This is the CPU thread. Just sayin'...

 

oops My bad

 

@xxxbassplayerxx that's what I'm seeing on my end like a 2-3k gain if the screen goes black in the second game test

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.

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 August 27, 20159 yr by trodas

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

 

Christian Ney is the big boss for the moderating.

 

I have no power here

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. Any updates on prizes etc?

But hey if it's all just for the love that's cool too

Announcement has been made:

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=141629

 

And yeah it seems this year its about the honor.

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?

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....

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

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.

that worked. thank you mucho

 

No ES of any shape or age or type?

 

No ES, no Skylake, in general no hardware released after TC Start

Also Ive added all known to me released 486 CPU. So you can now use Intel, Cyrix and UMC in addition to the AMD ones.

Better late than never.

Massman says:

 

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

 

 

 

Christian Ney is the big boss for the moderating.

 

I have no power here

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?

No ES, no Skylake, in general no hardware released after TC Start

 

Thankyou for the clarification! Removed our Realbench score to comply.

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 :-)

 

So, it seems I missed the deadline. Better fix the site for next competition.

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.

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.

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^^

Thought I would start this as there is not one for this sexy little case. So lets see what you guys have got

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?

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.

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^^