Massman

For notebook vga cards, it's very important to see the benchmark resolution, because a lot of notebooks are not capable of running 3DMark06 at standard resolution (1280x1024). I think it's the same problem in your case: you ran the benchmark at maximum resolution of your screen, which is 1024x768. Benching at a lower resolution makes your scores higher and thus incomparable with the others.

Blind, slow, lazy ... weird characteristics for an overclocker PM's recieved, I'll look into it asap

And with all those boards, you lose the third channel with this particular cpu? Regardless of what memory kit used?

Of course ... you can ALWAYS contact a moderator here at the forums if you have a question.

The easiest way to implent a ranking for the single gpu videocards is to have a query running in the background which just gives a ranking. Basicly, I'd be something like the current global ranking query, but we'd have to manually exclude all GX2's and X2's since the bot doesn't know what dual GPU cards are (since there's no field in the hw database for this). Now, to create this, I reckon RB wouldn't even need 15 minutes, the problem is how to implent in on the website. If you just want a ranking, I reckon we could make a different page for these rankings. Add the query to that page and be done with it. But, you want more than just the ranking: you want people getting real points for it, you want to have those points redirected to the accounts of those who recieve them ... and that's a real problem, because with the database's current state, it's nearly impossible to just add new ways to award points. And I don't only mean technically, I also mean conceptually: both rankings we have now are very straightforward, whereas the single GPU isn't. Global = highest in benchmark Hardware = Highest in benchmark per hardware category SingleGPU = highest in benchmark excluding a few cards The SingleGPU ranking is just too artificial to be implented in the Hwboints program. Even with a (highly needed) complete cleanup of the current code, it would be nearly impossible to implent this category with points. The only way I may see for this to work is to have a complete re-write of the code making it possible to add new benchmark/challenges. But THAT is a 6-month job.

What motherboards have you tested, Tom?

I've had the same issue on my Gigabyte X58-Extreme motherboard when I was benching under LN2 for the first time on i7 (so a couple of months ago). The third channel wouldn't work, so I had to do with 2 memory sticks instead of three. After the session, I changed setups ... as in: changed motherboard. So with everything else kept the same, I got my third channel back.

A new database? Why would be starting to split up databases? So people would have to submit results twice to get the most amount of points possible? How can you have points for one ranking and have it completely seperated from the rest of the database?

As SF3D said: a PM to the moderators is the easiest and more secure method of sharing your finding, that is if you don't want to create a flamewar thread .

But ... we actually understand why this feature might be interesting for some people and what's it supposed to do. The only problem is that implenting that kind of ranking is very time-consuming if we want to do it properly. I guess you're not waiting for a list produced by a query just giving you the ranking of the best single gpu scores? You'd want it to have a place on the frontpage, maybe cups/awards, points if possible, visibility in the different hardware sections and so on. And even a query would not be that easy, actually, because the database doesn't 'know' what card is dual card and which is not. So, we'd be manually selecting the cards that can apply for this ranking. A huge query cannot be ran each hour.

Check specification line of cpu-z It's a 965 non-extreme, I guess

Difficult, probably not. Time consuming, very.

Please don't forget to show the subtest details next time

That score will be beaten anyhow, so ...

Had the same issue when benching the GBT X58-Extreme under cold: there was just no way to recover the third channel. Tested the same chip on a different board afterwards and the third channel was back, even under cold.

http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=14538&postcount=26 This is a response to BazX regarding the question if he was allowed to submit scores obtained from a Skulltrail rig lend to him by Intel. http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=14815&postcount=151 Clarification of the rules regarding sharing, including the exception with review hardware

"What If I have an agreement with Intel, can I submit the score then?" and following that question: "Can I submit the GTX260 vantage score if I have an agreement with Nvidia?" There's no such thing as you being allowed to use whatever hardware. If YOU bench with hardware also used by someone else you are breaking the rules. It's funny to see how you bring up an issue trying to get things fair and end up stating they'll just do the same. What's up with that?

That's not the question.

Please don't change to political correctness now. You say that this is an example of how hwbot is corrupt and that example just happened to be mine, hence I'm setting an example for how corrupt hwbot is. Doesn't matter how long I've been corrupt, what matters is that you think I am now. If you think I'm not being corrupt now, there's no reason why you should state that this shows how corrupt hwbot is. It's either 0 or 1, not 0.5. I have followed the hwbot rules as everyone else does. If anything, I follow them more than most of the benchers out there, because I know I have a responsibility as a moderator. Please do ask my team mates how I stress the hwbot rules in joined sessions. And what if Gigabyte lends me the cpu and doesn't ask it back for a while? Is it alright then? What if I have an agreement with Intel on this? Since when is it prohibited to bench together? As long as you follow the rules, there's no issue.

I want to make this clear though: please don't interpretend my posts as agressive because I use many quotes in it. I'm only using the quotes to repons to all arguments as organised as possible .

I followed EXACTLY what the rules prescribe: score was performed in a joined session, so only ONE person submits the result. The account of Benchbros is nothing like what Thomas and me did in Taiwan. What if Gigabyte sends me the CPU within a few days? Can I submit then? Alrighty, Massman is now corrupt . Having no involvement in benching = having no experience with hardware behavior/tech limits/benchmark behavior = no knowledge to judge regarding validity.

Asked the exact same question on the forums a week ago (not because I wanted to submit a GOOC result, btw).

I wouldn't call it tricky, but nearly impossible. Also, would you guys prefer to have your scores moderated by people who don't benchmark (and thus no experience)? Even today, we have a lot of threads on the secure forums regarding the validity of scores. In the past, I have actually spend my day trying to figure out if a score (with low-end hardware) was indeed possible! I don't see anyone who doesn't bench to do that kind of research. Oh, and no, there are no financial resourse available for this job (FYI: http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2570)

Nope, I can either choose no points at all or points for all scores.

So ... having them on loan equals not having the right to submit. But having them for keeps, although ES, gives you that right? Independent moderation. So, people who have the possibility to block a score because it looks bugged have to refrain from any benching competition at hwbot? I was definitly not the first. http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=858147 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=842295 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=856985 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=827079 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=840847 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=850897 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=764440 There are more, those just have GOOC or AOCC in the description