Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

-> Validated score still wrong? Let us know here


Recommended Posts

  • 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

score submission date: 07-05-2008 (7 May 2008)

CPu-Z rule which says you need CPU-Z validation: 20-05-2008

 

score was valid at time it was posted.

Fair enough, thank you.:)

Also, as long as I have your attention, how about moving this

http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=747315

to the proper catagory. Notice the multiplier in the SS is 4.5, which is what a 133 bus speed PIII 600 Coppermine is, not a 6 multiplier that the 100 bus speed 600 is supposed to have. See attached links below.

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium-III/Intel-Pentium%20III%20600%20-%20RB80526PY600256%20(BX80526F600256).html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium-III/Intel-Pentium%20III%20600%20-%20RB80526PZ600256%20(BX80526C600256%20-%20BX80526C600256E).html

Thanks in advance.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just checking my old scores and found out this. It was reported several times with valid reasons but it was still checked as valid by moderator :D

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=667015

 

22 Nov 2007 07:19 created Ferdinand manual online submission

15 Dec 2007 06:10 reported chavo fucks reported by user due to possible cheat (Look the window whit the 3dmark result and you read "The benchmark was not run using default settings". It's relevant to see, I don't know if this is allowed or not, but is really suspect. Thank you.)

22 Jan 2008 12:13 reported wanako reported by user due to possible cheat (The bench was not run using default settings?)

22 Jan 2008 05:23 checked (crew) o polonos checked by a moderator ()

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have reported few suspicious scores uploaded by the same user .

3Dmark01 single 8400 GS 256mb TOP 10

capturesx.th.jpg

 

delly 31794 marks 690/550/1380 @ e8600/5.5Ghz nature 206fps/draghotic low 468fps/lobby low 545fps

vs

Johny Bravo 30325 901/602/2238 @ e8600/5.4Ghz nature 151fps/draghotic low 383fps/lobby low 381fps

SAV 29144 900/560/2214 @ i7 920/4.6Ghz nature 146fps/draghotic low 367fps/lobby low 374fps

 

My question : how is that possible that he scored 1.5-4k marks more than others using much less gpu/mem/shaders speed ?

 

3dmark03 same category

delly 10716 690/550/1380 wings of fury 342fps

vs

01001 10690 830/570/2100 wings of fury 290fps

12 10580 777/611/1554 wings of fury 299fps

SAV 10539 900/555/2214 wings of fury 278fps

 

I already know NeoForce opinion :) but I disagree and I would like to ask other moderators .

I think these results should be take under consideration

I might be wrong too :)

 

2003 category

http://hwbot.org/searchResults.do?direction=&applicationId=2&numberOfVideocards=1&gpu=GeForce+8400+GS+%28G86%29+256+Mb+%28629%29&numberOfProcessors=0&cpu=&chipset=&manufacturer=&model=&minCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&minGpuCoreFreq=&maxGpuCoreFreq=&minGpuMemFreq=&maxGpuMemFreq=&countryId=0&teamId=0&userName=&minScore=&maxScore=&gpuId=1187&cpuId=0&chipsetId=0&modelId=0&manufacturerId=0&offset=0&displayAdvanced=false&filterBlocked=true&dateFrom=&dateUntil=&system=&minTotalPoints=

2001 category

http://hwbot.org/searchResults.do?direction=&applicationId=1&numberOfVideocards=1&gpu=GeForce+8400+GS+%28G86%29+256+Mb+%28629%29&numberOfProcessors=0&cpu=&chipset=&manufacturer=&model=&minCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&minGpuCoreFreq=&maxGpuCoreFreq=&minGpuMemFreq=&maxGpuMemFreq=&countryId=0&teamId=0&userName=&minScore=&maxScore=&gpuId=1187&cpuId=0&chipsetId=0&modelId=0&manufacturerId=0&offset=0&displayAdvanced=false&filterBlocked=true&dateFrom=&dateUntil=&system=&minTotalPoints=

Edited by 71proste
Link to post
Share on other sites

all cpu category "p9400"

look at this result : http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=921696

and all other walhalla's results in this category .

p9400 is mobile core 2 duo proc 2.4ghz (http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLB64)

but in walhalla's verification (http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=831051) cpu-z says : mobile core 2 quad (extreme) .

it is not P9400 !

 

so all his results on this cpu must be posted in another category . i think its qx9300 , there is no other mobile core 2 quad with 12mb L2 .

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have reported few suspicious scores uploaded by the same user .

3Dmark01 single 8400 GS 256mb TOP 10

capturesx.th.jpg

 

delly 31794 marks 690/550/1380 @ e8600/5.5Ghz nature 206fps/draghotic low 468fps/lobby low 545fps

vs

Johny Bravo 30325 901/602/2238 @ e8600/5.4Ghz nature 151fps/draghotic low 383fps/lobby low 381fps

SAV 29144 900/560/2214 @ i7 920/4.6Ghz nature 146fps/draghotic low 367fps/lobby low 374fps

 

My question : how is that possible that he scored 1.5-4k marks more than others using much less gpu/mem/shaders speed ?

 

3dmark03 same category

delly 10716 690/550/1380 wings of fury 342fps

vs

01001 10690 830/570/2100 wings of fury 290fps

12 10580 777/611/1554 wings of fury 299fps

SAV 10539 900/555/2214 wings of fury 278fps

 

I already know NeoForce opinion :) but I disagree and I would like to ask other moderators .

I think these results should be take under consideration

I might be wrong too :)

 

2003 category

http://hwbot.org/searchResults.do?direction=&applicationId=2&numberOfVideocards=1&gpu=GeForce+8400+GS+%28G86%29+256+Mb+%28629%29&numberOfProcessors=0&cpu=&chipset=&manufacturer=&model=&minCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&minGpuCoreFreq=&maxGpuCoreFreq=&minGpuMemFreq=&maxGpuMemFreq=&countryId=0&teamId=0&userName=&minScore=&maxScore=&gpuId=1187&cpuId=0&chipsetId=0&modelId=0&manufacturerId=0&offset=0&displayAdvanced=false&filterBlocked=true&dateFrom=&dateUntil=&system=&minTotalPoints=

2001 category

http://hwbot.org/searchResults.do?direction=&applicationId=1&numberOfVideocards=1&gpu=GeForce+8400+GS+%28G86%29+256+Mb+%28629%29&numberOfProcessors=0&cpu=&chipset=&manufacturer=&model=&minCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&minGpuCoreFreq=&maxGpuCoreFreq=&minGpuMemFreq=&maxGpuMemFreq=&countryId=0&teamId=0&userName=&minScore=&maxScore=&gpuId=1187&cpuId=0&chipsetId=0&modelId=0&manufacturerId=0&offset=0&displayAdvanced=false&filterBlocked=true&dateFrom=&dateUntil=&system=&minTotalPoints=

 

so, who can comment these high/unreal scores ?

 

Jmke ? Massman ? Knopflerbruce ? guys please

Edited by 71proste
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another try :)

01: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735565

03: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735567

05: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735568

AM3: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=735570

 

These scores were already reported/moderated, but moved into the wrong categoy back then. Please move the scores into this correct category: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_x1550_256mb_rv_515_64_bit (My 06 score is already there)

Edited by Hyperhorn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm ranked second on this but I can't see the first place for the life of me:

 

X3380:

SuperPi 32m Hall Of Fame: (view top 100)

935839

SuperPi 32m - 10min 5sec 210ms - Jor3llBR/Elano (XtremeSystems) - (Intel Xeon X3380 @5130MHz)

0.1 points start discussion

858101

SuperPi 32m - 11min 54sec 0ms - road-runner (PURE) - (Intel Xeon X3380 @4199MHz)

0.1 points

 

Is it a bug?

 

I cleaned cookies etc but all I see is 2 results but my profile says I'm second place:

 

[#2 Xeon X3380 in SuperPi 32m] #2 Xeon X3380 in SuperPi 32m with 10min 5sec 210ms - 0.1 points

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...