Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

John Lam - Core i7 3770K @ 6905.9MHz - 10.26 sec PiFast


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You have uploaded at least two different screenshots to your 10.26s submission before selecting that it should be awarded no points.

Here they are both still in hwbot database:



On the first one, there is no space between "0.89" and ":" in the division time.

Second one is even more badly messed, having "8.89" instead of "0.89", ~0.01 hours next to 10.26s and a letter "g" cut off by the "ASRock Timing configurator" icon.


If this isn't photoshopping scores, then I don't know what is.

Edited by TaPaKaH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Lam

@ Sam OCX


Be Honestly , I feel sorry to everyone because I haven't double check my result.


I have upload 2 screenshot because massman told me my screenshots have some problem and I upload the second one without checking.


I can say this is unbelieveable, but MS Ramdrive is very buggy and the system become very unstable.


This is the first time I tried this method and support will not have any problem with MS Native RamDrive , please forgive my careless.


Sorry X 1000000 to everyone and this is not cheat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Lam

even the wprime 32m, I really afraid this is a fault run , so I want to make sure my tweaks and trim is work.


So , Yesterday I make a test in 3960X


before tweaks (3s)



after tweaks (2.921s)



this is my careless , even the wprime 32m result , you can see my careless style. Sorry T.T"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is not a result Cheated - John Lam work and study hard to get it, it was just an oversight on the screens of CPUZ

Now tell me who never committed any negligence

can not judge a person just because she committed an oversight

There are many errors in the league world overclocking

I mean that if Andre Yang - Shammy make a mistake like this they will be accused of cheating??

Is not that how we have to look at this situation

let's have a bit of reasoning here

he is only seeking new tweaks

we will demonstrate respect for the work of this man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If OS is indeed the same, then it is normally not possible to have xx.26 seconds as a PiFast time or subtime.



Normally, PiFast counts time in 1/64s of a second, same as SuperPi.

16/64s = .250s in SuperPi = .25s in PiFast

17/64s = .265/.266s in SuperPi = .27s in PiFast

Try looking for 11.26, 12.26, 13.26, ... results in PiFast on hwbot and see how many of those were done using XP.


The only way to have .26s on XP is by having OS messed up in a very specific way that both Pi and PiFast will not follow the "1/64s" rule. I remember Hicookie had something similar in Clarkdale times when his records were questioned (5.910s 1M on XP or something like this). From my own experience of nLiting hundreds of XP versions, this bug can emerge only during OS compilation and is permament. Now that you've shown via SuperPi that your OS doesn't have the bug, I have more ground to think that your 10.26s result(s) were bogus.


To staff - I'd really hate to derail any tweaking thread, can the "offtopic" posts be moved somewhere else? For example, into the submission discussion thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...