-> Validated score still wrong? Let us know here

[Bustah]

No jmke you spoke mods as a collective your words not mine, my discussion here was with you only. I addressed the fact that you came accross a bit patronising. thats all.

You responded to that which is fine. basically you told me im beinmg trivial exagerating and not to be upset with a smiling face, I think im entitled to respond to that and not just let you do it without responding to you.

 

The matter is over as far as im concerned and im sorry it went this way. sometimes its wise to try to understand the other part'ys perspective and not just jump on the defensive. as I said twice already I do appreciate what you do, anfd I know it cant be easy.

 

regards.

[stealth]

@jmke,

 

There is a mistake in here,

Have a look at the attachments.

This is the second and third score in PiFast in Celeron s478 320:

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=617269 2nd

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=653467 3rd

 

The second score is 60.73s(the system has give him 60.0s) and the third 60.56s

 

Can you please ckeck it and correct it?

 

Edit:Also check the fourth score is well,it says 62.0s and the calculation on the screenshot says 62.93s.

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=620077

 

I haven't been any further....

 

stealth

[Narmer]

How about with resolution 3DMark06 in laptop's card?

[MaSell]

I got question, why all of my old X300SE scores disapper? Only one is now matched to X300 non SE (??) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=644155

 

Can I ask WTF? I want my cups back.

[Bustah]

Could a mod please check this. I did use the report tool but im curious if they should stay in the same category or not. thanks in advance.

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=736593

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=728110

 

If you look at the gpuz screens for both you will see

the cards report different architecture and die shrink size,bandwidth and texture rates are different too, but both agp? any ideas?

 

[TITUL]

http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=GPU_1196

This category is for (!) AGPx8 (!) videocards, not pci-ex16.

Please, solve this problem. Move results into pci-e category of x1650 pro ddr2

 

P.S. All results for x1650 are mixed up. Try to fix it or clean=)

[Bustah]

Sorry to be a pain jmke but this score http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=736593 was achieved with a 'r423' gpu.

 

the category is for 'r420' gpu's. it must belong to the 'r423' category, if its an agp card then maybe it should be in a new category?

 

please advise.

[Bustah]

Thanks jmke, I did wonder if it was an omega driver error, if it is, I have no problem.

 

thanks for your info too.

[71proste]

Invalid verification and still some points,I have reported few times..

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=567829

[olegk@]

jmke

Hi! You've blocked my 3dmark03 result, and the reason was "suspect score, used of MIPMAP tweak which is not allowed at HWBot". But I wasn't using this tweak, I have submitted not only screenshot, but also an ORB-link. I think you know that if mipmap tweak is used, then 3dmark03 won't let you to publish score.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=5820132

Edited May 30, 2008 by olegk@

[71proste]

older versions of Wprime sometimes report invalid checksum even when there's nothing wrong. See why we don't want to go back to older Wprime versions ?

 

if the score is in line with what other are getting with same CPU; there is no reason to block. The benchmark was run with the hardware mentioned and autosubmitted more than a year ago with version 1.43; E6300 @ ~4000Mhz scores the time he has.

 

If you say so,no prob...

Cheers

[olegk@]

jmke

thanks

[toutatoc]

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=738608

 

Duron 750 not a 700 ?

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=726187

 

The same thing ? Duron 800 not a 700 ?

[DataNusse]

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=738608

 

Duron 750 not a 700 ?

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=726187

 

The same thing ? Duron 800 not a 700 ?

The multi are unlockt on the CPU by pen mod

[71proste]

I have reported these 2 results,but nothing happend.Wrong version of wprime,invalid and still some points:

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=738435

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=739723

[Massman]

I have reported these 2 results,but nothing happend.Wrong version of wprime,invalid and still some points:

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=738435

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=739723

 

Fixed

[71proste]

fixed

 

Thanks and one more,valid but version of wprime is wrong :

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=738422

[71proste]

hey hey give us some time Proste

you reported it today and already ask about it less than 24 hours later!

 

One of them I have reported about week ago,so that's why...

[71proste]

Hmm,I know about Today,but..maybe some misunderstanding,sorry

[toutatoc]

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=716126 Wrong Wprime after 01/01/08

[Bustah]

This score http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=506119

 

I reporte recently as having no proof at all. It was checked by a mod who validated it as an old score.

 

My problem here is that this score was not in this category untill june of this year? meaning if its an old score it has been moved here from another category recently?

 

So if it was moved to this category recently then surely it should be updated with proof.

 

I wanted to check the users scores to see if it had been moved from a x800 pcie category but cant even find the user in the team the score has him linked to?

 

I just checked the evolution ranking on this, the score was ranked 27th untill june 08, this category gpu wasnt even created until very recently because I requested it.

So how can it 'being an old score be validated without proof?

Edited June 11, 2008 by BUSTAMOVE

[maxine]

Athlon XP 2000+ in Athlon XP 1700 Palomino (M=11) categ:

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=742656

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=742608

 

Please, move to correct category. Tnx.

[Narmer]

Hey, I'm writing to describe my results in Radeon 9550 category:

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=745049

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=745050

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=745053

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=745056

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=745057

 

Firstly, sorry for that I don't use GPU-Z (I have only one screen with GPU-Z), but when any test was end and I want to open GPU-Z it suspend PC, so I used RivaTuner.

 

Next problem is that in screen you can see it is radeon 9600, but 9550 VGuru have jumper to swich overclocking option. So, we can see PC detect card like 9600... Why I wrote it? I want please moderators to check results and put theirs like "This result has been moderated by the hwbot crew...", becouse I won't have problems with it in future.

 

Sorry for may crappy english.

[maxine]

Looks like 9600....

 

I have the 4CoreDual, and 9550...i havent problems.

Use official approved ATI drivers (not Omegas), and retry GPU-Z.

Try lowering VAGP in the 4CoreDual.

Edited June 14, 2008 by maxine

[Narmer]

It isn't problem with a mobo or card. I think the CPU platform is not stable(stable only for 3DMarks, but not at all), becouse sametimes I have the same problem with CPU-Z.

 

Sorry, I forgot to attach photos of card:

and screen with GPU-Z:

Edited June 15, 2008 by Narmer