CaNNon

Think were looking at it a little backwards when we start thinking like this (no offense to OP just using as a example). Both CPU's are given the same instruction call's, it's up to the chips engineers/designers to optimize what happens with it.

Thanks nice to have that all working!

I don't think splitting categories for cpu's is a good idea top total needs to always be the best performer. But on the other hand I don't see why a sub category standing for each chip maker could not work? something like: each chip > best of each brand > global best.

Yea that work, if they were noted by FSB it would save confusion.

Your right kolian, but you should said there are 4 chips listed. It's easy to think 370 and slot 1 with out looking (and i didn't look ) Pentium 3 600Mhz <--------- coppermine Pentium 3 600Mhz Katmai Pentium 3 600Mhz s370 <---- coppermine Pentium 3 600Mhz Slot 1 These are the sockets, if it's any different it would need to be FC-PGA2. This has usually heat spreader on top something like the p4 chips but i think they started around 1ghz area. Pentium III Katmai in SECC2 package (450 - 600 MHz) Pentium III Coppermine in SECC2 package (500 - 1133 MHz) Pentium III Coppermine (FC-PGA and FC-PGA2) (500 MHz - 1133 MHz) http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=475956 http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=453388 looks like nothing more that a stepping/revision difference.

Could that be runs with one chip and then with 2 chips in the board.

I see this:

I use opera on it jmke. Up to 1280x1024 the shrimp site looks flawless, it also feels a bit quicker in oprea. Jurek, you sure you haven't changed a setting somewhere?

Look in the socket column its "fcpga". each type can be a very different thing to overclock.

Looks like thats addition of cpu-z screen shot too, a little confusing especially if they didn't add both at the same time.

he does show the rule date in that one, is it not correct?

I think you need to "set it public" so we can see the score.

bot was parsing the motherboard's description "EVGA X58 3X SLI" So "3X SLI" has been removed from all his submissions. Just the SuperPi and WPrime benches left to resolve. Thanks!

here is another one, bot is setting it as sli <hwbot> 15027 - 8800gtx - Core i7 Extreme 965 @ 4462.5mhz on Jinu Phase - EVGA X58 3X SLI </hwbot> http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=806827

5. wPrime 1024m - 2min 57sec 310ms - Buckeye (411Overkill.com) - (unknown, cpuid 'Core i7 Extreme 965' on SS) 20 points - [ inspect ] - [ compare ] 6. SuperPi 32m - 9min 8sec 910ms - Buckeye (411Overkill.com) - (unknown, cpuid '4x Core i7 Extreme 965' on SS) 7.4 points - [ inspect ] - [ compare ] forced a update but It's Still not taking the chip right off the site.

<hwbot> 9.375 - Core i7 Extreme 965 @ 4462.5mhz on Jinu Phase - EVGA X58 3X SLI </hwbot> Could you also check this one, it's returning "unknown, cpuid" in both SuperPi and WPrime benches. Thanks!

Am i missing something k404 one of those two guys isn't on a team?

Our member is submitting trough the forum as far as i know. Here's the last scan time and his submissions seem ok. generated by hwbot - http://www.hwbot.org - info@hwbot.org Last edited by HWBot on 30 Dec 2008, 09:21, edited 249 times in total. do you want me to do a extra scan?

Thanks jmke!

lol... 40 points and 2 gold cups

"9800GX2 SLI" returns it as "2x Radeon 9800 mobility" can you have a look at the Radeon 9800 mobility area? ** edit It's picking up some old scores and resubmitting them there too?

thanks jmke!

I need the correct formatting for Quad SLI "2x 9800GX2" in side the hwbot tags for forums 2x GeForce 9800 GX2 GeForce 9800 GX2 SLI I'm trying these but it sending it to places like 2x Radeon 9800 mobility @ 350/300mhz

That would be a good submission, the mmx versions were socket7 not socket 5. Plus the cpu spec. is correct. I believe the p1 non mmx'z fastest was 200mhz and the score is not impossible on the aladdin. I think it's more cpu-z can't read the clocks of the aladdin chipset, still it's a very doable run.

I think that covers it best, one golden part scores once, not once for every member of the team. Then allowing it to be shared for opposing type benches is about the fairest way it could be done, it's not perfect but a reasonable solution.