Massman

Huh? So, we don't have to talk to the user, but change the rules so that the user will lose his points any way? That's a bit underhand, don't you think. Well, it depends on how you think about rules and their purpose. I strongly believe that no one should be hiding behind the rules even if what they do isn't completely right ... you know how much I hate that as there's a certain thread on the forums in which I explained some stuff that happened with someone else who said "not in the rules, so it's okay". The score is okay according to the rules, I think it's a bit ambiguous and apparently other people do too. For me, it's the same situation as with the handpicked ES samples: as long as we have no control over the situation the decision is up to the user. If he or she believes it's no problem, then there's no problem. The loophole is the fact that it (= sharing cpu) would be an uncontrolable misdeed. Abusing a loophole is a common issue of every place where rules are applied; human nature, I believe. I'm absolutely positively certain that IF this rule was set in place, we'd be looking at tons of people who do share, but just lie about it.

18th of october afaik

So what you're saying here is: "There are already a couple of rules that are quite hard to moderate, so why not make more rules that can't be moderated"? It's more complex as in more complex to moderate. There's no way that the Hwbot moderating team will spend more time chasing down sharing issues and less time actually moving results to the right categories. Also, we will not create a new way for people to start witchhunts. By the way, I do know what scores have caused this thread and I will have you know that within the crew there was a general consensus that it was upto the user to decide whether or not to submit the scores for points. I personally have had contact with the user and have stated that there IS an option to submit the scores without hwboints and have explicitly stated that there might be some issues if the score was used to gain points. That the user has submit the scores with points enabled, that's his choice. According to the rules it's no problem and, quite frankly, I'm not intended to make this bigger than it really is. Can I ask, really, why all the big problems about the rules? Maybe you should talk to the user himself if you think something doesn't quite add up. I fully acknowledge the fact that CPU frequency has been playing a bigger and bigger role in benching; I do not ignore it. But, we need to find a balance between the need of a rule and how we can force people to stick to that rule. In this case, it's nearly impossible ... and that's an understatement.

If something IS written down, any user will be aware, any user will also know the loopholes are enormeous and will abuse it. Don't underestimate the willingness of people to exploit loopholes to get benefit. As I also said on the secure forums: - We shouldn't be making rules for things that are out of our control. If we publically announce: no CPU sharing, people will report cpu sharing and we will have no solid ground to say whether or not a cpu was or was not shared. It'll angry both users, something we want to avoid - That the benchmarks of today are a bit CPU limited may just be temporary. I don't know if it'll be the same with next-gen gpu's. - Also, sharing a CPU was initially allowed for the benefit of those who cannot spend a gazillion dollar on hardware; if they know someone with an i7, they can use that platform to show their skills with a certain graphics card. I do not want to create an environment where every day I get a dozen reports of people who -think- others are sharing CPU's. We have simply no tools available to even check if the story checks out, so any claim will be followed by "we don't know, so we can't do". This will angry the one who reported as there's no solution AND will annoy the one who got reported as there might be nothing going on. We have already enough problems applying the basic hardware sharing rules, let's not make it an impossible job to apply more complex rules. I prefer to rely on, how naïve it may sound, people's honesty and integrity rather than forcing them to walk in between two unclear lines.

No: http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?p=36249#post36249

As I said in PM: we are aware of this bug and trying to fix it

There's a bug somewhere; RB's been working on it since yesterday evening, but it seems like it's a PITA to get rid of it. Weird thing is, though, that some people have issues and some don't.

Did you enable turbo mode and disable all but one core? If yes, 24x is probably the correct multiplier.

Forgot to update with my best run for the day:

http://hwbot.org/competition/XS_Cheapazchips?stage=10 "make a submission"

Nice pics

As you guys know, you can add hardware to the database just by manually adding the motherboard/manufacturer/chipset to a score. Seems like some people also like to add how they feel about buying a particular board Came across this today and it made me laugh

Post in the XS thread as well, just to let everyone know you're playing ;-)

Don't go high in PCI-e when subzero; although 150MHz was stable on air cooling, with the CPU at -30°C 115MHz already gives problems. Switched to bios F5c which fixes the vcore/vtt issues I had. I'm now running 1.57/1.58V without any issue! Note that the maximum BCLK hasn't improved; actually: I can still only run upto 231,5MHz stable, whereas the MSI did 233 before. Clock per volt the GD80 still is a tad better, but the UD6 has the advantage of the bandwidth. I'll have to re-run the GD80 with another bios, though, as my 89190 01 score does suck because of the 1400CL6 memory configuration. I'm hoping it was just a quirk of the 1.5Bx bioses I used ... can't be anything else really: I've been running 2000CL9 for my reviews Score is coming.

Opened to public, everyone can submit (if you have a 4670 ofc)

It's a competition held over at XS between XS members. Why should a competition be open?

You are actually a competition moderator

Okay, try again :-)

Good question ... we might have stumbled on a bug here. I'll ask RB to check it out in the morning, asap.

I've been playing with the P55-UD6 on air and single stage these last couple of days and I found a whole new appreciation for the GD80 board . As for the UD6: - Memory bandwidth performance is excellent; very easy to reach high numbers without actually pushing the memory. - Bios is absolutely fantastic in terms of lay-out - Board feels smooth overall (<-> gd80), but that's a very subjective opinion. Don't know what it is, just feels smooth - Hits 150MHz PCI-e with small increase in voltage - too bad not much performance increase - On air it clocks pretty much the same as the GD80 - On phase I can run 230x20 as stable as on the GD80, but with the GD80 I can push to 233MHz 01 stable whereas it's nearly impossible with the UD6. Reason underneath. - A lot of issues with vcore/vtt setting. I boot 1.50/1.50 or 1.518/1.52V, but anything over that just doesn't work ... on the MSI I can't go over 1.54V VTT either, but I can push a little bit harder on the Vcore on single stage, hence why I can bench a tad higher. In any case, thanks to the better memory and uncore performance I've been able to increase my 01 score with 1200 points using less mhz.

Refer to the XS forums for more information :-)

Don't think it'll help much in LN2 situations: the upper core ratios aren't that wonderful, even the odd multipliers.

That's the forced turbo mode function. Ok, for 750, you have the following turbo modes: 4 cores = 21x 3 cores = 22x 2 cores = 23x 1 core = 24x To open up the forced turbo modes, set EIST to AUTO. Then, if you want 23x or 24x, set number of cores to 2 or 1. You can't force all 4 cores to work at 24x.

Tested the more more intensively last night; a couple of remarks: - Had a lot of issues with memory multipliers: couldn't boot over 1500CLx and higher than 1800CLx was quite unstable. Voltage/timing change/B2B didn't change this. - Before I used the 1.5B2 bios and this one had an issue with coldbug on the PCI-e. You know it's this issue when the boot locks at "2E"; just change VGA card from pci-e lane and you are good to go again. In bios 1.5B4 this issue has been fixed *hooray* - On single stage I'm limited to 237BCLK - 1.5B4 still doesn't allow me to use more than 1.6VTT The one score: I just installed the UD6, let's see what that brings

Link me