Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

valid.canardpc cleaned up lot of cpuz 1.60 & 1.61.x validations

Christian Ney

Do me block HWBot submissions with rejected CPU-Z link?  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Do me block HWBot submissions with rejected CPU-Z link?

    • Yes
    • No
    • Depend

Recommended Posts

As you guys know CPUZ 1.60 and 1.61.x were extremely bugged and we were just beta testers, gave headaches to hwbot's moderators due to bugged validated scores and so on.


Now Sam from valid.canardpc "to be fare" cleaned the ranking: link

From high frequency validations done with 1.60.x / 1.61.1 / 1.61.2 (because their trust level is =0 due to highly bugged cpuz)


As some may have noticed already this means those scores:

Christian Ney'sMemory Clock score - 1922.9 MHz with DDR3 SDRAM at 1922.9MHz

John Lam'sMemory Clock score - 1921.8 MHz with DDR3 SDRAM at 1921.8MHz

TK-OC'sMemory Clock score - 1918.5 MHz with DDR3 SDRAM at 1918MHz


Have all been rejected.


Which brings back the Highest RAM Frequency Reached to this one (done with 1.59 and double checked by valid.canardpc guys):

Christian Ney @ Ocaholic.ch / GSkill reached 1868.3 MHz with 4096 MB of G.Skill Memory

According to valid.canardpc's ranking.


At hwbot many guys don't like rejected valids posted, some are good scores and some are bugs but both are rejected.


Now the question is, do we also have to clean hwbot from rejcted cpuz validation submissions ?

Edited by Christian Ney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know that CPUz can occasionally produce "red" validations even at stock clocks, so I don't mind having a bunch of those in the hwbot DB as long as they are legit.




I don't have a problem with rejected scores. The software might say "rejected" but the benchers put a lot of work in the scores so it would not be fair to just block them.


Ofc if the result is obviously bugged we block it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would wipe out 3 of the top 5 frequency globals - 2nd, 3rd, and 5th. I'm sure a lot of work was put into those submissions, and they looked legit when they were made, but they were all done on versions that were badly bugged.


More importantly, my cpu frequency is ranked 7th globally, so I vote "yes, please move me up 3 spots". I kid, I wouldn't want to be one of the three listed above - it doesn't seem fair completely to remove the scores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to decide that in each case that pops up. IMO if you have a really good CPUZ chip you also should be able to produce a 1m/pifast score that reflects performance equal to valid minus a couple of hundred MHz, and same reasoning goes for memory frequency scores. If you can't show that => we don't give benefit of doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Memory is tricky actually you need to have both of them (imc + mem) stable, when I clock memory very high, setup usually crash just after taking screenshot (puts both under load).


You can get to 1800 memory but you can show only 1600 mhz superpi so ...

Edited by Christian Ney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...