What's the deal here

[Turrican]

no need to hurry here, just take your time.

[Christian Ney]

 

 

 

Unfortunately the oother one I have with brown PCB is dead . Because I put it in the dead Asus Motherboard(and the board killed it for sure), Damn it was working before. TaPaKaH/M.Scott you owe me a AX1800DMT3C/ARKGA .

Edited December 16, 2010 by Christian Ney

[Mr.Scott]

Thank you for the responses gentlemen, and Miss 1day. I do know about the L5 bridge, as that is why a Sempron shows up as a MP on boards that do not officially support Semprons, but that was not my point. The point was that until there is a "fix" for CPU-Z, and that's all anybody uses for identification at the present time, Then that's what should be used to place processors in the proper category, not what somebody "says" the processor is.

Also, Intentional Misrepresentation = Cheating, but that's not what I'm saying is going on here. I was saying that if you let these submissions slide on somebody's "word", that it opens the gates for unscrupulous people to exploit this and submit false entries that may never be found or challenged. All I want is it to be fair across the board. Sorry I'm using you as an example Sam, but I can assure you it's not personal.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Mr.Scott

[Christian Ney]

Same is for Pentium 1, MMX, Cyrix CPU. But we( I ) submite in the right category, even adding a pic of the physical cpu. It's always hard to know if the submission is true or false for these CPUs.

[1Day]

Scott I really have no working solution at this time. I wish that we did. But as I said I did not think that CPU-z was/is infallible. Nor for that matter are any of the other benchmarks or validation applications fool proof. All things can be subverted if someone tries hard enough. We do therefore have to take the vast majority of submissions on trust. But it is also sadly true that some members do intentionally misrepresent, or to use my term cheat. And yes I do know that was not what you were accusing Sam of. You were very clear in your concern about how the benchmarks can be abused because of this anomaly. And for that I thank you. Maybe a stop gap fix would be to include a photo of the CPU that was benched, of a suitable resolution to clearly show the official markings and the bridge. Not very elegant, and certainly not enforceable under the generic rules but we can but appeal to the better nature of bencher. And hope ...

[Sweet]

I am proud to belong to a community where the truth and the justice is looked.

 

We all can be wrong, but when it is not intentional, it's only a mistake.

 

In this sport the trust is very important and is the fundamental base for the fair competition.

 

Thank you so Much to:

 

Misses (Lady) 1Day

Turrican

Christian Ney

Mr. Scott

Sam OCX

 

 

The truth that with you is learned and much.

Humbly and from my position I'm proud to have them as "friends" in this community

Edited December 16, 2010 by Sweet

[Mr.Scott]

And thank you Alex, for bearing with my seemingly endless PM's. You do a great job here.

[Antinomy]

Hey, new moderators raise old problems

 

I've written numerous times (enough to consider it hopeless) about CPU-Z fixes and cheat-proofing actions with no respond.

However I totally agree with you that the current state of affairs is not acceptable and the fluidity in verification that seems to be the case with this particular sub-set of CPU's needs some kind of fix. What that fix is I do not know, as yet. But we are working at it as staff I can assure you.

Can you tell, what things are you working on? And what are your ideas about at least CPU-Z (since it good enough, we only need to make it better, no need to start from the beginning). I read PMs very often and respond quickly

I managed to find four problems ATM (the discussed is the biggest and the most hard), found a solution for one of them with existing CPU-Z info. And found a solution for another one, reported to Franck and got the bug closed. And the last was already exploited by some nasty guys that deserved being banned but aren't because of lack of activity of the staff.

 

Any discussion when it comes to facts and suggestions dies. Hope it won't happen with you

[Antinomy]

Same is for Pentium 1, MMX, Cyrix CPU. But we( I ) submite in the right category, even adding a pic of the physical cpu. It's always hard to know if the submission is true or false for these CPUs.

Yeah, not to mention Pentium 1 and MMX with unlocked multi like one of mine that is 200 but has 3,5 multi working as an 233.

[Christian Ney]

I have to check but I think all my Pentium MMX are with unlocked multi, and i have about 20 different Pentium MMX.

 

For the Thread here, if TaPaKaH( or any member in the future) physical CPU pics are AX1.00DMT3C then it s an Athlon KP(showed as a MP by CPUZ if the L5 bridge is closed). If it's AMP1.00DMS3C then it s an Athlon MP.

Many thx to Turrican,my dead CPU, and my brown(L5 closed) and green(L5 open) PCB Athlon XP 1700for finding that.

Also Many Thx to all new moderators that are very active and trying to find the truth.

[Antinomy]

They are unlocked but only to lower values. So you can't usually set a 3 or 3,5 multi on 166MMX and can't set 3,5 on 200MMX. But I've got one of those that can.

[Christian Ney]

They are unlocked but only to lower values. So you can't usually set a 3 or 3,5 multi on 166MMX and can't set 3,5 on 200MMX. But I've got one of those that can.

 

Yes, maybe, don't remember, but ayway, who want to have 3.5 on a 166 ?

They can just use a 233 and submite in the 166 category, there is no way to see the bus/multi on CPUZ.

[Antinomy]

You're talking about cheating. I'm talking about suspicious results that can be achieved with legal overclocking

[Christian Ney]

You're talking about cheating. I'm talking about suspicious results that can be achieved with legal overclocking

 

Ha yeah in that way, like somebody saw a result with 3.5x in the 166 and he is rightly using a 166 but reach to unlock the multi.

Anyway in all case, cpuz doesn't show the multi or the bus freq.

[Antinomy]

Yeah, crappy Intel CPUs. They don't tell about their multi. While AMD even with 486DX4 do.

There are only indirect (read as inaccurate) ways to figure that.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Antinomy

[Christian Ney]

BTW:

Can pics of the physical CPU for Pentium 1, Pentium MMX, Cyrix, Athlon XP submissions can be mandatory ?

(And other CPU that aren't reconised corectly by CPUZ ? That I have forgotten)

[Antinomy]

Good idea. I've suggested this some time ago with no luck...

[Mr.Scott]

Good idea. I've suggested this some time ago with no luck...

The problem with that is any picture could be submitted, and might very well not be the processor that was used for said submission, so we're right back to the trust thing again.

[Christian Ney]

Yeah but if the guy is not like me or Turrican that have got all CPUs ? He maybe add a physical pic which will not be the right one with the rev of the cpu showed on CPUZ and in that way there is a chance to fight against wrong submissions (and then we no more trust him )

Edited December 18, 2010 by Christian Ney

[Antinomy]

It's an additional proof, not a 100% valid one. Just like any other

[1Day]

Sometimes we just have to trust each other.

[Antinomy]

We do, until facts force us to change our mind

Christian Ney, no one can stop you from attaching photos for mentioned categories or when CPU-Z detects something incorrect.

[Christian Ney]

Yeah, I just want to have best submissions possible.