Just Learnin' Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 but I use default settings.I'm not using the profetional version of the 3dmark06,so I can not change the resolution settings You then have to plug it into a monitor capable of 1280X1024. Your current monitor/display is probably not capable of this so the benchmark runs at the best it can get from that monitor BUT that is not good enough for a valid score. Guessing you are on a laptop? Can you hook it up to a monitor capable of 1280X1024 and run the benchmark using that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arslankurt Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 It was an old score,laptop was "sony VGN-A517B" X-black LCD 17.0" WXGA+ (1440 x 900)...I'll try ıt again,if I find that laptop again(next week I think) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtech Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Please, check: physX drivers used to obtain this result: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=765574 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demiurg Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 mtech My fault - fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAH Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Concerning a PCMark Vantage score. E6700 - Rank #1 (no points) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=662334 The screen shot shows E6850 on ORB page. Verification page goes to 3D06 score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freakezoit Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=701497 Wrong category 8600GT 256MB ranked as 512MB DDR2 & Verification link down! Link to Forum post !! http://www.overclocking-team-switzerland.ch/showpost.php?p=62128&postcount=49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71proste Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 (edited) 8600GT 512mb scores without resolution and proof of 512mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=702778 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=702793 SS without resolution(3dm06 professional) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686672 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688474 Edited October 6, 2008 by 71proste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrickclouds Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 can someone please check the scores of ribeirocross please. http://hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_953&name=Pentium+2+233Mhz+(97) it is not possible to change multiplier on slot cpu´s if you chnage it by using the dip switches the system or cpu-z gives you crappy information about the used cpu. a multiplier of 2.5 would mean he used a pentium 2 165mhz (2,5x66mhz (fsb)) but there has never been such a cpu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprcorreia Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Patrickclouds, some PII slot were multiplier unlocked. Intel made them but only for a short time. They were the first ones to enter the market. Then Intel locked them to prevent overclocking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arslankurt Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 wrong category.It must be at "m740" section,not in "m 1.7" section http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=730994 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=730559 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCGH_Carsten Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=644077 It says in the verification screen plainly visible 6800 GT - not 6800 [blank] edit: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=643971 this also... edit2: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=643862 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=643873 Since this was the same user with the same setup and the same freqs, there's strong indication that this also was a 6800 GT. Not so interesting since this is an old card? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71proste Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 (edited) result submitted 13-01-2007 12:32,but checksum: FEB778AD (invalid) and still in the ranking http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=567829 Edited October 28, 2008 by 71proste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 result submitted 13-01-2007 12:32,but checksum: FEB778AD (invalid) and still in the rankinghttp://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=567829 The problem about these verifications is that it doesn't work right, so even if all you have is a not valid checksum the result can't be blocked:rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointhore Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 This is a 2.8 in a 2.4b category. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=750303 Please move to the correct category Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71proste Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 (edited) The problem about these verifications is that it doesn't work right, so even if all you have is a not valid checksum the result can't be blocked:rolleyes: hmm,it doesn't make any sens:confused: next two scores without resolution and checked by moderator http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686672 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688474 Edited October 29, 2008 by 71proste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 hmm,it doesn't make any sens:confused: If the score is unreasonable for the hardware, it should be blocked anyway. IMO in these situations, if there's doubt - it should be removed. A screenshot is always nice to have, both for the benchers AND the other guys who wonder how they got the score:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71proste Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 In my opinion too, that's true.Will see what "they" say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demiurg Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 next two scores without resolution and checked by moderator http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686672 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688474 Can you press [log] botton (looks like open book) and see reasons of marking "checked by mderator" in those cases? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demiurg Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 result submitted 13-01-2007 12:32,but checksum: FEB778AD (invalid) and still in the rankinghttp://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=567829 These score is too old for moderation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bustah Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 This score http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=719275 has been checked and validated by a mod, its clearly in the wrong category. Its a x1400 in the m6 category. thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCGH_Carsten Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 (edited) A few days ago, I've reported this score from the 6800 AGP category (note: NON-Ultra, NON-GT) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=785521 Note that it even says in the description, that it's an Ultra, not a plain vanilla 6800. Accidentally I've stumbled upon it again today and took a look into the change-log (the little open book icon): http://www.hwbot.org/result.history.do?resultId=785521 Apparently it was modified and checked by a moderator - but nothing was done to move it into the fitting category. What for is result moderation if not for correcting those mistakes? I can understand it, if it takes a while since all team members seem to be doing this in their spare time which i greatly appreciate, but apparently time was not an issues here, since a moderator took a look at the result but decided not to do anything. Here's a screenshot-collage, if, for some reason, the links should not work correctly: If it's just taking more time for the database to incorporate changed results, please disregard this post. edit: Same thing here: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=780437 (I did not bother taking screenshots this time..) Edited November 1, 2008 by PCGH_Carsten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCGH_Carsten Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Thanks and sorry for accusing the team. It seemed just a bit strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nordicjedi Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I submitted this for moderation the other day, but I have not seen anyone check it. This one is a simple case of using Nvidia PhysX drivers in a vantage benchmark. The Orb link confirms that improper drivers were used and the CPU score with a Q6600 at 3.0ghz is impossible unless using PhysX. http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=756208 Here is his vantage compare url: http://service.futuremark.com/resultComparison.action?compareResultId=211942 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mache Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 My Aquamark score was not accepted for the reason that the screenshot is not valid but in the same list there are more results that don't have a "valid" screenshot (just the Aquamark autosaved pic)... At that time I couldn't post a cpu-z and aquamark results screenshot ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kolian Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=588521 needs more proof Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.