Christian Ney Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) 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 August 20, 2012 by Christian Ney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaPaKaH Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der8auer Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 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. agreed. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaPaKaH Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 does the "new and improved" CPUz still occasionally produce red validations at 100% stable clocks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 I didn't have feedbacks saying so atm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M.O.G. Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Lam Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 agree !! Christian , Are you ready for the benching ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 agree !! Christian , Are you ready for the benching ? Planned to do it live this week at Campus Party, took the rig with me in the luggage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M.O.G. Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I think that is the best idea yet Bruce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I think that is the best idea yet Bruce. Love you too:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) 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 August 21, 2012 by Christian Ney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 So there is a 200mhz difference between F7 and 1m? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 at least yeah, pretty much like for some CPUs, can do high CPUZ but low bench freq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I didn't have feedbacks saying so atm What about socket A, is that fixed now too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 What about socket A, is that fixed now too? What was the issue ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Turrican Posted August 21, 2012 Crew Share Posted August 21, 2012 What was the issue ? since cpu-z 1.56 the validation shows double the fsb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 ha yeah, asked to fix for Llano totally forgot for Socket A. Don't even need to debug it's the online valid, I will drop him an email, should be fixed tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 since cpu-z 1.56 the validation shows double the fsb. Correct, and thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 ha yeah, asked to fix for Llano totally forgot for Socket A. Don't even need to debug it's the online valid, I will drop him an email, should be fixed tomorrow. Keep us informed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 Looks like it has already been fixed: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2485584 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Sweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Turrican Posted August 22, 2012 Crew Share Posted August 22, 2012 ok, thats nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 Bump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M.O.G. Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) Any updates on this? This could affect 6 out of the top 20 CPU-z globals on hwbot, 2 out of the top 5, and the vote seems to support taking a closer look: Christian Ney: http://hwbot.org/submission/2326765_christian_ney_cpu_frequency_fx_8150_8181.1_mhz Name GT: http://hwbot.org/submission/2322981_namegt_cpu_frequency_fx_8350_8176.5_mhz wytiwx: http://hwbot.org/submission/2277245_wytiwx_cpu_frequency_celeron_lga775_352_8160.94_mhz Ananerbe: http://hwbot.org/submission/2318479_ananerbe_cpu_frequency_fx_8150_8156.76_mhz just_nuke_em: http://hwbot.org/submission/2284616_just_nuke_em_cpu_frequency_fx_8120_8373.8_mhz wizerty: http://hwbot.org/submission/2297410_wizerty_cpu_frequency_fx_8150_8406.34_mhz Edited November 20, 2012 by I.M.O.G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.