Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 228
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Crew
Posted
I'll make this more clear, in the CPU low clock many of the subs are rejected by CPUz if you follow the links. Are these still legitimate

 

Actually u are correct. Rejected results arent valid but remember: we had for years rejected Socket A results that were 100% valid. It was simply a CPU-Z bug.

Im in no position to decide something, so its up to Massman I guess. :D

Posted (edited)

I know that rejection because of CPU-Z bug too. Happens many times using way wrong FSB clocks, like 7.14 (interpreted by CPU-Z as zero) or 30/33MHz (flaged as wrong also)... but both cases was 100% legit results.

Edited by trodas
Posted

Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place but any updates to the overall comp? All the pages still say, "soft launch, more info coming August 1," well now it's almost Sept 1. xD Any updates on prizes etc?

Posted

Can we get clarification on ES rules for this competition? This always seems to be a point of contention,

 

Is it as the normal ES rules of HWBOT that ES is not allowed for any current generation of CPU/GPU?

 

or

 

No ES of any shape or age or type?

Posted

Could you please allow QM87 in stage 5 aswell? It's practically the same chipset but the big difference it will allow more to compete. I have a Haswell laptop with QM87, and it feels just stupid not to allow it. And as someone stated, CPU-Z sometimes have difficulties recognizing the chipset so some that already have posted results might even have QM87 anyway....

Posted

I have a pcmark7 score I am attempting to submit. I keep getting an error that says Validation error: A valid futuremark compare url is required if want to reach the PCMark7 Hall Of fame. As only 13 benchmark scores are better than you, you need to provide additional verification. I have the screenshot attached and the link to futuremark as well, but still get the error.

any ideas on what is going on

Posted
I have a pcmark7 score I am attempting to submit. I keep getting an error that says Validation error: A valid futuremark compare url is required if want to reach the PCMark7 Hall Of fame. As only 13 benchmark scores are better than you, you need to provide additional verification. I have the screenshot attached and the link to futuremark as well, but still get the error.

any ideas on what is going on

Take 'WWW.' out of the link and submit. ;)

Posted
Massman says:

 

Strunkenbold said: Im in no position to decide something, so its up to Massman I guess. :D

 

 

 

Christian Ney is the big boss for the moderating.

 

I have no power here :D

So what is the verdict? Are CPUz rejected validations going to be allowed in the low clock challenges? I thought that WAS part of the challenge?

Posted
So what is the verdict? Are CPUz rejected validations going to be allowed in the low clock challenges? I thought that WAS part of the challenge?

 

Unfortunately IIRC only CPU-Z validated scores are allowed. If they are not, prepare to lose against my 7.14MHz FSB on Socket 7 :-)

 

Asus_TXP4_X_P90_at_10_7_MHz.jpg

Posted

What the hell is up with these random ass times? Went to sub a ref clock submission at like 11:30 PM here... not even 9/15 yet and it had already expired. This was not a sandbag... I got LN2 today and just finished everything (at about 3:00 AM).

 

Can we pick 12:00 PM UTC or something like that next time? Trying to keep track of this shit is ridiculous.

Posted

Yes, it shows "random" time every time I open a stage (more specifically the time of the previously opened stage).

Didn't even manage to bench pifast and aquamark on the k6. I don't have the scores, it was not a sandbag here too.

  • Administrators
Posted

This is no bug, it is done to raise suspense :P - I hope will get fixed one day^^ - I checked the amd lowest validation stage, I will not remove rejected validations, if someone is unhappy with this teams should discuss this and find a solution for themselves. I know the AMD issue from past, I also know some people think this is a glitch below 50 MHz, but it is impossible for me to judge what is right and what is wrong^^

Posted
websmile says:

 

This is no bug, it is done to raise suspense - I hope will get fixed one day^^ - I checked the amd lowest validation stage, I will not remove rejected validations, if someone is unhappy with this teams should discuss this and find a solution for themselves. I know the AMD issue from past, I also know some people think this is a glitch below 50 MHz, but it is impossible for me to judge what is right and what is wrong^^

Oh so does that mean that all the rejected intel subs will be removed then and we no longer need a CPUz link in general? We could just go back to SS only for validation would that be enough. Glitch or not it's not valid, someone is riding the HTT link and rolling the dice, I had the same thing happen it's only valid if CPU-z can CORRECTLY read the speed. That's why it has checks built into the validation site I would assume. So I think it's pretty cut and dry websmile, if it says rejected it's no good. It wouldn't cut it outside the competition so why make exceptions?

Posted

There are tons of invalid results, the moderation is going to be problematic. Even the GPU stages have old CPUz without memory tabs, no GPUz everywhere (maybe Everest allowed?) but some without even that. Going to be interesting to see how the final scores shake out.

  • Administrators
Posted

Experts everywhere - there was a time each amd validation was shown as incorrect and rejected, so I see no reason to remove all these results without someone checking this who knows what is real and what not, preferably someone who is a real expert on this. All I can do is check if results are correct at point or frequency, check if backgrounds are missing on screens and if all tabs needed are there, on CPUZ lots of memory tabs only show memory size for example and no speeds. I will not comment about the choice of benchmarks for the cup this year, but Hardware 10 years or older and new cpuz seem to be an odd combination, and finding early cpuz versions is not easy. I do preliminary check as said and we will see what will be left after someone else made final check^^

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...