PCGH_Carsten

Moderation offline? I've reported the following score at least two times over the last week or so, but nothing happend. It's not that it'd take a sherlock holmes to find out that results sporting a "9800 GX2" in the comment line do not belong into the HD4650 GDDR3 category. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=815454 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=815461 If you guys are on vacation - fine with me, but please put message on the front page so's we all know about it.

That's an incredible 7200 you got there, man! Congratz!

Old, but plainly visible in the wrong category, even though checked by a mod: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=765560 Description AND Link both say it's an Ultra.

Thanks a lot guys, very enlightening!

Sorry, i don't get it: Too old to... what exactly? Convey a plausible proof of the score being in line with rules in place at that time?

Okay, thanks :-)

Since it's not "legally" possible to run 3DM01 with 32 Bit color, z and textures with a 16 MB card, I am wondering as to if results will be accepted here?

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=590254 Conveniently, benchmark resolution is hidden, subtests are not shown (though i recon, this wasn't required, when this result was originally posted).

Thanks and sorry for accusing the team. It seemed just a bit strange.

A few days ago, I've reported this score from the 6800 AGP category (note: NON-Ultra, NON-GT) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=785521 Note that it even says in the description, that it's an Ultra, not a plain vanilla 6800. Accidentally I've stumbled upon it again today and took a look into the change-log (the little open book icon): http://www.hwbot.org/result.history.do?resultId=785521 Apparently it was modified and checked by a moderator - but nothing was done to move it into the fitting category. What for is result moderation if not for correcting those mistakes? I can understand it, if it takes a while since all team members seem to be doing this in their spare time which i greatly appreciate, but apparently time was not an issues here, since a moderator took a look at the result but decided not to do anything. Here's a screenshot-collage, if, for some reason, the links should not work correctly: If it's just taking more time for the database to incorporate changed results, please disregard this post. edit: Same thing here: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=780437 (I did not bother taking screenshots this time..)

Not so interesting since this is an old card?

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=644077 It says in the verification screen plainly visible 6800 GT - not 6800 [blank] edit: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=643971 this also... edit2: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=643862 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=643873 Since this was the same user with the same setup and the same freqs, there's strong indication that this also was a 6800 GT.

There's two results in the heavily contested Radeon 9200 SE 3DMark 2001 SE score, which seem to be off a little - especially because one cannot see the settings of the benchmarks. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=547832 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=572770 So, that means, that anyone who might have cheated his points before that is quite untouchable now that the system's moved to more failproof verification? If so, I do not like this at all.

Ticket ID: 123 Priority: Medium Specs are the same as for PCIe-Versions.\r\n120 Unified Shaders, 128 Bit Memory Interface, 4 ROPs, 725e/500m (Rivatuner says 722/492 MHz).