Result from user that does not exist: www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=522646?

 

Same category, SuperPi with Sempron 3000+ (Athlon XP), top 6 results are ALL matched to wrong processor. They should be in the S939 Sempron categories. All of those result are submitted by the same team and some of them are quite new.

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=765334

 

Score to high for this Clocks (look CPU-Z only 3,33GHz)

Please friends see this score 3Dmark'06 in 3DVantage , this wrong score has been reported three times,for diferent guys (first 11-11-2008) but so far there has been moderate.

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=791079

 

thank's

 

Sw

SArd's 3dmark 01, 03, 05 and aquamark scores for the Radeon HD 2400 Mobility contain no cpu-z validation. Report button is grayed out.

Scores look fairly reasonable so it's probably ok, just lacks the cpu-z in screenshot for validation

Is there a date after/before which proper validation is not required? If so I apologize for the inconvenience. These scores are dated 22-10-2007.

 

http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=658682

http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=658673

http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=658677

http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=658681

Sorry about this.

I just see these scores are good to go as they are. All posted within a week of the the new requirements where enforced.

 

Happy benching

Result from user that doesn't exist: www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=500660.

Result from no user at all: www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=731309 (no "member info" button present).

And this is interesting... this user does exist, but you can't find this result 761331 from users submitted results list (plus no "member info" button present).

Edited November 24, 200816 yr by Nikodemus

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=558973

 

No validation at all (I know it's old, but were there NO rules in 2006?)

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=555626

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=776886'>http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=776886

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=776886

 

 

Are these submitted in the wrong category. Northwood A cpus are x24 multi afaik....

There seems to be many more of them too, this is but a few from the first page: http://hwbot.org/searchResults.do?direction=&applicationId=13&teamId=0&userName=&gpu=&numberOfVideocards=0&cpu=Pentium+4+2.4Ghz+B+Northwood++%28366%29&chipset=&model=&manufacturer=&minScore=&maxScore=&gpuId=0&cpuId=333&chipsetId=0&modelId=0&manufacturerId=0&offset=0&displayAdvanced=false&countryId=0&dateFrom=&dateUntil=&minGpuCoreFreq=&maxGpuCoreFreq=&minGpuMemFreq=&maxGpuMemFreq=&minCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&system=&minTotalPoints=

 

Also there seems to be a number of x24 multi submissions under the Northwood B category, which I believe should be x18 multi.

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=782494

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=600554

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686310

+++

 

 

Was/is there a quick fix to unlock/change the multi for these cpus that indicates that these enties are correct anyway? Or is the info I find on hwbot (quick-search says Northwood A is 100MHz fsb, and northwood B is 133MHz, which indicates I'm right in assuming Northwood A is x24) and wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_4_microprocessors) wrong?

 

This might need a cleanup...

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=590254

 

Conveniently, benchmark resolution is hidden, subtests are not shown (though i recon, this wasn't required, when this result was originally posted).

The result is too old.

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=507430

 

No screen, and I have a feeling it's a little bit too fast for this CPU. My guess is that it's a 3000+ Venice, these are MUCH, MUCH more common than Newcastles. And that speed wouldn't be very unthinkable on a Venice core anyway:)

it was cooled with Prometeia MachII ST, quite a beast, original score posted 21st December 2004! So definitely NOT a Venice core!

 

 

 

it's NewCastle and many at our (then very active forums) tried to beat that score for months:)

 

don't report scores just because somebody scored better;)

 

If I had known the submission date was in 2004 and not in 2006 (which is what it says when I look at the details) I wouldn't have reported it.

 

Seriously, if a 2 year old score with no verification suddenly drops into first place, you have to understand that I'm asking questions. But if you say it's real I believe it. If you get a chip that can do the necessary HTT, then this score isn't unbelieavable. But yeah, you need phase:p Or in my case - dryice.

 

PS: that score is going DOWN!!

The result is too old.

 

Sorry, i don't get it: Too old to... what exactly? Convey a plausible proof of the score being in line with rules in place at that time?

The result is too old.

 

Oh, I see. So though the result is not submitted properly, it will get right after some time. Interesting point. How long exactly is "too old"?

 

I take it you know a lot of people spend a lot of time benching old hardware for the whole purpose of getting points on Hwbot to help the team, because they cannot affort new stuff, don't you? Your answer is a straight kick in the nuts for those guys...

Thanks a lot guys, very enlightening!

Old, but plainly visible in the wrong category, even though checked by a mod:

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=765560

 

Description AND Link both say it's an Ultra.

Hi,

 

this is an error on my profile

 

Screenshot is gone, so impossible to really tell if it's an athlon or a sempron. Since it's 3s faster than #2, I'd say it's definately not a sempron The cache difference makes a huge difference in spi1m...

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=645970

sorry, that score is more than 1 year old

 

Yeah, but still... It's an unreasonable score for that chip on air cooling, if you look into it you'll see that it fits much better amongst the 3400+ ATHLON's. You can move such old scores if you want to, I'm not asking it to be deleted because of the mission screenshot. Just moved to the category where it MOST LIKELY belongs. This isn't the first time anyone put an Athlon in a Sempron ranking...

that a score from 2004 even! lol

I moved it to Athlon 64 Newcastle S754 , I don't think there was a S754 Sempron 3400+ in 2004

 

It's a clawhammer, it says so in his signature;) And yes, there were no 3400+ semprons at that time (the highest rated sempron was the 3000+, which was a paris core AFAIK).

Edited December 15, 200816 yr by knopflerbruce

good detective work

 

This is my "territory", you know;)

 

PS: Aiming for top 10 HW master by this evening - finally on the FRONT PAGE!!!

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=710566 - ddr2 memory, so can't be a Newark core;) He has some other scores listed in the mobile sempron 3400+ keene-category (which uses DDR2 memory), I guess that's where it belongs.

 

PS: it's a VERY good idea to ask for a verification image even for wprime benches, the auto-CPU-detect isn't working properly... Just a thought.

 

Edit: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=687005 - this one is not a mobile clawhammer...

got some erronous entries:

 

Not done at default settings:

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=644790

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=652071 <-- this card shouldn't be able to run the bench at default settings, and no verification is available (http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=GPU_1089&name=3dFx+Voodoo+Banshee+%2813%29)

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=621797 <-- this card shouldn't be able to run the bench at deafult settings, and no verification is available (http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=GPU_1088&name=3dFx+Voodoo2+%2810%29)

 

 

I'll continue going through the voodoo cards later and notify my findings. There seems to be many awards and points wrongfully awarded.

Edited December 18, 200816 yr by komadyret

Is z-buffer depth 24 considered default on par with 32bit unlike 16bit? If so, this score, and the other Voodoo5 scores are valid as far as I can see

 

(note to self: check if more than one value can be considered default for benches)