komadyret

I've been looking over the results for a cpu I have on my shelf that I may bench, and came across this anomality. CPU category and cpu-z doesn't match up, and same cpu-z version (1.45) reports different stats/names for the cpu for different benches done by this user. May this be an unlocked cpu (look at the multi in cpu-z verification) that confuses cpu-z? Hope a mod can look at these and make an educated opinion and answer me what is going on here. Sorry for the long link: http://www.hwbot.org/searchResults.do?direction=&applicationId=0&teamId=1046&userName=pepek&gpu=&numberOfVideocards=0&cpu=Athlon+XP+2600%2B+Thoroughbred+%28210%29&chipset=&model=&manufacturer=&minScore=&maxScore=&gpuId=0&cpuId=227&chipsetId=0&modelId=0&manufacturerId=0&offset=0&displayAdvanced=false&countryId=0&dateFrom=&dateUntil=&minGpuCoreFreq=&maxGpuCoreFreq=&minGpuMemFreq=&maxGpuMemFreq=&minCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&system=&minTotalPoints=

but obviously not yahoo... I've subscribed to daily updates and changes to rank and blocked scores and newsletter and have not received a single mail in the 6 months I've participated.... Perhaps I should try to add my gmail addy instead and see if that one works.... Sorry for the hijack K

I'm really sorry it takes so much time to revise all these results. I'm aware of the current mess with the new wprime version. You and your fellow moderators are doing well jmke. I'm trying not to mess things up too badly when reporting scores, and be helpfull instead of creating more work.

lol That will be a good move. Most of voodoo cards seems to have problems running at default setting, even sli'd (z-buffer depth seem to invalidate them) Looking forward to see what improvements v2.0 engine will bring

Is z-buffer depth 24 considered default on par with 32bit unlike 16bit? If so, this score, and the other Voodoo5 scores are valid as far as I can see (note to self: check if more than one value can be considered default for benches)

got some erronous entries: Not done at default settings: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=644790 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=652071 <-- this card shouldn't be able to run the bench at default settings, and no verification is available (http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=GPU_1089&name=3dFx+Voodoo+Banshee+%2813%29) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=621797 <-- this card shouldn't be able to run the bench at deafult settings, and no verification is available (http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=GPU_1088&name=3dFx+Voodoo2+%2810%29) I'll continue going through the voodoo cards later and notify my findings. There seems to be many awards and points wrongfully awarded.

I'll take time and report them the regular way then, and spam the "verified scores still wrong" thread if the bell is not available. Thankyou for clarifying this

I'm sitting on a 3dFX Voodoo 3000 card and was contemplating on running it through the benches. To see what to expect I looked up what others had done with this card... It seems like all submissions using the Voodoo 3000 and the Voodoo 2000 and the Matrox G200 are done with non-default settings. Further investigation revealed the bench (3dmark01) was run at z-buffer depth 16 instead of default 32 for all submissions. Big question will then be; Are we allowed to run benches at non-default settings with hardware that don't support the default settings? If so, I'm good to go and will run the benches, setting z buffer to 16 and tweaking what has to be tweaked. If not, I'd have to go on and report all the mentioned submissions. Thank you very much

I do believe you will find the same for VIA/S3. There are a lot of diferent versions of the same gfx core, but really only one entered in hwbot, and neither gpuz or everest or the various 3dmarks seems to be able to tell the diference... Some areas of the database could use a cleanup. Also some entries could do with a proper validation and be put in its right category. I'm just not sure how doable it is from an administrative view...

More ignored errors.. like the ones I posted in the "validated score still wrong" thread: http://www.hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=25836&postcount=246 There is need for a cleanup on some areas, as points and awards are obviously given out on wrong submissions.

Not any voltmods or other hardware mods that I'm aware of, but you never know what can come up if one starts to really digg deep in 10 yrs old forum posts

Yeah.. it's amazing that such cards are out there. Must be a fabrication error I tried to keep pace, but there's just no way mine will go that far... Still, I did what I could toward finding those needed MHz to stay in the loop We spent many hours and pm's getting this card figured out Cannon

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=555626 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=776886'>http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=776886 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=776886 Are these submitted in the wrong category. Northwood A cpus are x24 multi afaik.... There seems to be many more of them too, this is but a few from the first page: http://hwbot.org/searchResults.do?direction=&applicationId=13&teamId=0&userName=&gpu=&numberOfVideocards=0&cpu=Pentium+4+2.4Ghz+B+Northwood++%28366%29&chipset=&model=&manufacturer=&minScore=&maxScore=&gpuId=0&cpuId=333&chipsetId=0&modelId=0&manufacturerId=0&offset=0&displayAdvanced=false&countryId=0&dateFrom=&dateUntil=&minGpuCoreFreq=&maxGpuCoreFreq=&minGpuMemFreq=&maxGpuMemFreq=&minCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&system=&minTotalPoints= Also there seems to be a number of x24 multi submissions under the Northwood B category, which I believe should be x18 multi. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=782494 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=600554 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686310 +++ Was/is there a quick fix to unlock/change the multi for these cpus that indicates that these enties are correct anyway? Or is the info I find on hwbot (quick-search says Northwood A is 100MHz fsb, and northwood B is 133MHz, which indicates I'm right in assuming Northwood A is x24) and wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_4_microprocessors) wrong? This might need a cleanup...

Sorry about this. I just see these scores are good to go as they are. All posted within a week of the the new requirements where enforced. Happy benching

Is there a date after/before which proper validation is not required? If so I apologize for the inconvenience. These scores are dated 22-10-2007. http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=658682 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=658673 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=658677 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=658681

SArd's 3dmark 01, 03, 05 and aquamark scores for the Radeon HD 2400 Mobility contain no cpu-z validation. Report button is grayed out. Scores look fairly reasonable so it's probably ok, just lacks the cpu-z in screenshot for validation

Cool. Then we just need to get a forum post with the chipset/board to get various hardware added? Or will this work for mobo/chipsets only? (I have a gfx card that is not listed, can I post that through a forum submission too?) And I agree on that Knopflerbruce. As I set on the ticket, LOW priority. No hurry at all, more of a question of curiosity

Ticket ID: 165 Priority: Low Why don\'t the P45 and P43 chipset and corresponding motherboards come up as an option when entering search or submissions. X48 and P35 is in there... Can this easily be remedied?

Yeah, close. But I can't follow the hardware-list further, to see how I rank in hardware points against team-mates on that list. It sort of stops at 300 points... and the top dog don't even have his points listed on that page Also, there are a few pages (database queries etc.) I've discovered the last days, that are not accessible by looking at menus and links on the pages. I like some of them. I guess a few of these will be fixed/made easily available in the future Also, I must say I tend to agree with knopflerbruce on most points. It's interresting to follow this thread

I think it is just fair to base the points given on the number of users that have submitted scores with the hardware in particular (but not on the number of submissions, that could make someone spam the system with results for a particular hardware to boost points). What is not fair, is that you end up with "half grade" points for benching hardware that few are taking time to bench, be that newer low-power mobile chips, or older performance chips. I could perhaps propose a solution that just dropped into my head (not like I don't think you have thought of it yourself): Do a complete separation of global points and hardware points, and present 2 different top-lists. How does this affect the precious "top overclockers" position? Global top scores will be duly rewarded, and it will show who is the current top dog, and hardware top scores will show who is the most dedicated and hardcore bencher. Team scores could remain as now. (PS if you read this, you'll see it's genarally very similar to what is presented today, it just gives hardwarejunkies a separate list, that the extreme clockers won't score well on because they stick to a few top-notch components) And about mods? I don't think there are enough mods. Score verification (and invalidation of faulty scores) are a tad slow. But you're doing a great job. Thank you very much

Thank you

+1 There are more results out there.

I tell you, hwbot isn't fair. It will never be. The whole design is too simplified to take into account every hardware configuration. Benchers with 2 cards, totaling 3 gpu's are forced to enter their scores as if they used 4 gpus, instead of competing against similar setups. Even the points distribution logaritms are unfair from some viewpoint. But to limit the total of hardware points one can be ranked with is like saying that one guys effort is inferior to anothers, just because the first guy spends days refining and benching old hardware (which undoubtly takes much longer time. Have you ever tried to run the long pis on a Pentium or Pentium 2 or a K6-2 only to have it crash after 3+ hours?) and the second guy spends a few hours fiddling with insulations and rips out some impossible clocks in just a few hours thereafter. (phew, that was a long one) I must agree that it is totaly unwanted to raise the limit for hardware points, the limit should be removed. It will not pose any threat to anyone in the top 10, 20 or probably even top 50 anyway, and it will increase the prestige of the hardware-junkies lists. I don't say I have to solution to hwbots problems. If I had, I'd launch my own site, but there should be room for discussion and brainstorming, and a fair bit of common sense. There are always room for improvements.