Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

-> Validated score still wrong? Let us know here


Recommended Posts

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=615455

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=615450

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=675140

 

Very suspect scores.. looks like "screenshot sharing"

______________________________________________

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=615451 - screenshot/verification link is absent

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=694687 - non-1.55 wPrime after 1/1/08

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=694685 - non-1.55 wPrime after 1/1/08

Edited by Veld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

LOL! At least they use the same OS installation, mobo and memory. I'm willing to bet they use the same chip as well, 3 different ES's that have almost indentical potential:D

 

Maybe they didn't know about the HW sharing policy:confused: If they claim all scores are real I'd be interested in knowing how they can explain why everything seems almost identical:p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everybody :)

Wanted to show you sth ...

 

AppleWolf (here is his profile http://www.hwbot.org/searchMembers.do?userId=8542&name=AppleWolf), has posted 4 results in the X1650 AGP category, however done with a X1650 PCI-E ... (look at his GPU-Z tab ... :D)

 

AppleWolf's 3Dmark 2001 - with a X1650 PCI-E http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=749436

 

AppleWolf's 3Dmark 2003 - with a X1650 PCI-E http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=749431

 

AppleWolf's 3Dmark 2005 - with a X1650 PCI-E http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=749432

 

AppleWolf's 3Dmark 2006 - also with a X1650 PCI-E :Dhttp://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=749433

 

I reported the scores, and told the reason I did that too, but I've noticed that now I can't report them ... I can assume that means, that hwbot.team has seen them, and didn't notice that we 're talking about a PCI-E X1650 here ? Why didn't AppleWolf ask for a new X1650 PCI-E category, instead of posting scores done with an E8500 + X1650 PCI-E in the AGP category ?

 

Please remove them ...

 

Also :

 

Serban's 3Dmark 2005 score (here it is : http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=746643) has no verification AT ALL ! ... If you press the link to forumpost you will find yourself here ... http://www.xtrempc.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?p=612268#612268

In Serban's post, you will find the submission but no image (unless they have removed the image 'cause the result is two years old ?) ...

 

Here's what I see anyway ...

 

hwbot1my4.jpg

 

Monstru's 3Dmark 2003 is also wrong ...

He is using a X1650Pro ...

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=752369 <-- his score

http://forum.crazypc.ro/showpost.php?p=84401 <-- his link to forumpost (where you clearly see he's using a X1650Pro running at stock clocks (600/800) ...

 

I think we are now ok :)

Please create a new X1650 PCI-E category so that AppleWolf can enjoy his scores :) Do not delete them, just move them ;)

I would be also pleased if you could move the other scores too, in their right category ;)

 

Thanks in advance, my best regards,

George :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that alot of old scores have missing screenshots, not just the one you just mentioned. Why is that?

 

Something is a bit weird here;) Are all images deleted after two years or so+ I see that even when I search XS, images in oooold threads have vanished, which is annoying when I look for mods etc... but to have a score deleted that way is much, much worse.

 

I'm planning to buy a couple of memory sticks for my screenshots, just in case they start disappearing from HWbot, too...:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that alot of old scores have missing screenshots, not just the one you just mentioned. Why is that?

 

Something is a bit weird here;) Are all images deleted after two years or so+ I see that even when I search XS, images in oooold threads have vanished, which is annoying when I look for mods etc... but to have a score deleted that way is much, much worse.

 

I'm planning to buy a couple of memory sticks for my screenshots, just in case they start disappearing from HWbot, too...:eek:

 

I've noticed that too ... Don't know what this is ... Maybe a problem of imageshack or what ? :confused:

 

That's a great idea, about old scores ... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick Q.

 

wprime doesnt detect my Q9450's clock speed, and worst of all when i submit directly it submits as a E E6700 or similar.

So after i submit I edit it to match my CPU, is this righ, or must i write something in the REASON for Edit box?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to have to report each score individually, but this user has a lot of results that need more proof.

 

All his 3dmark results have 'validation link' pointing to an incomplete screenshot on his own web server.

 

http://www.hwbot.org/user.do?userId=11987

 

And someone else...(no proof)

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=682979

Edited by [DR]r1ch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This card is the 'pro' version not 'xt' which also [i think makes it pcie n0ot agp. the only thing to go by is the orb link which doesnt clarify between 'agp' or 'pcie' a gpuz screen does. whichever it is, its in the wrong category. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=755077

 

The user also has entries in 3d01 and 3d03.

 

Also this one, http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=750583 No clarification if this is an agp or pcie card here, Id say most likely pcie going by the score. only a gpuz screen offers info on if these cards are 'pcie' or 'agp'

obviously the category is for 'agp' cards. both versions were released for this card. If you check my score I show gpuz screens deliberately to show its an agp card not the faster pcie version.

Edited by BUSTAMOVE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This card is the 'pro' version not 'xt' which also [i think makes it pcie n0ot agp. the only thing to go by is the orb link which doesnt clarify between 'agp' or 'pcie' a gpuz screen does. whichever it is, its in the wrong category. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=755077

 

The user also has entries in 3d01 and 3d03.

 

Also this one, http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=750583 No clarification if this is an agp or pcie card here, Id say most likely pcie going by the score. only a gpuz screen offers info on if these cards are 'pcie' or 'agp'

obviously the category is for 'agp' cards. both versions were released for this card. If you check my score I show gpuz screens deliberately to show its an agp card not the faster pcie version.

 

He used a Gigabyte GA-K8NS Nforce 3 - at least that's what it says in the description (even if it's not proven that he actually did). nf3 is an AGP only chipset afaik, so this seems to be an AGP card, not pcie.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. but click the first link above and check validation link, edited in as x800, but orb reads the card as the 'pro' version, not 'xt'

 

The first one is read as pro, so it should probably be in that category. But it's an AGP card, socket A boards with pcie don't exist afaik. Could also be blocked since it's not clear where it belongs - which is caused by the missing GPUZ screenshot.

 

The 2nd one seems correct, the ORB reads it as an x800xt pe. it also says that the mobo is a gigabyte board, model unknown. The user says it's an nf3 board, and I can't seem to find any evidence against that, so it has to be the agp version. But again, there is no GPUZ screenshot, and if there's doubt: block the score IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Resolution Not shown (and is a 6800GT in 6800 categ)

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=643971

 

Resolution Not shown:

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=749279

 

Geforce 6800 ultra in 6800(simple) AGP

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=758024

 

Geforce 6800GS PCI Express in AGP categ (abit GD8 havent AGP):

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=554919

 

FAKE: Rivatunner have the focus in taskbar but no window rivatuner focus.

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686843

 

Ati X1050 in 9550 categ:

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=738346

Edited by maxine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be able to delete them, I think? If you click on the "+" icon in front of the score, do you see a wastebin icon appearing underneath the details of that particular score? If yes, click it.

 

I don't really understand why you're so eager to clean up your scores. Points/result ratio is a worthless statistic, because all you have to do to have the best ratio is own the SuperPi 1M world record and delete all your other scores. Furthermore, your ratio will probably be screwed by all the 0.x point scores you have.

 

Next to that, it's also interesting for other users to compare their best scores against your average scores. I know that when I'm benching, I check out scores that are a bit better than mine to compare what I need to work on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This score; http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=718801

 

I dont believe this is possible, also in the description it is reported as a 'gto' card? but submitted to x800 xt category.

as you can see this score is 11 thousand points higher than the 2nd place card, which seems to be way out of sync with other scores in the category. reporting of this result has been disabled hence my reporting it here.

No gpuz screen either.

 

This score is in fact more in line with scores in the x800 gto category. it looks like the score was submitted to the wrong category. :]

Edited by BUSTAMOVE
Link to comment
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...