havli Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Just to be clear - the original plan was ~ 800 hours. Just after loop 17 I figured it may not be good enough, so I decided to slow down even more. That is the reason for much slower final three loops. Quote
ludek Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Nice Has this benchmark got a bug when you have to change time/date every 23:59:59 hours? Quote
trodas Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 You had it right, I would beat that, if I had the time. I have to speed things up, so it finished just recently. But not I cannot submit the score...and it is still faster that yours (only 781h...) ... Well, I shuld have started sooner, lol Congratulations! As long, as the calculation is valid, no-one can complain! Quote
GENiEBEN Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Nice Has this benchmark got a bug when you have to change time/date every 23:59:59 hours? No. Quote
gradus Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I dont get this, what the point to run benchmark like this? with cpu load.....no logik. minimum cpu-z valid is ok, but this is stupid idea. Quote
trodas Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 At least it findout the bugses. I mean... why this score of 781h is rated same as havli? He got 950h, so... not exactly comparable. http://hwbot.org/submission/2992627_ (yes, in the morning I finally managed to submit it) Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.