This whole monitoring doesn't do much, except showing min/max temperature and min/max core clock at the time of taking the screenshot, basically displaying values in a finite period of time, which doesn't necessary match the time frame when the bench was running. So in other words, it doesn't really prevent cheating, unless it's obvious from the screenshot.

I guess everyone is playing fair, but that just came up in my mind.

1 hour ago, I.nfraR.ed said:

This whole monitoring doesn't do much, except showing min/max temperature and min/max core clock at the time of taking the screenshot, basically displaying values in a finite period of time, which doesn't necessary match the time frame when the bench was running. So in other words, it doesn't really prevent cheating, unless it's obvious from the screenshot.

I guess everyone is playing fair, but that just came up in my mind.

Most of hwbot is based on trust, and the basis that the majority will play fair, overall it seems to work, so whilst you're not wrong, it's not a major issue in my mind

5 hours ago, I.nfraR.ed said:

This whole monitoring doesn't do much, except showing min/max temperature and min/max core clock at the time of taking the screenshot, basically displaying values in a finite period of time, which doesn't necessary match the time frame when the bench was running. So in other words, it doesn't really prevent cheating, unless it's obvious from the screenshot.

I guess everyone is playing fair, but that just came up in my mind.

Using my last sub as an example, I ran HWinfo and you'll note there is a "Clock" in the proggy's window with a time right next to it. That tells you how long the program has been monitoring the system and it would have to be for a longer amount of time than the bench result to be valid, mine shows about 35 seconds longer than what the bench itself ran for.

All I did was set everything up for Super PI with the bench already opened and ready to go, the very last thing I did was to open up the monitoring program before hitting "Start" for the bench. After the run was done, just opened up my CPU-Z's and took the shot.

E-Z-P-Z.

 

19 hours ago, Leeghoofd said:

Well we can open up the AMD Legacy stage too maybe for single CPU server CPU setups.

What do you guys think?

If it gets more people benching and the sockets used are the same as what's listed in the rules then I'm for it 

please do not change the rules in the middle of the competition only if necessary!

Little vid I did, all pretty much same stuff as my current run Ive uploaded.....failed at loop 9 but can check my current run its pretty much same efficiency. I have nothing to hide and will post video if asked on anything

 

 

who is questioning your score man?

33 minutes ago, cbjaust said:

who is questioning your score man?

Hopefully no one mate, just thought I post it up to show my result is legit 

I know you've been doing good work on AM3 lately with SuperPi efficiency and it has paid off well right now. Good show.

Sorry if anyone interpreted my post the wrong way, it wasn't anything personal. It was totally unrelated to any score posted or any other post in the thread. 

@Bullant Your efficiency is pretty good. I have improved my score at same settings on new OS, still have to drop a second, but my good 1090T died. Will try the other one later.

I can't force hwinfo to read core temps from my 960T + Cr4E so I used a sempron.  Wich has good temp sensor reading but still writes 960T.  I think with a 4500mhz core clock limit, we shouldn't be so strict with temps. Cpu ihs temp usually exists even in unlocked situations. Or simply leave temp restricition ? Don't think any type of cpus needs subzero cooling to reach 4500 mhz, however X6 phenoms will be chilled below zero I guess if restriction obsolete.

How can I adjust affinity for hwinfo on a sempron 145 ? :DDDD

Edited March 9, 20196 yr by Alpi

Hello, is my score valid if I use CPUID HW PRO?

if it detects maximum freq like the others no problem 

okay thanks!!!

On 3/6/2019 at 7:12 PM, Bones said:

Using my last sub as an example, I ran HWinfo and you'll note there is a "Clock" in the proggy's window with a time right next to it. That tells you how long the program has been monitoring the system and it would have to be for a longer amount of time than the bench result to be valid, mine shows about 35 seconds longer than what the bench itself ran for.

I generally don't want to give cheaters any idea but I think it's pretty obvious how to get around this: 

1. Complete bench at whatever temps/clocks you want
2. Set competition legal temps and clocks
3. open monitoring and add some bullshit CPU load like another Superpi so the CPU utilisation stats look fine
4. Let monitoring run for the amount of time the bench ran for + 35 secs or whatever
5. Close the second Superpi and take your screenshot
6. Profit $$

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by unityofsaints

And that is why this should be a 2 league community.

delete me this chelenge please.. i post bad file.. i must post amd file.. soory and thx

On 3/9/2019 at 10:24 PM, Bullant said:

Little vid I did, all pretty much same stuff as my current run Ive uploaded.....failed at loop 9 but can check my current run its pretty much same efficiency. I have nothing to hide and will post video if asked on anything

 

 

lovely cpu, board temps bully , especially at 24 c ambient

10 hours ago, ozzie said:

lovely cpu, board temps bully , especially at 24 c ambient

Yeah was quite hot in the room at that time ahah....4200 rpm fan help ? its cooled off here now tho I've not done much oc 

Btw, what is the temperature sensor we're not allowed to drop under 0?

Because it's physically impossible that my CPU is at 1-2°C when the chiller is set to e.g. 10°C.

Real CPU temperature is like 3-4°C higher, which in my case is temp sensor #2 and #3:

Is it ok if I use HWInfo which e.g. doesn't show that "Core #1 - #2" temperature, but something else (have to test first what it shows)?

Edited April 8, 20196 yr by I.nfraR.ed

I think we all know how poor AMD sensors work at low temperatures compared to high temps so I know for a fact the temperature will be fine. But just to cover yourself why not just up the temperature by around 2-3c to ensure that the sensor won't bug below 0c, your CPU should easily do those clocks with only 2c more.

There's not much difference between "ambient" or current situation with temp set at 10°C on chiller. It still can boot those clocks, but the lower temperature helps stabilize 3.6GHz uncore.

What would help though is if I drop the "real" temperature to e.g. 2-3°C, which might actually help up the CPU-NB one notch.

I can control it down to 3°C (with a step of 1°C) which is the minimum of the chiller. From that point going down is "full-on" mode with bypassing the temp sensor of the chiller.

So, by design, I still would fit in the competition restrictions, unless I override it manually. That's why I asked if it is ok to use HWInfo in case it shows something else (like on Bones' screenshot). He's using a FX, though.

I completely understand the sensors are not reliable, plus there is difference in motherboards implementations as well.

Edited April 8, 20196 yr by I.nfraR.ed

surely using a chiller is not positive ambient temps

if your forcing the temps down with a chiller is that still classed as ambient? 

1 hour ago, 033Y5 said:

surely using a chiller is not positive ambient temps

if your forcing the temps down with a chiller is that still classed as ambient? 

There are enough people with rads in buckets of ice or hidden chillers that they would pass as ambient cooling that it's easier to say positive temps instead of saying a specific cooling method.