Getting gold globals without even OC'ing

Nice one!

I could overclock if I used a different board

Wrong screenshot / matched to wrong cpu ?

Depends. HWBot doesn't have a system that takes properly care of CPU subs with different # of cores. I can't select one 8 core chip and a 12 core chip, so posting my scores in this category to get my well earned ( ) points is the easiest fix. Also, as my rig is always slower than these servers, they don't lose any HW points here I think.

There are s few similar SR2 subs in the 1x 8870 rankings, using one quad and one hexa, so this issue is well known already. Maybe time for a fix?

im confuse for your screen i dont now what are you doing

insert again sir if you can

why your PC MARK very worst and bad score

PCMark removed, as it wasn't suppsoed to be there.

Score is bad because I used a 1st gen 30gb SSD, and the CPU speed is very low.

Think you missed the point here Knut, SS shows AMD Opteron while the score is in the Xeon 8870 category....

Think you missed the point here Knut, SS shows AMD Opteron while the score is in the Xeon 8870 category....

Just make a new category for it and call it ES.

Think you missed the point here Knut, SS shows AMD Opteron while the score is in the Xeon 8870 category....

http://hwbot.org/submission/2323466_dhenzjhen_wprime___32m_xeon_e7_2860_2sec_562ms

and

http://hwbot.org/submission/2271587_stevero_wprime___32m_xeon_e7_2860_2sec_624ms

This was an issue a year ago, and was mentioned here:

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=43606

...and also here:

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?p=170425&highlight=e5620#post170425

There's no indication that this practise is not OK. I do have some possible solutions in my head, but for now this is "legit enough" (I could move my scores to e7 2870 instead, if that helps).

http://hwbot.org/submission/2323466_dhenzjhen_wprime___32m_xeon_e7_2860_2sec_562ms

 

and

 

http://hwbot.org/submission/2271587_stevero_wprime___32m_xeon_e7_2860_2sec_624ms

 

This was an issue a year ago, and was mentioned here:

 

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=43606

 

...and also here:

 

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?p=170425&highlight=e5620#post170425

 

There's no indication that this practise is not OK. I do have some possible solutions in my head, but for now this is "legit enough" (I could move my scores to e7 2870 instead, if that helps).

OPTERON IS NOT INTEL

This should not be hard for you to understand.

OPTERON IS NOT INTEL

This should not be hard for you to understand.

Click the links I provided... look at the screenshots... closely. Don't tell me that e5620 + x56XX = e7 2870 either. Too hard to understand, perhaps?

I think there should be an update to the rules regulating such a case. For GPUs the was a rule that "lower GPU+higher GPU = dual higher GPU". Meaning 4850+4870 = dual 4870. So that it does allow to get some points with two cards without making flaws in the system.

Maybe we should make "global points only" submissions so you can manually set the core count for mixed submissions but not give any hardware points for them.

seems some sockets are in a mistake...any way Nice Score & point

@ Mr.Scott: yeap even MB is AMD, he can Edit CPU name but this edit don`t change his Global score

I think there should be an update to the rules regulating such a case. For GPUs the was a rule that "lower GPU+higher GPU = dual higher GPU". Meaning 4850+4870 = dual 4870. So that it does allow to get some points with two cards without making flaws in the system.

 

Maybe we should make "global points only" submissions so you can manually set the core count for mixed submissions but not give any hardware points for them.

The GPU case is a bit different. I benched an Opteron 6128 together with a 6132. Those scores will be posted as 2x Opteron 6132, due to the rule you refer to. However, say you bench a 4870 and a 4870x2, then the current way to deal with it is to use the 3x 4870 ranking, as it's matches the correct # of GPUs. It's pretty much the same thing I'm doing here, except I don't have a fitting category to put them in.

I've posted a few suggestions in a classifieds thread... let's see if there will be a quick fix then.

knopflerbruce the screenshoot you have uploaded is done with 2 Amd opteron cpus and you say that this is an intel cpu you can only make the 10core thing you are rambling about with 2 intel cpus 4core and 6core not with 2 amd cpus..

I wouldn't be surprised if I can, by using 4 and 6 core C32 Opterons

Nonetheless, brand is irrelevant. My scores are not in the right category, but it's not worse than posting 1366 Xeons in a 2011 category either. They're also misplaced, an apparently acceptable solution to a weird issue - as shown in links posted in an older post.

I won't respond to questions regarding the category of the scores. The logic and precedence has been explained already.

A "mixed CPU configuration" checkbox on the submit page a manual selection of core count giving only global, and no h/w points should be a nice solution.

 

Nonetheless, brand is irrelevant. My scores are not in the right category, but it's not worse than posting 1366 Xeons in a 2011 category either. They're also misplaced, an apparently acceptable solution to a weird issue - as shown in links posted in an older post.

 

I won't respond to questions regarding the category of the scores. The logic and precedence has been explained already.

LOL. That's the most ridiculous logic I've ever heard.

Hey, think anyone will mind if I use an Ivy and submit in the FX categories? Same logic applies.

A "mixed CPU configuration" checkbox on the submit page a manual selection of core count

This ^^^

With the ability to input multiple cpu models in a given submission.

ie: one X5687 (four cores) and one E5645 (six cores)

But the issue would still be; Under what cpu category would it ranked?

The x5687 or the e5645?

Can always create some sort of new category based on the cpu combinations used; "MIXED CPU".

So when looking up the cpu x5687 as you normally would in the drop down menu it will also show "&" e5645.

example:

Xeon X5680

Xeon X5680 & Xeon E5606

Xeon X5680 & Xeon E5607

Xeon X5680 & Xeon E5620

Xeon X5680 & Xeon E5630

Xeon X5680 & Xeon E5640

Xeon X5680 & Xeon E5645

Xeon X5680 & Xeon E5649

Xeon X5687

etc...etc...

Combinations will be added to list as members make the various mixed cpu submissions.

Just an idea that may spark another idea/solution from someone else since the ability to use mixed cpus exists but are being submitted under confusing/conflicting circumstances. No fault of the submitter/member, just no place to put them n rank them appropriately n correctly.

With the ability to input multiple cpu models in a given submission.

ie: one X5687 (four cores) and one E5645 (six cores)

 

But the issue would still be; Under what cpu category would it ranked?

The x5687 or the e5645?

+1 for mixed option. can't imagine it would be an issue to add a drop down if the initial cpu chosen is enterprise level.

as to subbing catagory i understand that currently the larger of the 2 cpus used in a sub would need to be the lead unit. with a mixed cpu option i imagine it would make no difference unless the participant is chasing HW points or cups... saying that mixed subs could just catch globals and there would be no issues.

I'd say the one with the most computing power should be the "leading" chip. I guess it's not possible to mix entirely different chips, so an easy way to figure that out would be # of threads * frequency for all chips, and choose the one that gets the higher "performance number"

I guess it's not possible to mix entirely different chips

not entirely true. i have been experimenting with some success using interlago mixed with abu dhabi and can confirm they can work together however cpuz doesn't like it, TPC doesn't like it and occasionally supermicro doesn't like it lol.