demiurg Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 ..maybe this time,pls http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=696559 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=696448 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=696002 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=696164 wrong pifast http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=643993 no verification http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=680115 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=670737 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=659795 http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=683508 no resolution http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=600765 not enough proof http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=600762 fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demiurg Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Still not fixed: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=700569 2nd time User uploads this result - 3DMark06 default resolution is still 1280x1024 and not the used 1280x800. Guy has to use an external Monitor if 16:10 LCD can't display 1280x1024. Less Line's mean's lower work for GFX ! fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topdog Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Try again, thanks All the results below have been entered in the GeForce 8800 GT 256 Mb category but they are GeForce 8800 GT 512 Mb video cards http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=693360 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=691553 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=691036 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=685349 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=693407 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=687754 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=690897 no proof but other benchmarks was with 512 mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=689963 no proof that it is 256 mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=684795 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=682976 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=691554 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=694148 ATI Radeon 9800 XT in futuremark link, and screenshot of GPU_Z displays 8800 GT 512 Mb card http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=694319 Same user as above but different team, ATI Radeon 9800 XT in futuremark link, and screenshot of GPU_Z displays 8800 GT 512 Mb card http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=681706 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686510 no proof, sig in forumpost shows 8800 GT 512 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=687443 Single Water Cooled EVGA 8800GT 512 indescription http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=684791 no proof that it is 256 mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=682971 same user as above, no proof that it is 256 mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=694729 futuremark link shows 512 mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=691322 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688062 same user as above 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=689175 no proof that it is 256 mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=682877 futuremark link shows 512 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=681602 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=687795 futuremark link shows 512 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=691080 futuremark link shows 512 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=689105 same user as above http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=687509 512 in description and futuremark link http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=691113 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=691582 futuremark link shows 512 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=690902 no proof that it is 256 mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688346 same as above http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=682399 no proof that it is 256 mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=687872 no proof that it is 256 mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=681627 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=693497 screenshot of GPU_Z displays 8800 GT 512 Mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=693505 screenshot of GPU_Z displays 8800 GT 512 Mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=693492 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=692932 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=692671 screenshot of GPU_Z displays 8800 GT 512 Mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=692583 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=690637 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=690475 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688443 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=690718 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688440 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688435 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=687545 screenshot of GPU_Z displays 8800 GT 512 Mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=687086 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=691910 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686677 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686956 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686663 screenshot of GPU_Z displays 8800 GT 512 Mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686660 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=685682 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=681643 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=681637 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=683327 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=690540 no validation http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=687667 no proof 8800 512 in sig http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=689874 no validation http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=682629 futuremark link shows 512 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688427 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=694156 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=683841 futuremark link shows 512 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=685335 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=689196 futuremark link shows 512 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=685404 futuremark link shows 512 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688713 no proof http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688058 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=692734 Gainward 8800GT GS http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=682400 no proof, sig in forumpost shows 8800 GT 512 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=693386 512 in description http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=691370 no proof that it is 256 mb http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=690436 not enough proof Sorry for the long list but I just want my trophies back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ServerManiac Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=687039 no wPrime in taskbar and no Everest in tray And Please look at Bwanasoft's Athlon XP Palomino results. I think all of them are drawn in Photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaStEr Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 and Please look at Bwanasoft's Athlon XP Palomino results. I think all of them are drawn in Photoshop. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71proste Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=680957 this is too high,I can believe this is SLI -pls remove it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew NeoForce Posted February 29, 2008 Crew Share Posted February 29, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=680957 this is too high,I can believe this is SLI -pls remove it fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71proste Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=615789 no resolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew NeoForce Posted February 29, 2008 Crew Share Posted February 29, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=615789 no resolution fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71proste Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 thanks man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartx Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=699557 - it's looks like a fake to me. Too low clocks for this score - only 750MHz on core. Score is also strange, because for 7900GS usually SM 2.0 score is higher than SM 3.0 score. Used 3dmark is Basic Edition, but I don't remember, that Basic shows score. Maybe this 3d mark is out of date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew NeoForce Posted February 29, 2008 Crew Share Posted February 29, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=699557 - it's looks like a fake to me. Too low clocks for this score - only 750MHz on core. Score is also strange, because for 7900GS usually SM 2.0 score is higher than SM 3.0 score. Used 3dmark is Basic Edition, but I don't remember, that Basic shows score. Maybe this 3d mark is out of date? fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepek86 Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=693178 it's brisbane in windsor http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=642387 without cpuz; doesn't show what core http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=595162 without cpu-c http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=673566 Total Phgisical Memory Allocated is 61757 but should be 61372 (cheat) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narmer Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=705713 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=705711 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=705684 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veld Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=625391 Wrong category - Prescott Cel 2.8 335 in Northwood Cel 2.8 category Please check and delete or move to http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_939 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demiurg Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=625391Wrong category - Prescott Cel 2.8 335 in Northwood Cel 2.8 category Please check and delete or move to http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_939 fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demiurg Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 no resolution http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=689123 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=569839 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=590180 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=583802 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=562420 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=683937 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=622755 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=683943 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=622756 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=699336 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=602819 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=605558 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=632447 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=610865 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=697094 orblink broken http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=588495 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=588503 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=522515 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=526500 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=610307 Tnx for fixit! fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71proste Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=610816 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=585786 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=575658 wrong wprime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kolian Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Thortons, submitted as Thoroughbreds, and some results with no proof:http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=648978 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=641115 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=649000 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=640766 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=649026 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=573592 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=649193 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=649028 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=688350 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=592683 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demiurg Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 ^^^^^^ Partially fixed, need more information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demiurg Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=626004http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=696448 impossible score http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=627180 no screen http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=525864 + http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=695134 LOL http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=627179 no screen checked and fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=686907 Athlon 3500+ in Sempron 3500+ rank 1. I see no screen. 2. It says AMD 64 3500+ in the description. Very few knows that semprons for s939 exist at all, and if this was really a sempron I guess the bencher would've written it in the forumpost to avoid confusion. 3. http://www.hwbot.org/listResults.do?cpuModelId=257&applicationId=3&filterUser=true&filterBlocked=true&limit=100 - as you can see the score fits betetr in this category, the time needed for the sempron is a little higher (same clocks as athlon) because of 256kb vs. 512kb cache. Compare with my spi1m score for sempron 3500+ http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=683265 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gradus Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=706176 1024x768 2006mark old 3dmark: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=641360 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=657015 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=600522 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=657017 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=640596 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=602405 not default settings: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=703368 no resolution on screen: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=703841 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=640592 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ServerManiac Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=682041 No screen, just photo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepek86 Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=701362 without checksum http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=678097 wrong category http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=670745 wrong version SPI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts