Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Why i not benching for hwbot?


Recommended Posts

If anyone should be on HKEPC's side, it should be you. You've been wrongfuly accused before and were always incredibly angry about it. But now that it happens to someone else, for some reason you prefer to switch sides and jump on the "very strong evidence"-bandwagon.

 

We requested to show prove your similar results only once. That was for a big competition like MOA and after several complaints of other overclockers from the Americas. Those complaints were not sent directly to HWBOT, but were in fact addressed to the MSI USA office. Not sure if me trying to figure out a way to get the problem solved was good or bad now.

 

I did not accuse Mad or John.

I only told that when it happens with me and Gnidaol... we are forced to prove....and now... you told is different because you told is different size.

I simply told that in my point of view...is EXACLTY the same case...and FOR SURE they can do it again...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 389
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes. That one time you had to prove over livestream was because a third party, MSI, was involved too. Besides, HKEPC already showed over livestream that they have multiple 7G CPUs. The fact that they would run them simultaneously would not provide any more information other than how good my new internet connection is.

 

When I asked MSI, after we were required, they did not know nothing about our problem...

They told me...

Don't worry Ronaldo...we believe in you...

;)

Even... we agreed to bench again

I don't want to discuss with you...because you have a hard work there and I know is not easy to control lots of things that can happen in Hwbot.

Good lucky to solve the problem... I just told all things I think was needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't care if they have 20 7 GHZ CPUs...the fact is nobody knows who acutally OWNS the CPUs...

 

I can show bills of 4000+€ about CPUs with my name on it to prove they are MINE alone...

 

They might be able to show hardware but who acutally owns it???

 

Sorry bro, but, since when did you have to own the hardware to submit with it? As long as the given CPU for 2D, og VGA for 3D, is only used by one user in each benchmark, then it s ok?

If not , I sure got ALOT of stuff to report to OC Crime center, I've lended 'my' gulftown several times, I've lended graphics cards to former teammates, so....

 

I am a crug then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was following this thread since it started but I kept silent due to I already had faced this situation and I really trust hwbot's judgment.

 

I just wanted to say that I understand that Rbuass is really upset by seeing how bad it was for us to tell the truth and see that it had no importance at all. On the other hand I saw that hwbot evolved, that it had learned something and didn't stress (apparently) those guys the same way they needed to do with us.

I only expect that the truth always wins here and that every overclocker receive proper respect while no one proves anything against him.

 

Similar hardware in similar OSes will always seems to be similar, we have to face it. The community has to be honest and admit when something is wrong, that's the expected way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was following this thread since it started but I kept silent due to I already had faced this situation and I really trust hwbot's judgment.

 

I just wanted to say that I understand that Rbuass is really upset by seeing how bad it was for us to tell the truth and see that it had no importance at all. On the other hand I saw that hwbot evolved, that it had learned something and didn't stress (apparently) those guys the same way they needed to do with us.

I only expect that the truth always wins here and that every overclocker receive proper respect while no one proves anything against him.

 

Similar hardware in similar OSes will always seems to be similar, we have to face it. The community has to be honest and admit when something is wrong, that's the expected way.

 

I think with you guys in MOA it wasn't just having similar clocks, but rbuass had mentioned how it was almost impossible to get a 7970 lightning in Brazil at the time & he had to fight to get one. When you posted a score with a lightning as well it was like 'hey, wait a minute...'.

Don't think anyone doubted rbuass, but it made people wonder where your lightning might have come from.

The whole livestream thing might have been overkill, but nobody says anything about it afterwards so it did the job & sealed the deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a rap-off to solve this dispute!!!!!!!!

 

:D

 

Fester can lead the way setting shit straight with some OCAU disputes :D

 

 

 

on a serious note, stick to the facts guys.

Edited by dinos22
Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically this issue could have been resolved a lot quicker, as soon as it was raised with the same spi score being shared if johnlam had of admitted he uploaded the wrong score, this never would have reached these levels, I do not understand why he did not do this and just typed haha, I think that is what upset the community the score in question has been up over a week and he did not take it down. I apologies to mad for my words I was disappointed he did not clarify the fact that John lam uses same result.

I do not know what hwbot should do regarding this issue and I think we can all trust mass mans decision will be acceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

is there an official "rule book" ??

 

for what its worth, i think you guys do a good job at keeping everything as fair as possible. im sure its hard to be in your position, esp with tons of people trying to do your job for you.

 

it would be nice if there was a way to have CPUZ identify the serial/batch of chips..

also, i think mainboard tab should be mandatory

Edited by michaelrw
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's debatable. Remember Greece's entry? same ram in each score. Stelaras even admits it. Yet it's tolerated :rolleyes:

 

That's a bit different, they shared a single kit of memory across five platforms with five different users, and there was no rules stating this was not to be allowed in the comp. The rules on sharing clearly need to be defined better, and people need to be more honest, I mean we are doing this hobby because we enjoy it correct? Not to be #1 on some list, even though that list happens to be hwbot:p

 

Same board, cpu, memory, tweaks and voltages being the same is kinda hard to look past.

 

Is it possible that they have 20+ 7 ghz chips? Sure, but what are the chances that these two both require the exact same voltages for the exact same clock with the exact same bclk?

Link to post
Share on other sites
is there an official "rule book" ??

 

Yes :) I'm not sure whether this is public yet but we have rules and also punishments depending on what happened. E.g. 6 months ban for faking screenshots.

 

 

I was following this thread since it started but I kept silent due to I already had faced this situation and I really trust hwbot's judgment.

 

I just wanted to say that I understand that Rbuass is really upset by seeing how bad it was for us to tell the truth and see that it had no importance at all. On the other hand I saw that hwbot evolved, that it had learned something and didn't stress (apparently) those guys the same way they needed to do with us.

I only expect that the truth always wins here and that every overclocker receive proper respect while no one proves anything against him.

 

Similar hardware in similar OSes will always seems to be similar, we have to face it. The community has to be honest and admit when something is wrong, that's the expected way.

 

Thanks for this statement! I hope more people would think like that.

 

My personal opinion is:

I rather have one more "cheather" here on the bot than banning someone who could be innocent. Just imagine you would be in the position, getting accused but you're actually innocent. How would you feel?

We'll only do something if there is 100% solid proof! And not only suspicion.

 

 

That's a bit different, they shared a single kit of memory across five platforms with five different users, and there was no rules stating this was not to be allowed in the comp. The rules on sharing clearly need to be defined better, and people need to be more honest, I mean we are doing this hobby because we enjoy it correct? Not to be #1 on some list, even though that list happens to be hwbot:p

 

Same board, cpu, memory, tweaks and voltages being the same is kinda hard to look past.

 

Is it possible that they have 20+ 7 ghz chips? Sure, but what are the chances that these two both require the exact same voltages for the exact same clock with the exact same bclk?

 

Well I've got twice the same CPU (same batch) and both do max 6,75 GHz and max 6,64 GHz SuperPi32m stable at 1,84 Volt. If that's possible, why should it not be possible to get two CPUs which do 6,8 GHz 32m stable?

 

http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=179266&postcount=105

http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=179294&postcount=108

Xtreme Addict also has the same batch and his CPU is running same clocks as mine. So in total these are 3 CPUs which are running exactly same clocks:

http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=179274&postcount=107

Edited by der8auer
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I've got twice the same CPU (same batch) and both do max 6,75 GHz and max 6,64 GHz SuperPi32m stable at 1,84 Volt. If that's possible, why should it not be possible to get two CPUs which do 6,8 GHz 32m stable?

 

http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=179266&postcount=105

http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=179294&postcount=108

Xtreme Addict also has the same batch and his CPU is running same clocks as mine. So in total these are 3 CPUs which are running exactly same clocks:

http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=179274&postcount=107

 

Not saying it isn't possible, just unlikely. Plus Xtreme Addict's chip requires 1.944v to your 1.84v, and thus not identical as JL and Mad222's subs are down to voltage/bclk.

 

But I think you are correct, in the end there is no solid factual, concrete evidence that proves hardware/screen sharing occurred (just highly likely and extremely probable:))

Link to post
Share on other sites
in the end there is no solid factual, concrete evidence that proves hardware/screen sharing occurred (just highly likely and extremely probable:))

 

The only 100% way is to have cpu-z report batch+serial of the chip being used.. Which I don't think is even possible access that information through software.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay in response, I posted this one at the staff forums first for the other staff members to proof-read and comment on.

 

So, as I've mentioned before, for the past two days (due to Campus Party event) the staff has been going over all the information posted in this thread, provided to us by email or found by ourselves. Of course, we also spoke with both Mad222 and John Lam about this to hear what they have to say. As far as we can see, there are two different accusations here:

 

1) The 4m47 and 4m49 SuperPI-32M originate for the same system and is 'score sharing'

2) 1M, Wprime32M and Wprime1024M are also shared + JL is lying about mainboards

 

About the SuperPI 32M

 

It's been confirmed with Mad222 and John Lam that these two results do in fact originate from the same system.

 

Whether it was a deliberate act of result sharing or a simple mistake is up for debate as it's hard to talk factually about motives here. As far as I understand the situation, Hicookie went over to the HKEPC office to test the upcoming Z77X-UP7 mainboard together with Mad222 and John Lam. There are pictures of that session on Facebook as well as on the forum. John Lam states that he mistook the 4min 49s SuperPI run as his own because he had obtained very similar results with his ES CPU and a USB key was used to store the results instead of just keeping them on the SSD drive (as usual). Here is a 4min 50s SuperPI-32M run with the UP7 and the 3770K ES CPU.

 

As said before, whether this was a deliberate act of result sharing or just a mistake is debatable. Personally, I find it hard to believe that someone would risk everything just to have a SuperPI-32M result in their profile that is 1 second faster than what they achieved. Even though, every mistake comes at a price and has a consequence. I'm currently waiting for the other staff members to check in for their view on the level of consequence.

 

About the others

 

So, later in the thread people came with accusations of grand scheme accusations of 'fooling the community' on a large scale. So, we went again looking at the pure facts and not let our mind trick us into jumping to easy conclusions. In essence, the accusations can be brought down to these 3x2 results:

 

SuperPI 1M

 

- http://hwbot.org/submission/2293680_mad222_superpi_core_i7_3770k_5sec_187ms'>http://hwbot.org/submission/2293680_mad222_superpi_core_i7_3770k_5sec_187ms

- http://hwbot.org/submission/2300691_hkepc_superpi_core_i7_3770k_5sec_297ms'>http://hwbot.org/submission/2300691_hkepc_superpi_core_i7_3770k_5sec_297ms

 

Wprime 32M

 

- http://hwbot.org/submission/2300673_mad222_wprime_32m_core_i7_3770k_3sec_468ms'>http://hwbot.org/submission/2300673_mad222_wprime_32m_core_i7_3770k_3sec_468ms

- http://hwbot.org/submission/2303028_hkepc_wprime_32m_core_i7_3770k_3sec_484ms'>http://hwbot.org/submission/2303028_hkepc_wprime_32m_core_i7_3770k_3sec_484ms

 

Wprime 1024M

 

- http://hwbot.org/submission/2292932_mad222_wprime_1024m_core_i7_3770k_110sec_281ms'>http://hwbot.org/submission/2292932_mad222_wprime_1024m_core_i7_3770k_110sec_281ms

- http://hwbot.org/submission/2303030_hkepc_wprime_1024m_core_i7_3770k_110sec_594ms'>http://hwbot.org/submission/2303030_hkepc_wprime_1024m_core_i7_3770k_110sec_594ms

 

When reading through the thread, we've found these arguments were used to 'prove' this definitely was hardware sharing:

 

- Screenshots look similar

- CPU frequency/voltage is too similar

- Hard to believe one team would have two great CPUs like that

- Memory frequency of 1206.8MHz isn't possible, so result wasn't done on Gigabyte (and thus John Lam lied in HWBOT submission and used Mad222's results from the M5G)

- John Lam is not known and therefore it's not possible for him to do great results.

 

Of course, when seeing these arguments lined up I can understand it's logical to jump to the conclusion that this is a clear case of result sharing. So, we went over the arguments one by one.

 

#1. Screenshots look similar

 

Arguably a solid foundation to ban someone for. Definitely a reason to look closer at the results.

 

#2. CPU frequency/voltage is too similar

 

The argument here would be that no two CPUs respond the same to voltage and temperature, so it would be highly unlikely that there would be two CPUs doing within 20MHz of each other at the same voltage level. Der8auer has indicated that both of his CPUs run within that same range of frequency at the same voltage level. So, it is in fact possible to have two of these similarly acting CPUs.

 

The likelihood of that happening might seems slim at first sight, but is quite hard to determine exactly. There are two other results in the Wprime1024M ranking that were done at same voltage within 20MHz from two different users, so Der8auer is not an exception.

 

#3. Hard to believe two such great CPUs can be found in one team

 

HWBOT staff member Christian Ney confirmed having seen at least 5 7GHz CPUs over livestream. Besides, we all know that finding a good CPU is mostly about testing in great volume (HKEPC has tested over 100) rather than skill. We don't have a clear view on how much chips were tested exactly, but we don't have that view on anyone's testing for that matter.

 

#4. 1206,8MHz cannot be done on a Gigabyte mainboard

 

One of the more complex arguments was that John Lam would have submitted a result using an Asus mainboard, without mainboard tab, but indicated Gigabyte in the result submission. The fundamental argument here was that the memory frequency of 1206,8MHz was not possible on a Gigabyte mainboard and that it proved that he used a result from Mad222 (with Asus board) to submit as his own. The claim was that John Lam is, and I quote, "a liar. He is deceives to vendors and thus all true overclocking community".

 

We've established that this memory frequency is indeed possible on a Gigabyte mainboard here and here. The technical explanation was provided as well (SSC Spectrum) and we've also shown that you don't need any special software to alter this %, but it's just BIOS dependant.

 

#5. It's all because of marketing and $$

 

This one's tied to #4 and basically insinuates that the sharing and (false accusation of) lying was done on purpose for marketing and/or financial benefit. Now, I have no clue whether or not any company pays HKEPC (doubt it), but there has been no PR on any of the SuperPI 1M, Wprime 32M or Wprime 1024M results. Actually, if it would have been done for marketing reasons, essentially John Lam would've shown that the UD3H is a tad worse in all benchmarks ... not really good PR I'd say.

 

Highly unlikely, in other words.

 

#6. John Lam is not known and therefore it's not possible for him to do great results.

 

This one's a bit weird and not really objective to say the least. John Lam's results don't really come out of nowhere either. He did the Antec Computex gig which showed decent skill/creativity. We all know with the right CPU it's "easy" to set records; Ivy Bridge is pretty straight-forward overclocking.

 

Another finding

 

One thing we picked up on while trying to figure out what went on is that the file extentions of Mad222's and JL's scores were not the same. Mad222 always uses .pjpeg whereas JL uses .png (or .jpeg for the 1M). Under the assumption that this is a case of result sharing, the file extentions should in fact always match!

 

SuperPI 1M

 

- .PJPEG - http://hwbot.org/submission/2293680_mad222_superpi_core_i7_3770k_5sec_187ms

- .JPEG - http://hwbot.org/submission/2300691_hkepc_superpi_core_i7_3770k_5sec_297ms

 

SuperPI 32M (allegedly mistaken submission)

 

- .PJPEG - http://hwbot.org/submission/2308040_mad222_superpi_32m_core_i7_3770k_4min_47sec_750ms

- .JPEG - http://hwbot.org/submission/2308299_hkepc_superpi_32m_core_i7_3770k_4min_49sec_765ms

 

Wprime 32M

 

- xxxx - http://hwbot.org/submission/2300673_mad222_wprime_32m_core_i7_3770k_3sec_468ms

- .PNG - http://hwbot.org/submission/2303028_hkepc_wprime_32m_core_i7_3770k_3sec_484ms

 

Wprime 1024M

 

- .PJPEG - http://hwbot.org/submission/2292932_mad222_wprime_1024m_core_i7_3770k_110sec_281ms

- .PNG - http://hwbot.org/submission/2303030_hkepc_wprime_1024m_core_i7_3770k_110sec_594ms

 

Both sets of Wprime results have different file extentions, which makes it highly unlikely that they originate from the system. Unless you'd of course believe that they would pay attention to the file extention but then not give a damn about the similar voltage and memory settings.

 

By the way, before you argue that the .png file would have been done after editing out the mainboard tab from the .jpeg file, let me remind you that the IQ decrease from saving as .jpeg will not be resolved by re-saving it as .png.

 

Here's a test:

 

1) original .png

2) saved .png as .jpg (notice IQ degradation)

3) saved .jpg as .png (notice same IQ degradation)

 

If John Lam was editing the .jpg results and then saving them as .png, there should be bad IQ in his screenshots. But they are very clean (like a real .png should be). Example: http://d1ebmxcfh8bf9c.cloudfront.net/u41156/image_id_820307.png

 

In conclusion

 

As far as this thread goes, there were 4 sets of results under scrutiny: SuperPI 1M, Wprime 32M, Wprime 1024M and SuperPI 32M.

 

1) SuperPI 1M: different #core, different memory timings, different cpu ratio

2) Wprime 32M/1024M: different file extention, 1206.8MHz possible on gigabyte, similarly clocking CPUs possible, multiple 7G cpus verified.

3) SuperPI 32M: mistake (?) while submitting result.

 

I know Slamms and a lot of people-who-don't-know-him-but-still-agree have already made up their mind based on speculation and false facts, but here's a list of facts. We tried to be as neutral as possible, assumed all possible scenarios and acquired this list of findings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good. You misrepresent #6 however. The perspective, that I put forth, was not that he wasn't known so great results aren't possible... What I put forth was that he had nothing leading up to his top global 3D scores. Yes 2D on 3770K overclocking is straight forward... But my point was most people put up some good or above average 3D scores before they post 3D world records.

 

This is moot really, as my point was only designed to show that some people that were suspicious weren't without cause. It's natural to me to expect people to be suspicious and raise questions in a case like this one.

 

The way the hwbot team approached and addressed it was good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is, Intel "scanned" my lapped CPU and managed to know the batch/serial :D

 

they have the ATPO printed on the PCB, there's no SN info inside the CPU

 

Well, i definitely think intel should put that kind of information in their chips, or at least put it in the SKUs that are popular in the OC community (like 3570k, 3770k, 3930k, 3960x, etc). By including this information in the CPU and being able to view it in CPU-Z, all of these problems and accusations will be a thing of the past!!

 

I know, this probably sounds absurd or far-fetched, but I do not think there is another way to verify what chip is being used. If enough of the pro overclockers and other "big-wigs" petition Intel (and AMD) for something like this, it could actually be done pretty easily. It would be a great change for the overall good of the community.. progress

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know Slamms and a lot of people-who-don't-know-him-but-still-agree have already made up their mind based on speculation and false facts, but here's a list of facts. We tried to be as neutral as possible, assumed all possible scenarios and acquired this list of findings.

 

Don't you think some things like this:

 

About the SuperPI 32M

 

It's been confirmed with Mad222 and John Lam that these two results do in fact originate from the same system.

 

Can encourage people to think this way???...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you think some things like this:

 

About the SuperPI 32M

 

It's been confirmed with Mad222 and John Lam that these two results do in fact originate from the same system.

 

Can encourage people to think this way???...

 

I've been keeping quiet, but I have to say this:

 

Yes, it can. If there is no punishment (I haven't seen any, certainly not like there was in days past!) then there is no reason beyond personal honor not to do it. How far personal honor goes is, of course, up to the end user. It prevents me from sharing HW/results. Everybody else? I have no clue.

If an "Oops!" story is enough to get them off the hook that implies that it would be for the rest of us too, and that in turn says to me that we can expect an awful lot of result sharing soon here.

 

Now like I said, the fact that I haven't seen a punishment only means just that: I haven't seen it. If it has happened and I missed it, that changes things. They're still #2/#3 though, so it can't have been much of a punishment if it existed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John Lam

To everyone,

 

I need to say sorry for my mistake , this is my careless and never double check my result. I really have 4m49s record using my ES , but this time we are using Cookie's OS and SSD. every OCER have their own OS Trim, we don't touch his Ghost image and let him arrange the result.

 

Cookie's OS have a Capture.exe which can cap screen and save as jpg , the name is "screen0xx.jpg"﹐after the benchmark session , Cookie copy all the screenshot to us.

 

For Mad , He like to use his own capture software and I like to set clock Modulation to 50% or 82.5% , then open CPU-Z then back to 100% press "print screen", then back to Modulation to 12.5% ,save screenshot by MSpaint.exe , the filename is related to benchmark and result .png.

 

In this time , We bench 2 days non-stop until he need to take taxi to air-port , he copy all of result to one USB drive then gone , he also left a lot of stuff in our office too.

 

my mission is 7GHz + CPU-Z record ,Super-PI 32M is just for fun, honestly I don't use Waza and CD-KEY, so 4m49s is ok for me. However , we mixed some screenxxx.jpg so I lost my screenshot of 4m49s with ES CPU.

 

Frankly , I am very busy in this month

 

18/8/2012. Plextor SSD event's, I need to setup two Indentical system for benching the different between Plextor M5P SSD and INTEL 520 SSD . I need to pick 1 3770K which can overclock to 4.8GHz in Air and pass boot-up test and auto launch 7 program using HDD , compare with a normal 3.5GHz 3770K which using Plextor M5P SSD. We need to test 24 x 2 to make sure the system is stable enough for the press conference , I am one of a speaker in this event.

 

523077_10151015703513946_1952577407_n.jpg

 

18/8/2012-20/8/2012 UP7 Benching Party

559093_350586151684268_1774655978_n.jpg

After I finished the Plextor's event , I back to office and join UP7 benching party , Cookie is so crazy , we bench from 1:00 PM to 4:00 AM , sleep awhile then rebench again,

One platform use my method to put rice + paper cat litter for benching because Mad's CPU have CBB @ -120C , you can see there are 2 different platform setup in our benching session.

 

http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2308291_hkepc_cpu_frequency_core_i7_3770k_7090.95_mhz

286818_10151181045280971_944711848_o.jpg

This is my L146 ES which I make during UP Benching Party

 

 

 

http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2300461_hkepc_cpu_frequency_core_i7_3770k_7063.8_mhz

This is my 3218C120 which is my secord 7GHz Chip , it helps me to break a lot of record, however I removed the IHS , I kill it when I use in my M5E MB.

Why Christian Ney said he believe we have several 7GHz Chips , because we bench together through Internet , This is batch 3218C120 , we discuss how to use another method to keep CPU cooler rather then LHe, because LHe is not allow to use in Hong Kong. As u see , when my CPU reach -195.1C (my Type T line max is -196.4C) , the Rice and Cat litter is already -54.6C , just like we benching a room temp is -54.6C, we need faster cooling response time.

 

815087.jpg

 

Even the CPU-Z hangs but the system still alive , I can reach 7083 but I can't launch CPU-Z anymore.

 

http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2294689_hkepc_cpu_frequency_core_i7_3770k_6991.7_mhz/

This is my 3213C181 which is my first 7GHz Chip, I really afraid to set more than 1.92v at that time because not much people reach that high before. I record a video for this submit but the quality is not good.

 

It killed in my ASROCK OC-King Competition, and I send back to Taiwan for RMA , anyone who know NVIDIA's Andy Tsai (3213C181) and Antec's Peter Liu (3217B264), you can ask them "did John give you 1 3770K for RMA ?"

 

20/8/2012. I need to setup a ROG Water-Cooling Demo for ASUS HK which using M5F and GeForce GTX 680, which can 24 x 4 run at 5GHz non-stop.

 

253806_10151022877243946_518247020_n.jpg

 

217987_10151022672623946_22336175_n.jpg

 

185494_10151033063903946_1976678643_n.jpg

 

484551_10151022916388946_2039076660_n.jpg

 

526276_10151032963468946_427757386_n.jpg

 

23-08 is my deadline to send the system to ASUS HK and I start my "ASROCK OC School 2012"

 

I need to check all the ASROCK OCF MB is work and flash newest bios , I need to clone a OS for every students

 

the ASROCK OC School Event at 26-08 , during this period , Nick Shih update 4 BIOS and 4 OC Tools for me,then I need to sort 10 pcs CPU which can pass 5.2 CPU-Z for OC Competition and make sure the game is fair.

 

228406_10151030306078946_1795146375_n.jpg

 

253837_10151030404078946_1865822202_n.jpg

 

418587_10151030412053946_1114480965_n.jpg

 

292367_10151030828428946_1164286561_n.jpg

 

Also , I need to setup a 6.8+ for demo. I use my new chip 32248C840

 

315077_10151389759155031_1343078361_n.jpg

 

This is my new chip which can pass wprime1024 5GHz @ 1.376v , Over 30 people saw me to reach 61x110 @ 1.808v 2C/2T pass Super PI 1M.

However , It killed during the event because I want to give more student to try Sub-Zero OC Experience.

Edited by John Lam
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ John Lam: Appreciating your post!

 

I've been keeping quiet, but I have to say this:

 

Yes, it can. If there is no punishment (I haven't seen any, certainly not like there was in days past!) then there is no reason beyond personal honor not to do it. How far personal honor goes is, of course, up to the end user. It prevents me from sharing HW/results. Everybody else? I have no clue.

If an "Oops!" story is enough to get them off the hook that implies that it would be for the rest of us too, and that in turn says to me that we can expect an awful lot of result sharing soon here.

 

Now like I said, the fact that I haven't seen a punishment only means just that: I haven't seen it. If it has happened and I missed it, that changes things. They're still #2/#3 though, so it can't have been much of a punishment if it existed.

 

There will be consequences but the final decision has not been taken yet. Might follow during this day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John Lam
John Lam my man, you're pretty busy man:)

 

You lost your ES ss and you submitted your retail cpu run?

 

I like to save my record "Result+benchmark+CPU.png"

however , Cookie give me some screen0xx.jpg , so we mixed it ,

Mad believe 4m46s is his scores , so he taked.

after that I take my 4m49s for my submission.

 

however , I submited a 4m49s which is non-ES ,

when we discover this problem , we call cookie for the screenshot ,

now I only got 4m50.3s backup screenshot from my ES.

Edited by John Lam
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...