April 1, 200916 yr and whats if i am an atheist? and i dont give a damn about gods wher are my human rights ?
April 13, 200916 yr hi, I did not know where post my message, so i apologize if this is the wrong section. I had a bad link for the validation FM of my 3dm05 score, which was blocked, and i just change it to put the good link. I was advised to report to the moderation. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=837549 http://service.futuremark.com/resultComparison.action?compareResultId=4815132&compareResultType=12 thank you bye
April 13, 200916 yr Crew Unblocked. ORB link is valid ________ Shinto Advice Edited May 13, 201114 yr by NeoForce
April 14, 200916 yr http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=632534 This result (wPrime) can be "wrong". This Katmai (single cpu), at 630 mhz, is too fast. The next Katmai (sinlge cpu) is this, at 644 mhz: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=817090 Siouxx's PC: Pentium 3 450 @ 630 128Mb Ram - 4 min 3 sec - Kolian's PC: Pentium 3 450 @ 644 384Mb Ram - 4 min 55 sec -
April 14, 200916 yr Here are two 2mx400 results, that's impossible to get such scores on 290/215MHz. Just check other results in this category. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=819708 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=819707
April 15, 200916 yr It came to my attention that now exist the new Radeon 2600 PRO ddr3 category. I edited my all scores(I hope ) achieved with Radeon 2600PRO with ddr3 memory and now these scores are in right category(in the time of the submition category of 2600pro ddr3 didn't exist). My 2 scores are validated and checked by moderator(not the best score with HW) and I can't change the category for them. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735331 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688501 It can be problem because I will have results with the same card in two category, and yes I will have more HW points for that, but this is not right and not according to rules, and it will be nice if moderator can edit category(change to radeon HD 2600pro gddr3 category) of this 2 scores.
April 18, 200916 yr hello. i think this score is not valid http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=727604 lack of details on screen. i reported it but it wasnot blocked. why is that?
April 18, 200916 yr because it's not suspicious so what's the point to block the score?? higher clocks than others,I don't see any problem u should report these scores because of missing resolution on the ss http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=842434 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=838106 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=842436 Edited April 18, 200916 yr by 71proste
April 18, 200916 yr its ok. i thought it was necessary for a score to be ok. you are right about the first 2 links. what is wrong with tha 3rd link which is mine score?
April 18, 200916 yr http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=785877 It's like 35% too fast for the clocks:p No doubt it's not the correct version. No CPUZ either, just some other program.
April 18, 200916 yr http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=785877 It's like 35% too fast for the clocks:p No doubt it's not the correct version. No CPUZ either, just some other program. Wrong PiFast version used (memory allocated 61757kb instead of 61372kb)
April 18, 200916 yr Wrong PiFast version used (memory allocated 61757kb instead of 61372kb) I've seen that before. I'm glad the other version is so easy to spot;) More scores that need to be moved/deleted: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=500005 - DFI never made a 940 mobo. And the clock is WAY above what these chips can do... http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=444773 - Says DFI nf4 Ultra-D, which is socket 939 - not 940...
April 18, 200916 yr its ok. i thought it was necessary for a score to be ok. you are right about the first 2 links. what is wrong with tha 3rd link which is mine score? hehe,my mistake I am sorry mate u r right wrong link pasted:rolleyes:,already edited
April 19, 200916 yr http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=560384 No verification link, no screenshot. Not good.
April 20, 200916 yr My PCMark 05 scores #1/#2 have been blocked because insufficient verification for rankings (Please provide validation link Suspicious cause you test various systems but only in several cases you use such fast HDD subsystem) I don't know why my score should be suspicious, just because I started benching with my two SSD's that came to me out of rma?? Edited April 20, 200916 yr by hydrotoxin
April 20, 200916 yr Crew hydrotoxin That`s OK. I just don`t know what HDDs you use Please provide one valid ORB link, so I can see all subtests is OK. ________ Ship Sale Edited May 13, 201114 yr by NeoForce
April 20, 200916 yr http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=844718 -> http://service.futuremark.com/results/showSingleResult.action?resultId=1940138&resultType=13 Edited April 20, 200916 yr by hydrotoxin
April 20, 200916 yr Crew hydrotoxin Ok! Thank you. Your scores will be unblocked in few minutes. Sorry for being too suspicious ________ Druze forums Edited May 13, 201114 yr by NeoForce
April 23, 200916 yr can someone tell me what T-Rex have done to get this score legaly? http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=842010 for me, compared to all the other 03 Results in the Top Ranks, it looks like a bugged 03 run... only 6G (secound place runs 6,4) and "only" 990 GPU (secound place runs 1070) this result makes no sense to me
April 24, 200916 yr Somebody take a look on this entry: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=632079. The entered time says 37 sec. but the screenshot says 37.64 sec.
April 25, 200916 yr pls corection this again http://www.hwbot.org/listResults.do?userId=20225&applicationId=17 why 0.7 point? many wrong for my result pls PM me where / why? thx a lot
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.