Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

-> Validated score still wrong? Let us know here


Recommended Posts

  • Crew
Interesting... When I look at the screen shot I see one core one thread, and the screen shot is not complete... ??? If I had known the submission was made with two processors I would have never made this post :)

 

Thanks for the clarification Turrican.

the p3's are only 1 core/thread, but it's a dual cpu system.

yeah, but the field where "processor #1" on the cpu-z tab is, is "white". it's a dual cpu system.

 

for example look on that screenshot here, what i mean. ;)

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=657987

Edited by Turrican
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 786
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

May I ask why you see the score as bugged? With newer generations we have a lot of fluctuation at cpu speed reading, it can vary up to 5-10 mhz at identical bclk settings. This is annoying but also a

Maybe check out the rules first, I guess you will be surprised.... Removed

Sorry I can't recheck. Was a customer Laptop at the shop I work.  The Laptop is already back at the customer. I'll have an open eye if it happens again with other hardware.

Posted Images

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

Nothing happened yet.

Some goes for this one, which was mentioned by u22 (thx ) in this thread. I reported it already, too. See, neither I open threads for trivial requests as so much other guys do immediately (and get an answer asap unfortunately...), nor I annoy moderators somewhere else. But this official modest way leads to nothing and I have no idea what else to do.

I mentioned this stuff in this thread over four months ago including several reminders and didn`t get a single word as an answer until today. So even if it would be my fault and my whole concern would be so wrong that I should actually feel ashamed, you could atleast teach me so. But this is very disappointing. :(

 

Edit: And by the way the Pentium 4 505 isn`t Paxville, which is claimed here. Dual-core-Xeon CPUs for socket 604 had Paxville cores, but Pentium 4 505 have Prescott ones.

Edited by Hyperhorn
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe these scores are from a card with a lower spec cards bios....

 

http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=875314

http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=875315

http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=875317

http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=875320

http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=875323

 

Shaders are wrong. Shaders on a 7600LE are as shown..

 

7600le.jpg

 

Those shaders in those benches are from a higher card, the 7600GS, 7600GT or the 7650GS. The guy in question has a 7650GS benched in his profile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
^^

 

most likely he made a typo in his score:)

 

I understood what has happened there... the score was in top20 one year ago!

I didn't noticed that was October 2008 and not 2009!

So, as of today it's far from top20 but when it was posted... so, if you want to proceed judging it "not valid" I think it's fair.

Thanks jmke ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
yes http://hwbot.org/listResults.do?gpuModelId=301&applicationId=10&filterUser=true&filterBlocked=true&sli=false&limit=100

I know for a fact :)

 

check the CPU and GPU scores compared to the other results;

somehow P4 + GF4 back then really scored high in Aquamark, go figure?

maybe a driver version/OS advantage?

 

Where is your screen? Deleted?

P4 goes better than Core2Duo?

10k points better with a P4? I don't think that.

Moreover, i think that when the screen shows only the aquamrk score is against the rules, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe these scores are from a card with a lower spec cards bios....

 

http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=875314

http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=875315

http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=875317

http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=875320

http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=875323

 

Shaders are wrong. Shaders on a 7600LE are as shown..

 

7600le.jpg

 

Those shaders in those benches are from a higher card, the 7600GS, 7600GT or the 7650GS. The guy in question has a 7650GS benched in his profile.

 

Just in case you've missed this one jmke, but I understand you're a busy guy :)

 

I'd appreciate it if you could look into it, because I've tried and tried and this score is just not possible using a 7600LE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understood what has happened there... the score was in top20 one year ago!

I didn't noticed that was October 2008 and not 2009!

So, as of today it's far from top20 but when it was posted... so, if you want to proceed judging it "not valid" I think it's fair.

Thanks jmke ;)

 

Maybe we need a moderation button for this type of blocked scores... so that we get a notification... say 6 months after the submission date so we can unblock those that are no longer in top20.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe we need a moderation button for this type of blocked scores... so that we get a notification... say 6 months after the submission date so we can unblock those that are no longer in top20.

 

interesting function, only visible by staff members of course ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
after 6 years some things vanish, the aquamark SS rule was made in 2008. score was made in 2003, with valid AQM3 link at the time etc etc..

 

One of my results was deleted from the ranking because the screen is busy of windows. Why you can keep a result without screen but i can't preserve a result with screen (800x600)?

http://hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=195656&thumb=false

 

Can you restore it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
One of my results was deleted from the ranking because the screen is busy of windows. Why you can keep a result without screen but i can't preserve a result with screen (800x600)?

http://hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=195656&thumb=false

 

Can you restore it?

 

The missing info would be the first loop times, and the "1m calculation" part (Rules: http://hwbot.org/benchmark.application.info.do?applicationId=3#rules)

 

IMO this is just minor stuff, 19 loops means 1m AFAIK too. Plus, the score doesn't look weird. I vote for unblock, but I'd like to have a second opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still cannot validate the 32M score. No matter it seems what I do states 'Invalid Validation' or something on webpages.

 

Using Q9450 on Modded Motherboard BIOS Intel X38 running at 3,6Ghz on DDR2 at 900Mhz. Any idea how to get this working v1.55 states there's no longer accepting scores, v2.00 says invalid and been this way like past as long I remember wPrime.

 

http://i38.tinypic.com/5fovnl.png

 

Funny thing is I managed to validate 1024M score just fine.

Edited by genetix
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wprime 2.00 is not supported at the bot.

 

So, what then is?

 

There's not really many real benchmark softwares out there. Plus all are x86 based which today technology is same as faking all scores even wPrime but at least it knew how to properly multi-thread.

Edited by genetix
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...