnt even created until very recently because I requested it. So how can it 'being an old score be validated without proof?

Thanks jmke, I did wonder if it was an omega driver error, if it is, I have no problem. thanks for your info too.

Sorry to be a pain jmke but this score http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=736593 was achieved with a 'r423' gpu. the category is for 'r420' gpu's. it must belong to the 'r423' category, if its an agp card then maybe it should be in a new category? please advise.

Could a mod please check this. I did use the report tool but im curious if they should stay in the same category or not. thanks in advance. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=736593 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=728110 If you look at the gpuz screens for both you will see the cards report different architecture and die shrink size,bandwidth and texture rates are different too, but both agp? any ideas?

No jmke you spoke mods as a collective your words not mine, my discussion here was with you only. I addressed the fact that you came accross a bit patronising. thats all. You responded to that which is fine. basically you told me im beinmg trivial exagerating and not to be upset with a smiling face, I think im entitled to respond to that and not just let you do it without responding to you. The matter is over as far as im concerned and im sorry it went this way. sometimes its wise to try to understand the other part'ys perspective and not just jump on the defensive. as I said twice already I do appreciate what you do, anfd I know it cant be easy. regards.

Ok I see it was checked once by you, my error there, but it was reported three times before you checked it and validated it? how on earth can you validate a score old or not that has no proof whatsoever? you marked it simply 'old score'? Cmon jmke, we both know that is not good enough. as for the patronise remark, look back at the comment I refer to, you say no need to get upset....fair enuff..but then you put a cheesy grin smiley. Do you not think someone might feel patronised by that? those smiley things can change the whole context of a sentence. You might think im being trvial, but you are not the one benching on this occasion. Like I said before jmke, I do appreciate the work you do, but on this occasion you are not correct. three times reported [before me]nyet its validated simply because its an old score? no proof needed? hmmnn. As for exageratimng as you put it, i was not frustrated because the bot mismatched the hw, more like because a mod had validated a score that no one knows even existed let alone mis matched hw?

well im not really upset, more frustrated at spending a lot of time trying to bench an almost unbenchable chip to find a user with an unnatainable score that had been validated 'twice' by a mod/s. I think you kind of patronise a lot of ppl with your comments here jmke. its like you dont like it if someone is pationate about their benching. I do actually appreciate the work ALL of you do here, but you must appreciate also that the Users of hwbot, spend a lot of time and effort to bench and submit their scores to the database. I really dont think you should be telling ppl how THEY should feel about anything. I f someone feels a certain waythey do and thats it!! I was actually flabbergasted that a score had been vaidated twice yet it had no proof whatsoever. reason enough alone to be deleted if its brought to the attention of a mod surely? regards and respect.

Im a bit annoyed, check this result http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=557756 its been checked by a mod which looks like on two occassions, and is validated as 'an old score' yet it has no proof whatsoever? imo this makes a mockery of the whole validation system! unless this was achoieved under ln2 with a great pot, this clock is NOT possible on a p4 2ghz PLZ check again, you will see this user has a result in the NORTHWOOD category for a 2ghz chip.wllamette chip! I believe this was submitted to 'willamette category in error by the user. btw his other score in super pi 2ghz 'northwood' has no validation at all either. I just went throught the whole hassle of setting up a bench for this chip to so far take all golds for the category to find a score for cpuz has no prrof at all and no way of getting anywhere near it. if you dont believe me get a 2ghz willamette and try, I challenge you to get over 2.6ghz with this chip!! The reason mainly that I even bother to write such a complaint is this. if a score has no proof at all then it should be deleted, otherwise what you are saying is , well once upon a time you could just 'pick' a number and you win! So for anyone in the future tough **** YOU LOSE! IN THIS CASE ITS ME, SO NOT A GOOD WAY TO GO.. this is a matter of princile and seriously ppl should take a stand. At least thats what im doing here bringing to the spotlight, unfair validation. if this stands you could say ALL old results are valid because simply, they are old results!!! Its tough enough trying to compete with pre 1.55-wprime apps without this! Im really begining to wonder if its worth it on these kind of terms. -unhappy-

thank you Hans. pentium 'd' 925...

Thank you jmke

I got 12secs with a qx9650 at 3.7 ghz, can you make a version in english? most ppl here use english [universal language] seems to work well though, thanks!

It looks like you are correct, I have moved all 3d results for that gpu to x3000 group. and Klopcha, my apologies.

jmke, yes your right. but there was confusion around which category the result should go into. I kept putting it into the wrong one, if you check the screen, it shows as g965. this led me to believe it should go into the gma 965 group, after researching on google I found that this gpu is actually x3100. Thank you for your input klopcha, I have results for all 3d benchmarks with this gpu and is in the x3100 section now. If you check both mine and your gpuz screens they are exactly the same. The only actual difference is driver version and sub vendor. thanks for your input, I will check the specs on the board tommorow night to see if i need to miove the results again unless hwbot are sure they should be in the x3000 group?

moderator 'Klopcha' removed my result and put it in a category that doesnt relate to my hardware? no reason given? I have moved it back to the original place. this result was blocked once because the resolution was not visible, I ran the benchmark again and did as I was asked....now klopcha moved it for no reason given into the wrong category? result here.. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=733860 please tell me if there is something wrong with it? all other gpuz screens in the category read the same gpu so why was it moved? please explain klopcha? Ok EDIT; I just realized...Klopcha you put this in the wrong category, so did I. you put it in the x3000 category, I put it in the gma 965 category, I have now put it in the correct one x3100. regards.

wow, I thought my waterblock was heavy, that looks like its very heavy! nice work though.

Best bet is to mod the existing cooler or just have a fan blowing directly at it. I have a full cover ek water block on mine,. keeps the card very cool.

Please check this'; http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=718147 no cpuz? cpu could be anything?