[-> Validated score still wrong? Let us know here]

La la la la mic check one two one two! :woot:

[64kB L2 Palomino? :S]

Looks like Massman is right

 

Here's my XP1700+ Palomino result: 11x190 2-2-2-7: 48.406s (256kB L2)

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=875152

 

Exactly the same result at 95MHz lower frequency but same memory timings/clockspeed. It must be the cache issue

[-> Validated score still wrong? Let us know here]

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=560385

 

This is clearly a Spitfire Duron (perhaps 600MHz) with CPUz frequency of ~1.2GHz. What the hell is it doing in Duron 1.6GHz (Applebred category) and furthermore claiming 2.8GHz+ overclock?

 

Hate to quote myself, but do anyone wanna solve this issue?

[-> Validated score still wrong? Let us know here]

One more reason why the result in 1.6GHz category should be removed ...

[-> Validated score still wrong? Let us know here]

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=560385

 

This is clearly a Spitfire Duron (perhaps 600MHz) with CPUz frequency of ~1.2GHz. What the hell is it doing in Duron 1.6GHz (Applebred category) and furthermore claiming 2.8GHz+ overclock?

[64kB L2 Palomino? :S]

Take a look at this:

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=873225 (note the 64kB L2)

 

I would understand if it was CPU-Z bug, but the performance product in PiFast sucks aswell

http://hwbot.org/listResults.do?cpuModelId=505&applicationId=6&filterUser=true&filterBlocked=true&limit=100

[What happened to SAV?]

Oooh, thanks for the explanation!

[What happened to SAV?]

I don't see him on the hardware master ladder anymore?

[Weird SuperPI calculation]

I dissagree - the result should be removed, it's not our fault the result got away with it for two years. The best comparison is always given by the Loop 10 (roughly half of the run) which is way off on this calculation.

 

But I will respect hwbot's decision and not cause more coup d'etat

[New cooling type added]

That's a slight error margin, K404

[Weird SuperPI calculation]

Please check this result:

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=606222

 

Note the time lenght of Loops 4-7. A big discrepancies occur, the run looks like it is bugged somehow (perhaps CPU is overclocked a tad too high) therefore should be removed from the database.

 

[what happened with the previous wprime records?]

If we're talking about Wprime: How about this fella'? http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=866448 No Wprime in the screen, may be a fictious result?

[who cares about HelpCenter ?!]

Really? What was that white car you had this winter? Suzuki?

 

P.S.: Turrican is really one of the nicest guys in the OC community, he's always there to help. Keep up the good work, Karl-Christian!

[Shared score, 2 users?]

Some people are really shameless

[wPrime only using one thread? :S]

My favorite - when BIOS goes from LBA mode HDD to CHS, you think Windows are corrupt and try to reinstall it several times - under cascade :facepalmdeluxe:

[Please clarify the "New Rule"]

Please take a look at this:

 

XP-M 2600+ Wprime32: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=869599

XP-M 2500+ Wprime32: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=869604

 

This is why I would like to see steppings, with all the issues this guy had posting in the wrong categories, this sadly looks like a spreading-results-of-one-chip among different chips. With steppings that would prove at least he has the both chips.

 

I really hope I am wrong about him

[Please clarify the "New Rule"]

Okay, here we clearly have Barton mobile (XP-M) chip in a Barton category:

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=869604

 

Please, people, sumbit the results into proper category, it's annoying and it eats my golden cups away

 

Best Regards,

N.

[Bugged run?]

Since we are here with bugged runs: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=869235

 

This one claims 68000 in 3DM03 where others, clocked much higher, have only ~ 31k Please remove it.

 

Thanks in advance,

N.

[What's the "trick" for wPrime...?]

Yes, I might know what happened. Click on the Advanced settings and set the number of threads to 8 (if you have HT enabled).

 

Best Regards,

N.

[Cheater likes photoshop]

lol i just went to check some of the top 20 and the first score from hipro5 doesnt even have checksum in screenshot

it's covered by CPUz screen

 

why would you guys check that and approve it if it doesnt comply with screenshot requirements even though it is George and we know he can be trusted > it still shows a bad example

 

i'm assuming it a slight oversight from all parties

QFT.

 

P.S.: I don't have any tolerance towards photoshopers who post a couple of results of the same CPU in different CPU categories (the most obvious is the AMD K7 league, where you can't really know what model of CPU is used, besides the core revision (T-bird, T-bred, A-bred, Barton, Thorton)). If it was me I would banhammer him!

[What's the "trick" for wPrime...?]

Sure ceemic, that's helps a lot

[What's the "trick" for wPrime...?]

Go with Win7 for Wprime, for older chips you might want to try pre-XP OS. It's a more or less 'car low' type of benchmark. You repeat it until it doesn't get any better anymore

[Can't validate CPU-Z file]

Same happens to me. With K10.5 chips I always get rejected validation, no matter if it's overclocked or not

[Please clarify the "New Rule"]

I agree it's time consuming & could easily be faked, but still - it was an idea.

 

Just to let everybody know - the batches on my screenshots are the actual CPUs used in the tests, I swear on my late brother's honor!

[Please clarify the "New Rule"]

It would be nice if we add a rule to include a stepping of your CPU on the screenshot.

 

e.g.: Always add a photo of your CPU's black sticker with stepping, S/N and batch numbers, like I do: