Need explanation about a result approved.

Hi everybody, I have a question for you moderators!

Some time ago you invalidated me a results of mine made with a Geffo 7800GTX because I made a screen full of details but with the resolution missing... I didn't upped the result of the ORB that time because I was planning to bench more seriously than air soon...

The incriminated screen was that:

Ok, that was my fault, if you need the resolution to be visible, then It's correct to remove that screen...

So, today I was watching at the situation in the X850XT WRs, 3 of them are mine but today a new result was upped and I lost one of them...

I'm talking about that result: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=665207

As you can see, there isn't any cpu indication, any fps in game tests is showed and there isn't any link to the orb...

I reported that result and you validated it...

If you look at the other guys in the top5 of the 3dm05 with that vga, you should see that we're benching with c2d far more clocked than that q6600@3,6ghz and also the vga frequencies are higher...

You can check all there: http://hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=GPU_268&name=Radeon+X850+XT+%28489%29

So I was thinking (I'm not saying it's a fake or something like this, this point must be clear), how can you validate that result and not mine?

With my removed result with the 7800, You could easily compare it to the others in its range of scoring to see that vga and cpu frequencies were appropriate to the points obtained and that there wasn't any cheated resolution...

Thank you in advance for your attention!

Hi jkme, that screen isn't showing details about cpu... 3dmark05 only detects that it's a q6600 but nothing else...

I usually put two instances of cpuz showing cpu details and frequency, ram details with frequency and timings, gpuz and link to the orb.

Don't you think that the new x850xt wr is too poor of informations?

So I was thinking: with the facts occourred with some clockers (I'm reffering to fake screens etc..) don't we need to add something in the rules of submissions?

Resolution is important ok, but all the other things? cpu frequnecy? ram settings? game tests average fps?

the orb is not needed but only if we can get all of the infos from the screenshot... that is what I was trying to say.

Ron,

Yes the ORB is the way to go. There is too much fluctuation in what people put, think they need to put, and what they finally end up with in screen shots. ORB compares generally give us the information we need to make a good comparison but as you know even the ORB is not perfect. Missing card clocks or incorrectly detected CPU clocks cause problems of their own so the best solutiuon is to use both.

Remember that hwbot is a user driven database. Each result is not looked at by human eyes as it is submitted therfore we rely on user scrutiny to alert us to potential problems. If you see something you believe is out of the ordinary, report it and a moderator will review it when time allows. As it is now with the example you gave above, hwbot will not block this result. If this score we're in the HOF it is a differnt story, there every score must have an ORB compare where applicable.

So you think It's normal a screen without cpu frequency showed when all the members in top5 are benching with MIN 4ghz on Core2Duo or C2Q... me, the third and the fourth guy have the c2d@4,3/4,4ghz... the 5th one is at 3923MHz, so minimum 323MHz upper in frequency, Maximum 750mhz or so...

Our vga is at least 40/50mhz more on the gpu...

Do you think it's normal, considering that in 3dm05 the dual or quad cores doesn't count? It's not 06...

I think that the cpu frequency declared isn't true or that there has been the known problem in which the fps of a Game Test made something wrong and pulled out an incredible high rate!

But from that screen we can't see even that average fps per test...

No answer in the last 4 days...

Bad organization here, I'm proposing to add some simple informations in our screenshots and no one is answering if that's a good or bad idea...

How do you think you can verify that the result above is valid with that frequencies?

I already proposed to put in the rules of submitting to also include the "details"... it's only a click more to do and we all can finally see the average fps per game test... Minimum work to do in future and a good way to compare results and see when there is a bug or cheating or not!

Last thing... http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=665207

He wrote that's a X850XT PE... so it's in the wrong category?

maybe want to re-read Maxi's post;)

 

 

 

HWbot receives hundreds of reported posts each week, it takes time to sift through them

ok jmke, but I wasn't referring to "please watch that strange results with strange frequencies", I was referring to "please discuss all togheter about adding some small rules when submitting, the "details" panel in 3dmarks".

Even a:"I read it, we will discuss as soon as possible" will be appreciated

In that manner it seems that nobody is listening to me... I'm new over there, probably it's normal, in that case sorry about my pressure

---edit---

the result was just moved

I moved the result because it's indeed an XT PE, but have no input on the score being "ok" for those GPU/MEM, will leave that to more "benchmarky"-people;)

Thank you jmke, at that point the guys in the xtpe category should compare their frequencies with that score, but as I know there aren't architectural differences between XTs and XT PEs... it's only a matter of stock frequencies

P.s: in the past days I didn't understood that you were in the Staff, so sorry again for my post above here... I thought that nobody from the club was listening to my questions