stealth Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) I am glad you delete my Celeron's 420 SuperPi 1M score (i can't even find the link) because someone reported as not real at 3368MHz. If i manage to do it means it's real or you call me a cheater. Seems some have pope's infallibility,if they can't do it nobady does. I will be back soon... stealth Edited January 28, 2009 by stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Turrican Posted January 28, 2009 Crew Share Posted January 28, 2009 it's not deleted http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=795443 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 Thanks Turrican, But is not much help,i can't get in my score and i can't post the image,also it doesn't explain by which rules you decide is not real and you blocked. stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Turrican Posted January 28, 2009 Crew Share Posted January 28, 2009 i didn't block your result. click on the "book" symbol to know why it was blocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) i didn't block your result. click on the "book" symbol to know why it was blocked. I know you didn't block my score:) Already said why the score been blocked,someone report my score with the reason "Not real at 3368MHz",after that it comes to the hwbot moderators to decide what to do. So what i want to know is who decides is not real at 3368MHz and blocked my score for that reason and by what rules he did so. stealth Edited January 28, 2009 by stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 SuperPi scales nicely with increased Mhz; a deficit of 500Mhz and still faster than other CPUs clocked higher... bugged run? you did check the log? No i didn't check the log...tell me what to look for and i will do it. With this logic you should block almost every single result of mine... Even my second score in the Celeron 420 category is a lot faster than higher runs...but this was just testing... So tell me what is the correct score i should get at this speed to compare with the best i can do. A64 rulezzz... stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 If i manage to do it means it's real or you call me a cheater. Seems some have pope's infallibility,if they can't do it nobady does. No one calls you a cheater, no one is flawless. But is not much help,i can't get in my score and i can't post the image,also it doesn't explain by which rules you decide is not real and you blocked. By the rule: "Seems off scale". If a score doesn't follow the general performance scaling, we have a reason to block it, regardless of it's validity. When we block it and turns out we're wrong, we unblock it . I know you didn't block my score:) Already said why the score been blocked,someone report my score with the reason "Not real at 3368MHz",after that it comes to the hwbot moderators to decide what to do. So what i want to know is who decides is not real at 3368MHz and blocked my score for that reason and by what rules he did so. stealth With this logic you should block almost every single result of mine... 18.937 - 3304 - 500 CL4 - 62567 18.562 - 3316 - 500 CL4 - 61551 18.219 - 3322 - 620 CL5 - 60523 17.500 - 3368 - 842 CL7 - 58940 Your first score is right on spot when comparing to other results; the efficiency is 62.5k, perfect on line with the other scores. Now, due to a hardware bug it's indeed possible to shave off time to an efficiency around 60.5k, which indeed fits your third best score. The last one is just way beyond the best efficiency I've ever seen on a Cel420/430 (fastest is around 60.3k), so I had my doubts, hence why I blocked it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 is it possible DDR3 is responsible for the nice boost? all the other results are using DDR2 Not according to what I've seen in the past. Even with DDR3, the hardware bug leads to an efficiency of 60.5k, not 58.9k. And before this turns into a believer vs non-believer battle: I use the efficiency calculation as a method, not as proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 All the other runs made on a Rampage Formula,the 17.5s run is on a Rampage Extreme (DDR3) if this helps. The problem is i can't get up to 3370MHz any more:(...it needs a lot more voltage and it's not possible on air,so i can't test it again until i get an SS. I will give it a try at lower speed to see what i can get and compare. stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 By the rule: "Seems off scale". Now, due to a hardware bug it's indeed possible to shave off time to an efficiency around 60.5k, which indeed fits your third best score. The last one is just way beyond the best efficiency I've ever seen on a Cel420/430 (fastest is around 60.3k), so I had my doubts, hence why I blocked it. Not according to what I've seen in the past. Even with DDR3, the hardware bug leads to an efficiency of 60.5k, not 58.9k. I gave it a quick try at lunch time...according to what you say "fastest is around 60.3k", even these scores are off scale and you will block them again. So which is the solution to this? It seems the only i can do is to stop benching with this hardware because it happens to run faster than what the scale says. stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I gave it a quick try at lunch time...according to what you say "fastest is around 60.3k", even these scores are off scale and you will block them again. The 60.3-60.5k actually defines the scale: these are the outer values that I use to determine what data fits and what data doesn't fit the profile of plausible Celeron 4x0 efficiency. Note that within the group of plausible efficiencies, these are indeed the outliers. It seems the only i can do is to stop benching with this hardware because it happens to run faster than what the scale says. You could do that OR you could help me find out what's causing the anomality . Would it be possible to test the same frequency using an even older (0121) and the newest bios (1003)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) You could do that OR you could help me find out what's causing the anomality . Would it be possible to test the same frequency using an even older (0121) and the newest bios (1003)? I will try to help you but not this way,you can ask for anything else:D Everybady try to make their systems faster and you telling me to make mine slower with a bios update? I have seen what problems other guys get with these bioses. May is not an anomality,may these boards should perform that fast and you should extent the scale:) Any other way? stealth Edited January 29, 2009 by stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I will try to help you but not this way,you can ask for anything else:D Everybady try to make their systems faster and you telling me to make mine slower with a bios update? I'm asking you to help me find out if the efficiency anomality has something to do with the bios, just like with the 45nm wolfdales, which are given a 0.1-0.125s boost by using older biosses. If it's indeed the bios which is giving you the anomality, there's no problem putting back your score. The bios updates are just for the 1M comparison: after you've got the results with the 0121 and 1003 bios, you can use 0301 again ;-). May is not an anomality,may these boards should perform that fast and you should extent the scale:) There's no other argument than "pls unblock my score" to extend my (subjective) scale. You are the only person who I've seen hitting an efficiency lower than 60k. It may be nothing, I'm fully aware of that, but I'd rather find out what exactly is causing you to have a greater efficiency . Any other way? At the moment, the bios bug is my only hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TASOS Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 As a team moderator ... how can i check this score ? Is it deleted or blocked ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=795443 It's blocked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TASOS Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I cant see it. It says "This entry has been deleted." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Hm, and now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TASOS Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Hm, and now? ok I can see it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I'm excluding the possibility of the Rampage Extreme just being faster: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=805789, there's a huge difference between both runs. Don't know what bios he was on, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 I'm excluding the possibility of the Rampage Extreme just being faster: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=805789, there's a huge difference between both runs. I could hit the first spot at this speed very easy. stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 If he had the same efficiency as you have, which for me is still a to be proven valid object. Do you have an explanation why you have been able to hit that low efficiency? (I'm not asking for an explanation, I ask if you have one ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I'm actually trying to help you out here, Stealth, so I would appreciate it if you co-operate with me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) Do you have an explanation why you have been able to hit that low efficiency? (I'm not asking for an explanation, I ask if you have one ) No,i don't have a clue why this happens,the only thing i know is i can do it. I am trying to find out is well what is wrong (if there is something wrong),also i know for sure that i can repeat low efficiency scores as many times i want even at lower speeds. I'm actually trying to help you out here, Stealth, so I would appreciate it if you co-operate with me Thanks a lot:) stealth Edited January 30, 2009 by stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted January 30, 2009 Author Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) Well...one more test last night result...chaos. Ran the Celeron from 3.0 - 3.3GHz in 50MHz increments. If you get any conclusion from these please let me know. Seems my Celeron likes to act like a quad.LOL stealth Edited January 30, 2009 by stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TASOS Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Consider also ... the fact,that we are comparing (P35+DDR2@2T) vs (X48+DDR3@1T ... and quite aggresive subtimings). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts