-> Validated score still wrong? Let us know here

[mtech]

Please, check: physX drivers used to obtain this result:

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=765574

[demiurg]

mtech

My fault - fixed

[RAH]

Concerning a PCMark Vantage score.

E6700 - Rank #1 (no points)

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=662334

 

The screen shot shows E6850 on ORB page.

Verification page goes to 3D06 score.

[Freakezoit]

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=701497

Wrong category 8600GT 256MB ranked as 512MB DDR2 & Verification link down!

Link to Forum post !!

http://www.overclocking-team-switzerland.ch/showpost.php?p=62128&postcount=49

[71proste]

8600GT 512mb scores without resolution and proof of 512mb

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=702778

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=702793

SS without resolution(3dm06 professional)

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686672

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688474

Edited October 6, 2008 by 71proste

[Patrickclouds]

can someone please check the scores of ribeirocross please.

http://hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_953&name=Pentium+2+233Mhz+(97)

it is not possible to change multiplier on slot cpu´s

if you chnage it by using the dip switches the system or cpu-z gives you crappy information about the used cpu.

 

a multiplier of 2.5 would mean he used a pentium 2 165mhz (2,5x66mhz (fsb)) but there has never been such a cpu

[sprcorreia]

Patrickclouds, some PII slot were multiplier unlocked. Intel made them but only for a short time. They were the first ones to enter the market. Then Intel locked them to prevent overclocking...

[arslankurt]

wrong category.It must be at "m740" section,not in "m 1.7" section

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=730994

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=730559

[PCGH_Carsten]

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=644077

 

It says in the verification screen plainly visible 6800 GT - not 6800 [blank]

 

edit:

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

this also...

 

edit2:

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=643862

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=643873

Since this was the same user with the same setup and the same freqs, there's strong indication that this also was a 6800 GT.

 

Not so interesting since this is an old card?

[71proste]

result submitted 13-01-2007 12:32,but checksum: FEB778AD (invalid) and still in the ranking

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=567829

Edited October 28, 2008 by 71proste

[knopflerbruce]

result submitted 13-01-2007 12:32,but checksum: FEB778AD (invalid) and still in the ranking

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=567829

 

The problem about these verifications is that it doesn't work right, so even if all you have is a not valid checksum the result can't be blocked:rolleyes:

[pointhore]

This is a 2.8 in a 2.4b category.

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=750303

 

Please move to the correct category

[71proste]

The problem about these verifications is that it doesn't work right, so even if all you have is a not valid checksum the result can't be blocked:rolleyes:

 

hmm,it doesn't make any sens:confused:

 

next two scores without resolution and checked by moderator

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686672

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688474

Edited October 29, 2008 by 71proste

[knopflerbruce]

hmm,it doesn't make any sens:confused:

 

If the score is unreasonable for the hardware, it should be blocked anyway.

 

IMO in these situations, if there's doubt - it should be removed. A screenshot is always nice to have, both for the benchers AND the other guys who wonder how they got the score:)

[71proste]

In my opinion too, that's true.Will see what "they" say

[demiurg]

next two scores without resolution and checked by moderator

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686672

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688474

Can you press [log] botton (looks like open book) and see reasons of marking "checked by mderator" in those cases?

[demiurg]

result submitted 13-01-2007 12:32,but checksum: FEB778AD (invalid) and still in the ranking

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=567829

These score is too old for moderation.

[Bustah]

This score http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=719275 has been checked and validated by a mod, its clearly in the wrong category.

Its a x1400 in the m6 category.

 

thanks.

[PCGH_Carsten]

A few days ago, I've reported this score from the 6800 AGP category (note: NON-Ultra, NON-GT)

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=785521

Note that it even says in the description, that it's an Ultra, not a plain vanilla 6800.

 

Accidentally I've stumbled upon it again today and took a look into the change-log (the little open book icon): http://www.hwbot.org/result.history.do?resultId=785521

 

Apparently it was modified and checked by a moderator - but nothing was done to move it into the fitting category.

 

What for is result moderation if not for correcting those mistakes? I can understand it, if it takes a while since all team members seem to be doing this in their spare time which i greatly appreciate, but apparently time was not an issues here, since a moderator took a look at the result but decided not to do anything.

 

Here's a screenshot-collage, if, for some reason, the links should not work correctly:

 

 

If it's just taking more time for the database to incorporate changed results, please disregard this post.

 

 

edit:

Same thing here:

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=780437 (I did not bother taking screenshots this time..)

Edited November 1, 2008 by PCGH_Carsten

[PCGH_Carsten]

Thanks and sorry for accusing the team. It seemed just a bit strange.

[nordicjedi]

I submitted this for moderation the other day, but I have not seen anyone check it. This one is a simple case of using Nvidia PhysX drivers in a vantage benchmark. The Orb link confirms that improper drivers were used and the CPU score with a Q6600 at 3.0ghz is impossible unless using PhysX.

 

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=756208

 

Here is his vantage compare url:

 

http://service.futuremark.com/resultComparison.action?compareResultId=211942

[mache]

My Aquamark score was not accepted for the reason that the screenshot is not valid but in the same list there are more results that don't have a "valid" screenshot (just the Aquamark autosaved pic)...

At that time I couldn't post a cpu-z and aquamark results screenshot ...

[Kolian]

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=588521

needs more proof

[mache]

sooo... can my score be validated or I must re-run the bench ?

[Kolian]

jmke

But nothing is visible - there is no 3dmark settings, no videocard, no cpu...