Ivan1981 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I saw this, but I have Palit 2600pro(with ddr3 memory) card and in GPU-Z i have also unknown subvendor.I hope that new GPU-Z will recognize it.I don't know is sapphire have subvendor(but I'm sure that have), because I could change it for sapphire card because fan on the palit is became annoying. Also as I know 2600xt have higher clock then 2600pro with ddr3 memory(600(palit) or 700(sapphire) ->800 MHz for gpu and 1400(700)->1600MHz(800) for memory), and if you see much greater clock thean default you can be suspicious, but as I know volmod on palit and sapphire could be done by pencil and higher clock could be easily achieved, and this method is not precise. And, yes putting 2600pro bios on 2600xt card and publish that score as score of 2600pro is cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bwanasoft Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 P.A.S.S.A.T (Crazy-OC Germany) Cheat http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=637950 not real on Processor: Xeon 3070 @ 2666mhz on h2o Videocard: GeForce 6600 DDR @ 551/351mhz on h2 have you see the cpu goes with 4 ghz ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gradus Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 P.A.S.S.A.T (Crazy-OC Germany)Cheat http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=637950 not real on Processor: Xeon 3070 @ 2666mhz on h2o Videocard: GeForce 6600 DDR @ 551/351mhz on h2 have you see the cpu goes with 4 ghz ??? Yes. He post more results in 6600 DDR1 and they was on 6600GT. This result on 6600GT too. You really can't reach 80k in aquamark using 6600 with ddr on such clocks(551/351mhz). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TASOS Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Can you please check this result ? http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=673623 The total time of 15.5 sec with only 4.9GHZ ... is simply too good to be true. There must be some kind of cheat or bug. You can check all the other results for relevant scores...even from the same user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyrus Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Yes. He post more results in 6600 DDR1 and they was on 6600GT. This result on 6600GT too. You really can't reach 80k in aquamark using 6600 with ddr on such clocks(551/351mhz). Same goes here it can be real. Wrong cpu and almost 9000 above me which is faaar too long http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=622931 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunatic@98 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Same goes here it can be real.Wrong cpu and almost 9000 above me which is faaar too long http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=622931 is now ok (fixed by user) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S_A_V Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=676606 no resolution on screen and no orb link http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=682834 impossible with only 715MHz GPU clock and any cpu, even with fastest phenom in the world lol http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=683225 no resolution on screen and no orb link + impossible with only 749MHz GPU clock and 2250MHz cpu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George_o/c Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Well, for the past month I've noticed several results that look suspicious ... Some of 'em are totally irrational, makes me wanna laugh ! ... 1) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=665503 9225 GFX score with a 7200GS 64MB ... That much score seems to be done with a 7600GT or other relevant VGAs ... But not with a 7200GS, for sure 2) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=662387 2 x 7200GS on an Asrock P4VM890 ... LoL ! But that mobo has only 1 x PCI Express x16 slot ... How on h3ll did he fit two of 'em there ? And even if it was true (which is obviously not !), he gets only 400 marks more than the above-mentioned score done with the same hardware ? For Christ's shake ! ... I've got more of 'em ... 3) 7200GS 128MB :http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=684065 Harleybro managed to get 35463 AM3 score, with a QX9650 @ 4.6GHz and a weak 7200GS 128MB @ 622/901 ... Nice score, perfectly rational, if the setup is taken into consideration (Congrats Harleybro btw ! ) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=669397 manos444444 manages to get 58485 AM3 score with a P4 3.0GHz @ 3MHz (he is clearly mistaken, 3GHz was what he should write) and a stock 7200GS ... Compare these two scores ... I think manos's score is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay weird ... (). I think you got it 4) Same guy, again ... http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=665908 Totally weird 7200GS 256MB AM3 score ... I think that the specific hwbot user, found an easy way of getting points ... Running some AM3 benches with his hardware, uploads the screen shot mentioning that he uses a 7200GS ... all of 'em 64MB, 128MB, 256MB ... Maybe because the number of users benching with a 7200GS is small, thus he though it's an "easy" category ... Not smart enough, I should say ... Especially the SLi setup, with an Asrock mobo that has only one PCI-E x16 slot ... ROFL ! 5) Again ... http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=676076 Same user ... 9.5k AM3 score with a 5100 Go ? (LOoooOL ) That card performs like 600 GFX score only ... He uses the same core/mem frequencies in all of his entries (400/400) when the correct 5100 Go freqs are 300/600 ... 6) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=685758 He has neither a verification image, nor a verification image url, nor a futuremark url ... Therefore, how is his score confirmed ? Moreover he uses an n-Vidia 8800GTX, but his entry is in the 5100 Go category ... That's why the second 3D 01 5100 Go score is 70k lower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Fixed George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George_o/c Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Massman I edited my post, added two more ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mache Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 My HD2400 Mobility score is still not fixed... Thanks ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TASOS Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sorry,maybe i didnt described it clearly. I have 1867.00 submitted on 16/09/2007 and i am 3rd http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=647193 "Kszonek" has 1866.80 submitted on 17/10/2007 and he's 2nd http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=657132 Can you please check this result ? http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=673623 The total time of 15.5 sec with only 4.9GHZ ... is simply too good to be true. There must be some kind of cheat or bug. You can check all the other results for relevant scores...even from the same user. Just a bump up .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Fixed place2/3 issue Can it be that your WP32M is not that good? He's hitting 18,5 @ 4.3G as well. Anyway, asked for info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAlkAv!An Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 There's a double entry on ATI 9700 in 3DMark03 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=685562 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=565023 those 2 results are the same(same screenshot, score, gpu/cpu clock) and were made by 2 members of the same team. Please fix this and/or delete the newer one(01-07-2008) of those entries. edit: guys did the same with 3DMark05 entry ]:-( http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=565024 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=685565 please fix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAlkAv!An Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 My HD2400 Mobility score is still not fixed... Thanks ! @mache, if this is ur own entry why dont you just modify it by urself, or simply delete it and make a new entry in right category(2400mobility)? I would be happy bout this cuz my friend lost his 3rd place this way . Otherwise an admin will need to delete it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onni Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=686236 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=686160 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=686353 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=686130 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=686206 is not 1600pro 256mb ddr2,is 1600pro 512mb ddr2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PowerToTheUsers Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 The results of giorgios th. in the Xeon 5130 category (http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_1259) have been reported before. They ARE falsely matched, despite what CPU-Z says. I can't report this through the normal way as it's grayed out ("This result has been moderated by the wbot crew, and can no longer be reported.").If you look at his CPU-Z screen (http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=34354&thumb=false), you can see the cpuid is 6-F-A, 6-F-E1. Furthermore this chip has a multiplier of 10, with a FSB of 200MHz. If you look at the other Xeon 5130's, you will see they have cpuid 6-F-6, 6-F-B2. Older samples had Revision A1, but there's no revision E1 like giorgios th. has. Furthermore: Xeon 5130 has a multiplier of 6x, and a FSB of 333MHz. If you take a look at the T7300-category (like CPU-Z detects it...), you will see these CPUs do have cpuid 6-F-A, 6-F-E1, and a multiplier of 10x with the default FSB of 200MHz. So please move * http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=635085 * http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=635086 * http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=635089 * http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=621962 * http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=635434 * http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=635091 to the right category... And another one (also reported before, even twice, but never looked into...) The result in http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=645676 is a Pentium4 631, check the CPUID. It corresponds to the CPUID of http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=22841&thumb=false. The user probably knew this, check the title of MSPaint in his taskbar... Furthermore you can see it's a s775-desktopboard, and the Xeon 5060 is a socket 771-CPU. Bump... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SArd Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Celeron s478 2.8Ghz http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=637047 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=636798 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Turrican Posted January 12, 2008 Crew Share Posted January 12, 2008 you can't see resolution and card on screen. this could be any video card. need more proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=685570 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|ron Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 MMhhh that guy over@locker886 has stolen my X850XT 3dmark2003 WR: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=567042 As you can see comparing that results on the ORB with mine, that is clearly a bug... he beated me 26.800points to 20.700 with 1ghz less on the cpu and with the vga on air while I was on Dyce on each components... Just look at the fps in GT3, they're more than twice than mine... Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71proste Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Hi.I found that some of my results r delete from my account without let me know about.I have lost about 27-35points.All results r'nt reported or fake-just missing,dont know why? 1x3place(is back:)) 1x2place back 1x2place(still missing) i found two screens and i've submitted already,but i cant find what else is missing,because i have 190 submitted results.Is any way to find out whats missing?... thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunatic@98 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Should I laugh or cry? I know bench is already from the 28.01.2007, however, some more information in the picture should already be. In addition, I hardly believe that a T7200 with 2.0 Ghz creates 21.3 in the Superpi 1 mb. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=573115 pleace check this Thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAH Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Ref Post 891 Still nothing fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspstein Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 No screenshot and no orb link, score still can be real. But who could know? http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=598340 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAlkAv!An Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Screens say results weren't obtained with Futuremark approved drivers. 3DMark05: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=687987 3DMark06: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688008 Espacially 3DMark06 result is way out of line compared to other scores in ATI 9700mobility category, while using much lower clocks. Please sort this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts