-> Validated score still wrong? Let us know here

knopflerbruce · July 22, 2009

then why did a mod demand that he remove it from hwbot in personal emails telling him that he cheated?

valid checksum, valid screenshot, he used XP and it was still c***-blocked.

I don't know, but I also questioned some "too fast for the clocks"-wPrime scores, and then I got the message that this tweak was legal. PErhaps it's not the same tweak..?

alibabar · July 22, 2009

Moderators, can you please check again this suspicious result:

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=714443

Compare "GFX" score (36192) with other results in this category (best one ~24500).

Clue: maybe it's a CF result (compared with those frequencies in CF category)?

All required details (CPUz, GPUz) are missing!

Brgds

71proste · July 22, 2009

I don't know, but I also questioned some "too fast for the clocks"-wPrime scores, and then I got the message that this tweak was legal. PErhaps it's not the same tweak..?

sorry which tweak?

der8auer · July 22, 2009

Please check this one: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=872620

1. Wrong category (he used a 8800GTX, not a 9800GT)

2. The verification Link is not working.

Thx!

knopflerbruce · July 22, 2009

sorry which tweak?

I don't know it - or I'd use it myself (if it's legal ofc)

It's got something to do with Vista... that's all I know.

71proste · July 23, 2009

I don't know much about it too

my wprime scores are so low heh

just to remind:

Hi there.

Please move these scores to correct category which is 7300GT DDR3 instead of 7300GT DDR2

The score it's impossible for the clocks used

pls look at the other scores

http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=548232

and another one here:

http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=552063

even the description says Galaxy 7300GT DDR3

Cheers

Edited July 23, 2009 by 71proste

MaSell · July 25, 2009

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=569403 dead verification link

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=536823 dead verification link

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=527553 dead verification link

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=567856 dead verification link

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=526386 dead verification link

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=581782 dead verification link

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=558729 dead verification link

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=723075 dead verification link

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=542716 dead verification link

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=546231 dead verification link

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=500974 dead verification link

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=568976 no cpuz/memory

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=559760 no cpuz/memory

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=515903 no cpuz/memory

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=526445 no cpuz/memory

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=526446 no cpuz/memory

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=568561 no cpuz/memory

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=505271 wrong screenshot

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=617890 wrong screenshot

komadyret · July 26, 2009

I honestly haven't looked over all these linked scores, but I don't think any of these are less than a year old, if not two.

We can't expect users to keep all verification data for all future, forums loose data, websites go down, and rules have changed too. At some point screenshot requirements was leaner.

I don't think there are any reasons to take action against any/most of these linked scores.

71proste · July 27, 2009

too old to be moderated

Johnksss · July 27, 2009

i have a question or two...like....what is this suppose to mean?

Result event log.

date event user description

27 Jul 2009 09:58 created johnksss manual online submission

27 Jul 2009 11:04 checked (crew) Massman checked by a moderator ()

27 Jul 2009 11:06 reported (crew) Massman reported by crew (Very high GPU scores; new drivers?)

27 Jul 2009 02:52 reported (crew) NeoForce reported by crew (GT2 5fps higher than GT1 - again like Fugger`s run?)

and when i went back to correct my memory from 2040mhz to 1738 mhz...i get this...

27 Jul 2009 06:58 modified johnksss manually modified by owner (johnksss) - reason: no reason given

27 Jul 2009 07:03 modified johnksss manually modified by owner (johnksss) - reason: no reason given

and how come it's not showing up in world records?

Massman · July 27, 2009

Your score is quite out of line when you compare it to all the other scores in the database. Could be driver issue, driver improvement, bugged run ... we don't know.

Johnksss · July 27, 2009

driver issue huh..

im running windows 7 beta

186.18 which is whql

if you check all through orb you will see i have quite a few records in there..starting with laptops.

gateway 6831 - 6860 - 7811

sager np9262 before orb jacked it up with allowing gts250 in the mobile card data base.

so what...i need to take my machine down to evga and run it in front of them for verification? because this is starting to sound pretty far fetched. i didn't hear one word till i cracked the top 10.

Hyperhorn · July 27, 2009

http://www.hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=32830&postcount=486

Persevering I am, young Jedi! :cool:

I know it`s annoying to move around some unimportant scores, but they are already moderated so there`s nothing I can do to help you.

knopflerbruce · July 28, 2009

driver issue huh..
im running windows 7 beta

186.18 which is whql

if you check all through orb you will see i have quite a few records in there..starting with laptops.

gateway 6831 - 6860 - 7811

sager np9262 before orb jacked it up with allowing gts250 in the mobile card data base.

so what...i need to take my machine down to evga and run it in front of them for verification? because this is starting to sound pretty far fetched. i didn't hear one word till i cracked the top 10.

A bugged run can happen to anyone. Wouldn't be the first time a score was pulled because of that.

Johnksss · July 28, 2009

hummm, well i can run these numbers pretty much at will so not sure how that's a bug. and every one at evga has been following my steady climb..nothing personal but im going to have to dissagree.

my runs are not bugged. i don't submit bugged runs..who does that help? unless of course windows 7 is bugged, then i guess they would have to take that up with them:) (them being microsoft)

knopflerbruce · July 28, 2009

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=819813 regular 5000+ Brisbane, not BE.

Aditya · July 30, 2009

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=875497

this is my result which is repeatedly being reported by user "tionio" saying screenie should include nv panel showing physx off which iirc is not required according to HWBOT rules? Also looking at the cpu score 4.3ghz 920 (26500) its obvious that physx is off.

that guy is purposely reporting my score because i had reported his score in this same category wherein his 920@4.2ghz had scored 52000 in the cpu test indicating physx is on.

can any mod please have a look at my score, thanks

71proste · July 30, 2009

Hi there.
Please move these scores to correct category which is 7300GT DDR3 instead of 7300GT DDR2

The score it's impossible for the clocks used

pls look at the other scores

http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=548232

and another one here:

http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=552063

even the description says Galaxy 7300GT DDR3

Cheers

jmke if you don't mind

Aditya · August 1, 2009

not required: http://www.hwbot.org/benchmark.application.info.do?applicationId=17#rules

thanks for the clarification jmke.

could you then please remove the moderator flag from the result?

and also that user 'tionio' is reporting my results for no reason whatsoever. he's reported this result now which is completely legit -

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=875494

could you do something about this please ?

thanks

tiborrr · August 1, 2009

Moderators, can you please check again this suspicious result:

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=714443

Compare "GFX" score (36192) with other results in this category (best one ~24500).

Clue: maybe it's a CF result (compared with those frequencies in CF category)?

All required details (CPUz, GPUz) are missing!

Brgds

Issue still unsolved :woot: