301 pts Overclock.net

12 days.... My body is ready!

There are information about hardware limitation?

The competition hasn't launched yet ... someone found the URL

The competition hasn't launched yet ... someone found the URL

:nana:

Nice going N00b in revealing the team cup before it's due

Yeah, looking forward to this...

Well it made it to the competition tab on the home page but missing all the limitations except Stage1? Teaser?

who wants to by my AMD cpu which is good for 4440mhz north bridge and stock is 1600mhz which is a 177.5% OC lol

The current lineup doesnt look much interesting. I dont like to buy a 2000€ Gaming Notebook to have a chance winning that HM87 stage. And it would be cool if Massman would also allow Socket 771 CPUs. Its just, I dont see why we should spend more money than necessary.

Lets see if the VGA stage is a little more interesting.

AFAIK, CPU-Z valis dont include Uncore or Northbridge. So verification needs to be done by screenshot I guess...

Why do these competitions keep popping up?

#secretfails

#secretfails

If I remember it right last year, limitations from all stages were visible before cup started. So we actually made progress here.

But the good thing is that we can discuss about certain before something starts.

Maybe someone should poke CPU-Z Author to add uncore and nb frequency in valis? Also HM87 boards dont get recognized... There is just "Haswell" instead of HM87 in motherboard section.

About the uncore/nb freq, it the one which appear in the Memory tab right ?

the northbridgeclock is shown on memorytab but whats the uncore on cpu-z?

the northbridgeclock is shown on memorytab but whats the uncore on cpu-z?

same thing

The uncore is the bus ring / imc thing, so same as AMD's CPU/NB i suppose.

Please make that GPUPI is not part of the cup without solid & strict rules.

is it me, or ar not al stages and challenge online for the moment?

no background ?

Nothing is working and the cup already started, yes

Something tells me that Massman postponed TeamCup. Its just users dont know this and submit anyway.

Yes, postponed. On the road now aaaargh ...

Check the dates; 13 April 2016 - 15 July 2015

It'll probably be available soon, no worries

Postponed till 12th of May by the looks of things, as long as we get the three months like last time I'm happy

Is this now official 12th of May 2016 or what?

Its as always some special mystery involved. First, you can see in OC esports schedule for about half year that it starts 14th April than it really starts on that date but there is just one stage visible and now it got postponed till next year.

It would just be useful to know if there are any plans to start it in the next two months as organizing a team meeting is getting even harder without knowing exact dates.

Is this now official 12th of May 2016 or what?

Its as always some special mystery involved. First, you can see in OC esports schedule for about half year that it starts 14th April than it really starts on that date but there is just one stage visible and now it got postponed till next year.

 

It would just be useful to know if there are any plans to start it in the next two months as organizing a team meeting is getting even harder without knowing exact dates.

I'm going to assume it's probably 12th of May 2015

It would be appreciated if this could be confirmed. I've a stockpile of stuff that I'm holding in case a stage in Team Cup requires them, but want to sell it off if there is no real expected start date for the competition.

I'm going to assume it's probably 12th of May 2015

Yes, it will be probably on 12th May and not next year.

I just exaggerated it a little bit because I dont understand what Massman has in mind when he changes the schedule so that nobody can see it anymore because he changed the year to 2016.

I mean, which advantage does it have? Just because it would be a surprise?

Anyone heard about a start date? I'm holding hardware in case it's needed as well, but would like to move some of it.

TeamCup 2015 will be held in 2016

TeamCup 2015 will be held in 2016

Wasn't that just sarcasm a few posts up that mentioned 2016?

Yes, it is still a joke. I believe it will start on 15th this month, but we can't be sure...

There's no "official" statement.

Yes, it is still a joke. I believe it will start on 15th this month, but we can't be sure...

There's no "official" statement.

Let's hope so, I was excited for it to start before the delay.

The Team Cup launch hasn't been super smooth, sadly enough. Before competitions like this would all be arranged by one or two people, but now what we're expanding the staff and getting more people involved in the discussion and launch of competitions, we sometimes get out of sync.

The artwork is ready, the stages almost, ...

knock knock,

any news?

While I understand that things take time, it still would be useful to know when it starts. After two years our team will met finally again and one of the reasons was the TeamCup. Now it seems we were to early. This is a little bit disappointing.

We relied on esports timeline, it seems this was a big mistake.

I think many are fully occupied with Computex, hold your horses guy. It will come..

hold your horses guy. It will come..

You misunderstand me, I didnt poke the staff because I have nothing else to do as benching for TC. Under normal circumstances I wouldnt care when TC starts, cause its done when its done and it starts when it starts. But this year we tried to be smart, looking at esport schedule and saw that it starts in April and organizing a meeting end of May. So know it is nearly end of May and TC will start _maybe_ in June. Of course its too late than, well you can understand that Im really upset.

While I understand that things take time, it still would be useful to know when it starts. After two years our team will met finally again and one of the reasons was the TeamCup. Now it seems we were to early. This is a little bit disappointing.

We relied on esports timeline, it seems this was a big mistake.

I'm really sorry about that. We really had the intention to start at "the right time", but couldn't finish at the right time due to bad planning. It's not a great excuse, but it's what happens.

We are now also looking in to a different problem: 95% of the Novices and Rookies are not part of an overclocking team. I want to resolve this as soon as possible.

Depending on the Computex workload we can kick off June 15 or July 15.

We are now also looking in to a different problem: 95% of the Novices and Rookies are not part of an overclocking team. I want to resolve this as soon as possible.

Massman any ideas for getting those Novices and Rookies involved? I know that when I was contacting even pretty experienced people via PM to recruit for Country Cup, many times I only heard back very late, or not at all. I feel like many of them don't know these forums exist or spend very little time here, so it's tough to steer them into a team via personal contact. Are there other ways of doing it early in the process?

And any updates on a TC start date?

95% of newcomings, but what percentage of active ones ? (like more than 5 submits in the past 2 months or whatever)

Looks like July 15?

Looks like July 15?

Word.

Launching soon, or cancelled soon ?

Well somehow people are competing in the cinebench stage at the moment

All stages are open, except first 2 and we have just 5 days left

Other subcompetitions open next year, but the final ends in 5 days too

It clearly says

Cup Start

05.12.2016 12:00 +0000

So what is your problem, guys?

maybe the 2016?

All stages are open, except first 2 and we have just 5 days left

Other subcompetitions open next year, but the final ends in 5 days too

Small typo in stage 2? SuperPI 1M 40486 (should be 80486?)

I could be wrong, just thought I'd ask, anyway

Is it possible to enable the HWBot page for this as well?

Takes forever to see all the different stages using the OC-Esports page

Edit : has the overview area changed as I was typing this or did I just miss it completely

Either way it's fine now

The constant reloading with the loading indicator and overlay on e-sports site is very annoying.

Can you do it in a non-obtrusive way?

Like small indicator on top of the page without overlay?

I feel excluded

It finally arrived!

There are some nice ideas for the stages. Though seems like much is getting recycled. Like the Realbench Stage. Isnt that a GPU stage anyway? Or K6 stages (though I have to say that I like that) or didnt we had VIA already with superpi(32m) last year?

AGP 3DMark03 was already Country Cup 2013. Though no real critism, just some thoughts.

The constant reloading with the loading indicator and overlay on e-sports site is very annoying.

+1

Does it have to block the whole page while reloading? And why does reloading that so long anyway? It sometimes loads up to 10 seconds and when it finished it reloads again. OC eFail site strikes back again.

I'm always good with stage repeats as long as it's different faces and a year later! i7 C0 + GT200 was a blast.

Have fun guys!!

I like the fact that the Nvidia 650i Memory Clock stage is part of the MISC challenge and not part of the MEM challenge.

I'm a little confused on the start date... its says opens July 15, but details and overview won't be out until Aug 1? Are we able to submit scores for July 15 or no?

Can we talk about how unbelievably difficult it is to get simple information on the Esports Site?

is it really that hard to put up the old competition pages view from the previous years?

http://hwbot.org/competition/team_cup_2013/ for example is so much more easy to navigate simple information, such as current leaders, individual stages, prizes...

I'm sure the hwbot administration all love the changes made in the name of "innovation" but this site is an eyesore and I'm sure I'm not the only one that would appreciate the information ported into the old interface from 2013 for ease of reading.

So much simpler to open a stage at http://hwbot.org/competition/team_cup_2013_sc1/ view all the top scores on the right side, which link directly to submissions.

We had this changed for Country Cup 2014 (see here) and this made it much easier.

Small typo in stage 2? SuperPI 1M 40486 (should be 80486?)

 

I could be wrong, just thought I'd ask, anyway

Correcto. Thanks for the feedback!

The constant reloading with the loading indicator and overlay on e-sports site is very annoying.

Can you do it in a non-obtrusive way?

Like small indicator on top of the page without overlay?

Let me check that. I noticed the increasing refresh too; before it was a lot better.

It's not supposed to do this, is what I'm trying to say

I'm a little confused on the start date... its says opens July 15, but details and overview won't be out until Aug 1? Are we able to submit scores for July 15 or no?

Starting date is today, you can submit in all stages.

On August 1st we'll publish the official announcement detailing the start and end date of all the stages. The end date is different for ALL stages.

So you can see this as an advantage for the hardcore HWBOT F5'ers

Stage7: PCMark7 Single CPU (22.09.2015)

Use 1 processor(s).

Is that 1 CPU or only CPUs with one core?

Are the starting dates also staggered? Getting this one...

EDIT: Sorry, in the Stage 1.1 CPUz Intel Lowest Clock stage.

Installing XP on 400MHz CPU is the opposite of fun

have made 3 cups of tea in the time it takes to install. (Typically British problems)

Why do the stages say starting soon instead of open, are we not able to submit yet? Tried today for the HWBot prime mobile stage and had no luck, didn't come up with a promopt like it normally does.

Not open yet? It is 15th now right?

Are the starting dates also staggered? Getting this one...

 

EDIT: Sorry, in the Stage 1.1 CPUz Intel Lowest Clock stage.

Yup. One stage had opened on the 16th, others on the 18th.

After the weekend, all will be open.

Yup. One stage had opened on the 16th, others on the 18th.

 

After the weekend, all will be open.

It doesn't state that clearly anywhere though so how are we to know what opens when?

As far as I was concerened it looked like everything was meant to be open on the 15th.

It doesn't state that clearly anywhere though so how are we to know what opens when?

 

As far as I was concerened it looked like everything was meant to be open on the 15th.

Agree.

Even, you can access to the submit option from the main page but after fill out all info, the system show you that open day is 18th.

Hey, conerning the lowest CPUZ Clock challenge. Is there a way to get CPU-Z running in windows 3.11? Or what's the oldest possible OS? Got a system set up here and wanna know if it's even possible.

How many submissions can we make? The best or the first?

As many as you like, the engine will only recognize the best score (or the lowest I suppose for those stages)

Thanks

Hey, conerning the lowest CPUZ Clock challenge. Is there a way to get CPU-Z running in windows 3.11? Or what's the oldest possible OS? Got a system set up here and wanna know if it's even possible.

I don't think CPU-Z works on W3.11 ...

You need atleast XP to make a verification. A lot of CPUs that probably will run much lower cant be validated for that reason.

Darn, thanks for the info though. Linux not working either then.

Stage7: PCMark7 Single CPU (22.09.2015)

Use 1 processor(s).

 

Is that 1 CPU or only CPUs with one core?

I have the same question. Since there are no official rules posted, the title of the stage is a bit confusing (or ambiguous).

Still miss slot A and socket 423. But there was some nice stuff.

Can we move the Team Cup back to the old style pages at HWBOt instead of the OC sports crap.

It's neverending updates and everytime I click on a person who has submitted's profile I get errors.

Surely it has been said enough times that it is crap to work with, that you would listen to the community and go back to the preferred format??????

Stage7: PCMark7 Single CPU (22.09.2015)

Use 1 processor(s).

 

Is that 1 CPU or only CPUs with one core?

Single core cpu

I guess that Lowest Clock is CPU clock and not reference clock (BCLK) right? I uploaded an "score" based on CPU clock and not reference clock.

Single core cpu

I took it as single Physical CPU, i.e. a single 16 core CPU would be fine.

Single physical CPU; any core count

In subcomp 2 cpu challenge stage 2 AMD CPU-Z Lowest Clock, the engine is taking all of the submissions and putting them in as REFERENCE CLOCK. messing up the general rankings

In my case this submission was put in as 132mhz cpu clock but it put it in the comp as 66mhz

http://hwbot.org/submission/2925263

I can not edit it. It should be 132mhz low clock for comp and 66mhz reference clock general rankings.

Dont mind having the winning score but its wrong.

Was just about to report this. It's gone wrong somewhere

In subcomp 2 cpu challenge stage 2 AMD CPU-Z Lowest Clock, the engine is taking all of the submissions and putting them in as REFERENCE CLOCK. messing up the general rankings

In my case this submission was put in as 132mhz cpu clock but it put it in the comp as 66mhz

http://hwbot.org/submission/2925263

I can not edit it. It should be 132mhz low clock for comp and 66mhz reference clock general rankings.

Dont mind having the winning score but its wrong.

All fixed

i know thad the Cinebench R15 LGA775 stage is for 775 socket.

but ar we alowed to run 771 to 775 convertors , and ar users whit a qx9775 alowed to run singel cpu configuration on 771 socket bords?

For Phenom II stages, can we use an Athlon II unlocked, recongnized by CPU-Z and submited as a Phenom II ?

i know thad the Cinebench R15 LGA775 stage is for 775 socket.

but ar we alowed to run 771 to 775 convertors , and ar users whit a qx9775 alowed to run singel cpu configuration on 771 socket bords?

I asked MM this question. He said no 771, 775 only.

For Phenom II stages, can we use an Athlon II unlocked, recongnized by CPU-Z and submited as a Phenom II ?

Of course not. Has to be the actual CPU used, just like any other time.

i know thad the Cinebench R15 LGA775 stage is for 775 socket.

but ar we alowed to run 771 to 775 convertors , and ar users whit a qx9775 alowed to run singel cpu configuration on 771 socket bords?

Only LGA775 processors are allowed.

But if you want to run a LGA775-to-LGA771 convertor to use your LGA775 on a LGA771 motherboard, that's fine

Only LGA775 processors are allowed.

 

But if you want to run a LGA775-to-LGA771 convertor to use your LGA775 on a LGA771 motherboard, that's fine

Does that work?

Only LGA775 processors are allowed.

 

But if you want to run a LGA775-to-LGA771 convertor to use your LGA775 on a LGA771 motherboard, that's fine

qx9775 is a socket 771 cpu

qx9770 is a socket 775 cpu

bothe of the cpu's ar almost the same.the diference is fb-dimm vs ddr2 and dual vs singel socket

i dont think ther ar 775-to-771 convertors only 771-to-775

I would really vote for allowing 771 cpus. They are simply cheaper to get and why pay more for less? And isnt that the overclocking way?

Because it would allow dual socket systems that will make using 775 chips pointless. Many of those systems don't even allow overclocking, and THAT isn't the overclocking way... by definition.

I think the goal is just to be able to use a QX9775 instead of limiting it to QX9650.

Because it would allow dual socket systems that will make using 775 chips pointless. Many of those systems don't even allow overclocking, and THAT isn't the overclocking way... by definition.

You see it in the wrong perspective. Nobody talks about dual CPU configs. Its still about running s775 systems but using s771 CPUs with an adapter.

Many s775 got a second life with those cheap xeon quads.

You see it in the wrong perspective. Nobody talks about dual CPU configs. Its still about running s775 systems but using s771 CPUs with an adapter.

Many s775 got a second life with those cheap xeon quads.

I understand what you are getting at and I always applaud having a wider range of CPUs to choose from, believe me, that is my entire crusade. I can just understand why it will not be allowed since you would have to have another whole layer of restrictions. If you allow 771 chips you would have to then make a rule to limit that its only 771 chips on 775 motherboards (if the engine would even allow that) which means enforcing a rule that you must put your motherboard in the system specs on submission. Or you would have to allow 771 motherboards but try and moderate manually if its a dual socket 771 or not. It just seems messy just to allow 771 chips which are essentially 775 chips but cheaper.

I would be all for allowing 771 chips to participate but I can see the logistical chaos that doing so would create. If the mods don't mind the extra work, I have a few 771 chips that I can certainly take for a little spin. I just wouldn't want to see the stage taken by a dual socket 771 setup with little to no effort.

I think it would be easy enough to allow 771 in every application except dual socket configuration. There were very few 771 boards worth overclocking on so for the most part, it would be people just trying to get a Xeon or 771 EE working on 775. Blocking out dual socket configurations would be pretty easy. Basically, if you rule out multiple chip configurations, 771 offers no direct benefit, just another "equal" option if you're willing to work for it.

Should be really easy to implement, basically you need to restrict this to:

-Socket 771 and 775 CPUs

-maximum of 4 cores

If there are people who run multi CPU dualcore xeons these can be manually get removed from competition by a mod. Same goes for people running single CPU on a socket 771 board. Not that they would have a chance anyway to win anything.

Guys, it's not that it's impossible to implement or code. It's that the stage is for LGA775 CPUs only .

Yes, it's an arbitrary decision and yes the LGA771 would easily fit in the category. But the stage is LGA775 only

theres another problem: for stage 1 and 2 cpu-z is useless

it can´t validate good cpus for that stages. only such modern stuff like pentium and amd k6

but what´s about classic cpus?

The challenge is to find the CPUs that both validate and clock really low

moah .___.

no chance for my 8086 8 mhz

I can't add a result to #5 stage, engine tells that my submission is incorrect (HM87, HM86 chipset. - your submission does not comply to this rule). Can you add it to competition manually? Thanks for help!

http://hwbot.org/submission/2928255

I can't add a result to #5 stage, engine tells that my submission is incorrect (HM87, HM86 chipset. - your submission does not comply to this rule). Can you add it to competition manually? Thanks for help!

 

http://hwbot.org/submission/2928255

Southbridge is the wrong model, that's why.

Southbridge is the wrong model, that's why.

Then why this submission, with absolutely identical chipset & SB is participating?

http://hwbot.org/submission/2925267

Yours has a chipset called "haswell" and the other submission has one "hm86".

Can't find any information on the Durian 7A1 motherboard though ... is it HM86?

Yours has a chipset called "haswell" and the other submission has one "hm86".

 

Can't find any information on the Durian 7A1 motherboard though ... is it HM86?

Yes, it is Intel HM86, the laptop is Lenovo IdeaPad Z710.

To quote myself from some months ago:

Maybe someone should poke CPU-Z Author to add uncore and nb frequency in valis? Also HM87 boards dont get recognized... There is just "Haswell" instead of HM87 in motherboard section.

Neither our hardware db nor CPU-Z is fixed.

Seems Massman didnt read...

Is Haswell HM86 or HM87 (or both) ?

Is Haswell HM86 or HM87 (or both) ?

I guess it is HM86 (look motherboard tab on both submissions, they are identical).

As example this detected as HM87: http://hwbot.org/submission/2927902

Okay, I've updated the motherboard to HM86. You should now be able to submit the score to the competition

It's added. Thanks for help

I doesnt read anyware that ES arent allowed. Is that correct?

no CP Points more for the results ???

I doesnt read anyware that ES arent allowed. Is that correct?

bump on this? Are ES allowed this time?

Also bug with Stage 9 -everyone get 50 points...

ES are never allowed in HWBOT competitions unless specifically mentioned in the rules

Also bug with Stage 9 -everyone get 50 points...

How can we be this generous?! Fixed.

ES are never allowed in HWBOT competitions unless specifically mentioned in the rules

Excuse me holy excellence how can I dare to ask...

All these unwritten rules in the bot...

I know man, anyway Massman decideded to cancel his vacation and fix them permanently

CPU CHALLENGE - SuperPI 1M 80486

2 questions:

1. "80486 family" means that the use of only the processor "intel" ((AMD, Cyrix have names Am486 Cx486), that is the logic of "486 series" but not "80486 series"

2 If it is not only intel - is allowed 5x86 processor? (this the fourth generation processors too)

Oh, one more question.

CPU-Z incorrectly displays the frequency (multiplier). http://i.piccy.info/i9/8a0b1e1da261f6a8213ed56f555473eb/1438103081/160756/463814/111111111.jpg (real multiplier (of jumpers and in bios) - 1.5x)

What to do in this case?

New CPU-Z version is work in progress. So you simply have to wait. All results made with old cpu-z should get moderated till new version is out.

New CPU-Z version is work in progress. So you simply have to wait. All results made with old cpu-z should get moderated till new version is out.

I agree every submission ever made to hwbot should be deleted until the new cpu-z is out.

Might be easier to ban you, Garon, less work for me

Might be easier to ban you, Garon, less work for me

Stuff it, while we are going that path just ban everyone then no one can use the current version of cpu-z.

Sounds like a plan

Sounds like a plan

Hahahahaha. Do it!!!!!

I agree every submission ever made to hwbot should be deleted until the new cpu-z is out.

Sorry but if you dont know what we talk about you should better not comment.

I was referring to Romans post where it was about submissions with socket 7 systems and CPU-Z 1.72 and _not_ all subs ever made.

There is a bug somewhere introduced around 1.70 where CPU-Z doesnt detect half multipliers on that systems. There is a thread around here where things got confirmed and even debugged yet this new version hasnt released. Because of that its clear that current CPU-Z isnt a reliable verification method on that systems.

I know exactly what you are talking about. How could I not, you've cried about it in 4 different threads now.

So just get on with it and stop whinging because you can't replicate what others are doing. There is no new CPU-Z yet, so there is no point to your constant complaining.

CPU CHALLENGE - SuperPI 1M 80486

2 questions:

1. "80486 family" means that the use of only the processor "intel" ((AMD, Cyrix have names Am486 Cx486), that is the logic of "486 series" but not "80486 series"

2 If it is not only intel - is allowed 5x86 processor? (this the fourth generation processors too)

The list of processors can be found here: http://hwbot.org/hardware/processors#key=80486

The list of processors can be found here: http://hwbot.org/hardware/processors#key=80486

Thank

By the way, there is an incorrect database. Socket3 are not only AMD. Moreover (I posted above) - names 80*** have just intel. AMD have names Am*** , Cyrix - Cx***

Administration - can fix it in the database?

I know exactly what you are talking about. How could I not, you've cried about it in 4 different threads now.

CPU-z is our verification system that we trust. It's hard to believe when it's not working the way that it should especially on systems which are that old and worked for years without problems. Now we have the situation that verification isnt working correctly. And thus all verifications made with those versions can be considered worthless because you cant trust them. Sorry but it's simply unfair for future benchers who dont profit from software bugs. It's not the way that I want to sound like a teacher. My english abilitys are bit limited so I really dont want to write essays and explain everything in detail. But I still want to say my opinion. It's never meant personaly. So it's not against you or classicplatforms in general. But just go ahead and keep attacking me.

CPU-z is our verification system that we trust. It's hard to believe when it's not working the way that it should especially on systems which are that old and worked for years without problems. Now we have the situation that verification isnt working correctly. And thus all verifications made with those versions can be considered worthless because you cant trust them. Sorry but it's simply unfair for future benchers who dont profit from software bugs. It's not the way that I want to sound like a teacher. My english abilitys are bit limited so I really dont want to write essays and explain everything in detail. But I still want to say my opinion. It's never meant personaly. So it's not against you or classicplatforms in general. But just go ahead and keep attacking me.

This is possibly the most confusing post I've ever read.

Please do not now sit there and pretend to be the victim, you came out and pretty much called everyone using the current version of CPU-Z cheats. Now you are back pedaling.

There is no current fix for this(if it really is a bug,as it can't be proven until new version is made) so until then there is really no point to complaining about it mate.

Once the new version is here and the bug can be verified, it's a few peoples word against other people's word.

I honestly would be suprised if we see it before the end of TC, then what delete every submission in the comp that has used the old version? There will be anarchy.

JunkDogg

On one side you are right.

But on the other... let me escape to urgently look for the motherboard (and the CPU) on which CPU-Z shows a 1.0 instead of 1.5 until output new version (joke)

How better to do I do not know, but obviously impossible results better do not accept.

CPU-z is our verification system that we trust. It's hard to believe when it's not working the way that it should especially on systems which are that old and worked for years without problems. Now we have the situation that verification isnt working correctly. And thus all verifications made with those versions can be considered worthless because you cant trust them. Sorry but it's simply unfair for future benchers who dont profit from software bugs. It's not the way that I want to sound like a teacher. My english abilitys are bit limited so I really dont want to write essays and explain everything in detail. But I still want to say my opinion. It's never meant personaly. So it's not against you or classicplatforms in general. But just go ahead and keep attacking me.

Uh uh uh, Classicplatforms hasn't said boo in this thread. Junkdogg's opinion is his own and may or may not reflect others opinions on the team. Keep it between you and him please. Tia:)

I might found a solution to the issue that new cpu-z version is not sensing correct the half multipliers. Excuse me in case reported again earlier.

If we go to the cpu-z folder and edit the cpu-z configuration file by set the below values to "0" , then the frequency displayed by cpu-z is the correct one.

DMI=0

DISPLAY=0

BUSCLOCK=0

SPD=0

All the rest untouched.

checked from cpu-z 1.69.2 version until 1.71.1 and works.

Submission also works fine.

Is that ok submitting results this way?

I see that Remarc & LuDec already know this and submitted their results.

checked from cpu-z 1.69.2 version until 1.71.1 and works.

Is that ok submitting result this way?

YES

ok. then. Thanks!

This is possibly the most confusing post I've ever read.

Well this is because _Im_ a very confused person.

Please do not now sit there and pretend to be the victim, you came out and pretty much called everyone using the current version of CPU-Z cheats. Now you are back pedaling.

I never said they cheated, I just made them aware of a bug. Its disappointing that they didnt start to investigate what could be wrong. Now we see that those 50Mhz submissions got deleted because _they were_ faulty.

There is no current fix for this(if it really is a bug,as it can't be proven until new version is made) so until then there is really no point to complaining about it mate.

This bug has been confirmed and already debugged. I posted in every of my "complains" the link to the bug thread. So to make it even more clear and because I still think that you actually have no clue what we talk about:

1. On motherboard or in the manual there are all possible multiplier settings listed. Except there is no 1.0 multi, so you set the lowest which is 1.5.

2. motherboard starts up showing 75Mhz in post(1.5x50Mhz)

3. CPU-Z starts up saying 1.0x50Mhz, strange...

So you dont get curious? You dont check tools like WCPUID or CPUCool?

Ok at this point, we still can say those things can happen but after people commented under your score stating that there is probably a bug you still dont react?

I really hoped that new CPU-Z is out now because of Windows 10 and Skylake but it seems something hold it back.

Thank

 

By the way, there is an incorrect database. Socket3 are not only AMD. Moreover (I posted above) - names 80*** have just intel. AMD have names Am*** , Cyrix - Cx***

Administration - can fix it in the database?

We are about to get everything done. There are just the Cyrix 486 Cpus missing.

Massman still needs to update the restrictions to allow Cyrix, Intel and UMC ones.

1. On motherboard or in the manual there are all possible multiplier settings listed. Except there is no 1.0 multi, so you set the lowest which is 1.5.

2. motherboard starts up showing 75Mhz in post(1.5x50Mhz)

3. CPU-Z starts up saying 1.0x50Mhz, strange...

Well, not everything is written in the mainboard guide, you know? I managed to change the FSB to 7.14MHz and therefore I get 10.7MHz on friend Asus mobo:

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=348684

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2005/asustxp4x22sr5.jpg

Beat that... or even come close for that matter And how I did it? Just reading wrong, what is written into the manual

(hint - first I flashed bios to mobo, that it does not belong to, then I set undocumented variant of switches and - voila! When checking for 5min in the manual, what went wrong, the mobo got the time to post Yes, it took 5min to even show the first letters of postscreen at 10.7MHz... Another problem - not all windows can boot at 10.7MHz... And another problem - PS/2 keyboard and mouse did not worked ))) So, you see... sometimes you have to overcome quite a bit of problems to achieve something... And I know now, how to get a x1 multiplier, witch translate into 7.14MHz CPU clock. That will be something! )

So to achieve this you basically have to trick your pll thinking it has to change its FSB outputs to ISA outputs, as there are no other components in the system which the pll delivers with such a low bus clock. But that has to happen internal as the connection between CPU and PLL doesnt change. While I dont know if the pll can internal reroute its clock signals, it would be interesting to know if changing jumpers to your found undocumented setting also set your bus to 7Mhz with original bios!

If so you really found something cool! If not, its more likely that the other Bios transformed your system to a complete mess. Means all sources where CPU-Z detects your clock frequency are now basically upside down.

I experienced something similar when changing default clock generator (14,318Mhz) to something faster. I checked bus frequency with a DMM and its improved correctly but CPU-Z didnt show the same results as my DMM. So why? Its actually easy. I forgot that system time also relies on that 14,318Mhz. So time got "improved" as well and was running freaky fast.

Well, I was asked my friend, for who I recapped the board to use as homemade server back then, if I could have and I he agreed, so in about two to there weeks I should have it.

IIRC he said he tried to duplicate the results, but failed. So I quess that the wrong bios is necessary to achieve that feat.

And as you can see, CPU-Z fail to show any clock at all, claiming the FSB is zero... Lowering the clock crystal will be the next step to get lower that 7.14

The challenge is to find the CPUs that both validate and clock really low

So is part of the challenge to get a valid submission?

At very low clocks (10.7MHz), I experienced that Windows 2000 fail to boot. The Win98se boot, but more recent versions CPU-Z cannot work on Win98se... and it is a good question, if on Windows 2000 the latest CPU-Z do work...

Sounds like you need to find some way to lower the clocks after you've booted!

That simply is not happening, because the FSB 7.14MHz is a jumper thing. No CpuFSB or ClockGen or SetFSB can help there, not to go THAT low: http://valid.x86.fr/9b88hu

QuickFast

QuickFast says:

 

Massman said: The challenge is to find the CPUs that both validate and clock really low

 

 

 

So is part of the challenge to get a valid submission?

I'll make this more clear, in the CPU low clock many of the subs are rejected by CPUz if you follow the links. Are these still legitimate

we got another 03 on our hands with 99max so if your screen goes black please don't post score

99 has black screen bug?

This is the CPU thread. Just sayin'...

This is the CPU thread. Just sayin'...

oops My bad

@xxxbassplayerxx that's what I'm seeing on my end like a 2-3k gain if the screen goes black in the second game test

I'll make this more clear, in the CPU low clock many of the subs are rejected by CPUz if you follow the links. Are these still legitimate

Actually u are correct. Rejected results arent valid but remember: we had for years rejected Socket A results that were 100% valid. It was simply a CPU-Z bug.

Im in no position to decide something, so its up to Massman I guess.

I know that rejection because of CPU-Z bug too. Happens many times using way wrong FSB clocks, like 7.14 (interpreted by CPU-Z as zero) or 30/33MHz (flaged as wrong also)... but both cases was 100% legit results.

Im in no position to decide something, so its up to Massman I guess.

Christian Ney is the big boss for the moderating.

I have no power here

Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place but any updates to the overall comp? All the pages still say, "soft launch, more info coming August 1," well now it's almost Sept 1. Any updates on prizes etc?

But hey if it's all just for the love that's cool too

Announcement has been made:

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=141629

And yeah it seems this year its about the honor.

Can we get clarification on ES rules for this competition? This always seems to be a point of contention,

Is it as the normal ES rules of HWBOT that ES is not allowed for any current generation of CPU/GPU?

or

No ES of any shape or age or type?

Could you please allow QM87 in stage 5 aswell? It's practically the same chipset but the big difference it will allow more to compete. I have a Haswell laptop with QM87, and it feels just stupid not to allow it. And as someone stated, CPU-Z sometimes have difficulties recognizing the chipset so some that already have posted results might even have QM87 anyway....

I have a pcmark7 score I am attempting to submit. I keep getting an error that says Validation error: A valid futuremark compare url is required if want to reach the PCMark7 Hall Of fame. As only 13 benchmark scores are better than you, you need to provide additional verification. I have the screenshot attached and the link to futuremark as well, but still get the error.

any ideas on what is going on

Take 'WWW.' out of the link and submit.

 

No ES of any shape or age or type?

No ES, no Skylake, in general no hardware released after TC Start

Also Ive added all known to me released 486 CPU. So you can now use Intel, Cyrix and UMC in addition to the AMD ones.

Better late than never.

Massman says:

 

Strunkenbold said: Im in no position to decide something, so its up to Massman I guess.

 

 

 

Christian Ney is the big boss for the moderating.

 

I have no power here

So what is the verdict? Are CPUz rejected validations going to be allowed in the low clock challenges? I thought that WAS part of the challenge?

No ES, no Skylake, in general no hardware released after TC Start

Thankyou for the clarification! Removed our Realbench score to comply.

So what is the verdict? Are CPUz rejected validations going to be allowed in the low clock challenges? I thought that WAS part of the challenge?

Unfortunately IIRC only CPU-Z validated scores are allowed. If they are not, prepare to lose against my 7.14MHz FSB on Socket 7 :-)

So, it seems I missed the deadline. Better fix the site for next competition.

What the hell is up with these random ass times? Went to sub a ref clock submission at like 11:30 PM here... not even 9/15 yet and it had already expired. This was not a sandbag... I got LN2 today and just finished everything (at about 3:00 AM).

Can we pick 12:00 PM UTC or something like that next time? Trying to keep track of this shit is ridiculous.

Yes, it shows "random" time every time I open a stage (more specifically the time of the previously opened stage).

Didn't even manage to bench pifast and aquamark on the k6. I don't have the scores, it was not a sandbag here too.

This is no bug, it is done to raise suspense - I hope will get fixed one day^^ - I checked the amd lowest validation stage, I will not remove rejected validations, if someone is unhappy with this teams should discuss this and find a solution for themselves. I know the AMD issue from past, I also know some people think this is a glitch below 50 MHz, but it is impossible for me to judge what is right and what is wrong^^

websmile says:

 

This is no bug, it is done to raise suspense - I hope will get fixed one day^^ - I checked the amd lowest validation stage, I will not remove rejected validations, if someone is unhappy with this teams should discuss this and find a solution for themselves. I know the AMD issue from past, I also know some people think this is a glitch below 50 MHz, but it is impossible for me to judge what is right and what is wrong^^

Oh so does that mean that all the rejected intel subs will be removed then and we no longer need a CPUz link in general? We could just go back to SS only for validation would that be enough. Glitch or not it's not valid, someone is riding the HTT link and rolling the dice, I had the same thing happen it's only valid if CPU-z can CORRECTLY read the speed. That's why it has checks built into the validation site I would assume. So I think it's pretty cut and dry websmile, if it says rejected it's no good. It wouldn't cut it outside the competition so why make exceptions?

There are tons of invalid results, the moderation is going to be problematic. Even the GPU stages have old CPUz without memory tabs, no GPUz everywhere (maybe Everest allowed?) but some without even that. Going to be interesting to see how the final scores shake out.

Experts everywhere - there was a time each amd validation was shown as incorrect and rejected, so I see no reason to remove all these results without someone checking this who knows what is real and what not, preferably someone who is a real expert on this. All I can do is check if results are correct at point or frequency, check if backgrounds are missing on screens and if all tabs needed are there, on CPUZ lots of memory tabs only show memory size for example and no speeds. I will not comment about the choice of benchmarks for the cup this year, but Hardware 10 years or older and new cpuz seem to be an odd combination, and finding early cpuz versions is not easy. I do preliminary check as said and we will see what will be left after someone else made final check^^

That may be so websmile, I have heard that some of the older HW was problematic but the validations that were attempted with new HW that are rejected are the result of what I posted earlier. Some boards the HTT frequency will fluctuate and when "I" was trying to validate on the lowest reaches of that fluctuation it was rejected. When I validated at or near the actual BIOS setting it was accepted. I guess my point was, HWBot already has a specific set of rules that we follow daily. My interpretation is that the rejected results are not valid so by the rules should be disallowed. If that CPU/board won't validate where you want it to then pick something else. I just "assumed" the spirit of the competition was to "find" hardware that would give you an accepted validation at the lowest speed you could get.

Yes, it will be hard to seperate this. If we follow the rules completely, we will have to remove lots of scores, also new hardware scores where fse screenshots show no subtests for example, in spite of validation link , results wit mem tabs showing no freq and so on. I wonder if any results will be left in the end ^^

Sure would be interesting. I realize this is a big job and decisions made will never make everyone happy.

Yes, please no low clock / slowest again. I love overclocking old/slow stuff, so I don't have anything against that, but slowing things down goes against the whole concept, imho.

I've had fun with it to be honest. It was a nice change from the everyday pushing and had challenges of it's own.

I've had fun with it to be honest. It was a nice change from the everyday pushing and had challenges of it's own.

Sounds like someone who didn't have a 20 day run fail

websmile -

results wit mem tabs showing no freq and so on

On many chipsets CPU-Z did not report memory frequency and even memory timings. Good example is SIS 730 (PCchips M810LR) or i430TX (Asus TXP4-X). Nothing can be done with it.

On the other hand, new CPU-Z version entierly f*cked up timings detection on VIA PT800 chipsets (ASRock 775Dual-VSTA) and the results are completely wrong. This is 3-3-3-10 (28) timings on Crucial Ballistic, thx to Jazzman:

So you see - by CPU-Z is: CL - unknown, tRAS 9, when it is 10 and no info on tRC, despite older CPU-Z versions did not give any trouble on this mainboard. And I reporting bugs to Frank left and right, but no fix...

In case of i430TX I even send him the Intel docs a pointed out what bites on witch registers one can detect the memory settings... what more can I do?

...

Other programs have quirks too... sometimes it is not that hard to do some record, as to submit the validation. This is, "thanks" to endless bugses of almost everything (for example Aquamark wrapper - run on nVidia Vanta, get score 0, save as valid... submit... and it is still valid ) ...

And it is not like my Vanta is bad, it can do 3D well:

...even with slight overclock from 100/125 to 120/160 But the wrapper suxx...

Same for Heaven wrapper. Also does not work for me on some machines (and much less weird machines that, this MSI K7TM Pro is)...

So, it is fighting with bugses all around the way!

I know this, and people who ask for removal of scores because of Hwbot rules should know this as well - this is the point, you cannot apply rules of verification for hardwae that is 15 years old and that noone has tools for anymore to verify according to new rules. I opted to ask CN to let a specialist for old hardware do the moderating because either way it will be done, people will complain and I haven´t enough time atm to ban them all

Sounds like someone who didn't have a 20 day run fail

Good call, it hasn't failed yet and like Rasparthe I live in the country so power can be ifffy. I've just been lucky, now if it can hold out for another day or so.

Good luck!

*Fail fail fail fail*

websmile -

I know this, and people who ask for removal of scores because of Hwbot rules should know this as well - this is the point, you cannot apply rules of verification for hardwae that is 15 years old and that noone has tools for anymore to verify according to new rules. I opted to ask CN to let a specialist for old hardware do the moderating because either way it will be done, people will complain and I haven´t enough time atm to ban them all

Yea, the verification problem is awfull. Back in the day, CPU-Z worked pretty nicely and I can verify 10.7MHz, altrough it did not detected the FSB:

http://valid.x86.fr/9b88hu

However todays the CPU-Z fail miserably to detect CPU clock and report false FSB clock 50MHz:

At least it from THAT did not produce "valid" result. However it can produce crazy "valid" results none the less. For example this one:

http://valid.x86.fr/b0zd5t

384MB of ram, consisting of 128 + 512MB sticks, detected as 128 + 256MB it report as 640MB of ram. Is not that funny? Definitively CPU-Z shoud allow some moderation in form that user can change the wrongly detected infos under some human supervision, of course...

Because I have "valid" result with 640MB ram on i430TX, that is bound to support only 256MB of ram :nana: :nana: :nana:

And no validation of 10.7MHz. Oh, well. At least ATI Rage XL give a nice image at this superslow clock

Ops

I can't submit score in stage 7.

Error is "Validation error: A valid futuremark compare url is required if want to reach the PCMark7 Hall Of fame. As only 1 benchmark scores are better than you, you need to provide additional verification."

I have valid url.

Try using https...

very fast reply

10x

is samsungs "rapid" going to be allowed in the pcmark7 stage?

Id like to know this too but not just Samsung version, is any ram cache / ram drive allowed as I thought using them is illegal?

Also I think I know the answer but conformation would be good on whever or not Skylake systems can be used in any stage?

Dear Massman.

Explain please - for some reason, my result has been removed from the closed stage "CPU CHALLENGE - HM8X SUPERPI 32M"?

If it is done on a complaint TASOS - then why did only away my result?

Only the first three results are correct?

I am no expert, but your result was checked and chipset was not H86/87 but VIU, on result of the lenovo durian that was now reported several times, this is hm86 http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/durian_7a1/

Hope I could help

Edit - no skylake on any stages of this years team cup - it was released after team cup already had started

Websmile.

Look at the other results - and explain to me - why they did not HM87/HM86, and not removed?

Only the first three results are correct?

http://ark.intel.com/products/78945/Intel-Pentium-Processor-3558U-2M-Cache-1_70-GHz?q=3558U - skylake??? ))))))))))

Why can't I choose processor model in the drop down when entering hardware? It works for other hardware like graphics card and motherboard, bnut not cpu. I used to be able to submit anyway by just writing the exact same as in the dropdown, but now when I try the enter "Pentium 1 90MHz" it just won't except it. And as mentioned, I can't choose that in the drop down either...

Using latest Chrome.

And I missed uploading result for Via SuperPi 1M since the stages are ending different times! PLEASE DON'T DO THAT AGAIN! The eSport site doesn't even work damnit so it REALLY hard to actually see when stages end!!!!

@viper\-rd As said, I am no expert for this, but since when is skylake 22nm?^^

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium_Dual-Core/Intel-Pentium%20Mobile%203558U.html

And on the results I checked, all have H86 or H87, you simply google the mainboard/Notebook model and find out which chipset is used. Now please accept that we do our job, the results are OK, which yours was not, if you think your chipset is H86/87 make cpuz/aida whatever screenshot and send to Pieter

Websmile.

Tell me - what my result is different from the second, in addition to the CPU used? Chipset same?

http://hwbot.org/submission/2969111_viper_rd_superpi___32m_pentium_3558u_18min_11sec_14ms/

http://hwbot.org/submission/2949927

The screenshot of this result there are no information on the chipset - but this result is not taken away - why?

http://hwbot.org/submission/2934483

if you think your chipset is H86/87 make cpuz/aida whatever screenshot and send to Pieter

Not screenshot, whole hardware report will be in order there.

While it is not entierly impossible, that some software identify certain chipset(s) wrongly, the error can be corrected, if it is indeed error. But things like that usually happen only on very rare situations on somewhat obscure and less known, old hardware. Take this find for example:

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=143722

See, how you can present your case to be dealt with? Done AIDA 64 report, show screens, show the reports and come with other sources, claming the different chipset and then the error get fixed.

Just claiming that mainboard X use chipset Y just will not quite cut it.

viper-rd -

The screenshot of this result there are no information on the chipset - but this result is not taken away - why?

http://hwbot.org/submission/2934483

Maybe because the Asus G551JM is easy to be found NTB:

http://www.asus.com/cz/Notebooks/G551JM/specifications/

With clear specifications:

Intel® Core™ i7 4710HQ procesor

Intel® Core™ i5 4200H procesor

Intel® HM86 Express Chipset

...that match the user hardware well? Hardly he could be punished for the fact, that CPU-Z 1.72.1 does not recognize the chipset on this particular NTB.

I am getting tired of this - if you don´t stop complaining this will have consequences

http://www.ultrabookreview.com/5574-asus-g551jm-review/

We all have enough to do, as said I even have to google the notebooks used, cpuz often does not show chipsets used so I had to waste lots of time on checking this, I preferred it from banning all results - maybe you should check this as well instead of stealing my time by unnecessarily complaints...

websmile

you know - I am also tired of the fact that my results are simply deleted without explanation of reasons.

but when I start to ask questions - no reaction should not - why?

and now you're threatening me the consequences? and do not answer the question - what is the difference between the results? Set in both the results ... in the same chipset !!! but my result is deleted. http://hwbot.org/submission/2949927 ???

trodas

first time I hear that I have to keep all the equipment for life))

I found a laptop - chased test - posted.

stage ended - all is well, and the result is removed suddenly and now I have to look again this laptop ???

Sorry, but screenshot is made by all the rules!

Need more evidence - should be written in the regulations of the competition and not to scream at the departing train trail!

something I have never seen in the rules of the requirements to provide a screenshot from AIDA

Lenovo G50-70 (59429186)

Wasn't the idea of aida64 so they can really tell what chipset it uses if cpu z reports wrong

laptop is already sold the owner

Ok, you obviously cannot read and want to leave hwbot - I wrote pages before that your result was checked and it was found that no H86/H87 chipset was used, Pieter checked this and made a task. I will simply ask you to get banned from tc and forum for 3 months, and issue will be solved - to make it clear again, before you leave, your result was not removed for lack of verification, but for wrong chipset, like written 10 times before, you obviously are not able to understand this. If you now can´t provide proof of your used component using the chipset that was asked for is not my problem, other than on lots of subs I could not verify your nb, so the case is closed and bye bye

I partly agree with viper-rd, if the screenshot doesn't show it is a HM8x chipset, the entry should be deleted. It can't depend on wheter the moderarators find information on Google or not.

The problem is that cpuz often does not show the chipset, on macbooks and some other vendors you have no way to confirm chipset than look at specs on the internet. the whole stage is no good idea, but we can confirm chipset used, we can keep it alive, otherwise it should be skipped completely. I can´t sanction people because vendors use Bios that doesn´t display chipset on cpuz, the problem is simply the platform and bios

you do not want to understand the essence of my discontent. the result has been removed from the tournament after its closure. So I did not have more time to find the right laptop, becauseI was convinced that the already found and tested.

you think this is right?

and still I could not find evidence that the laptop was not necessary chipset.

Yes, I agree it was a terrible stage...

@viper\-rd - last time, firstly you complain to wrong person, I told you several times now to contact Pieter who checked and found you used wrong chipset, ask him about this, and secondly, I strongly disapprove that you are not able to accept a moderating decision, we all try to do best to not! remove submissions because we are all benchers ourselves at staff and know about the work and sweat put into each submission, so we even do background research at stages like these, sacrificing lots of time, to be able to verify results and let them stay at rankings or competitions. If you are not able to accept a judgement made at best knowledge and deal with it in a spirit of fair play, this is nothing I can tolerate, because then we can stop checking results and save the time for ourselves and do not bother about valid or not anymore

You know, when my results are deleted, and I understand why - I am calm and do not argue.

However, when the result was removed without explanation - I do not want it to endure.

So I asked a question here - and a normal response - can only be called your last.

However, there was no reaction from Massman unfortunately not.

This is not the first time removed my result. Tell me - do you think the right to delete results filed in 2007 with a motivation - "no CPU-Z validation"?

trodas You can give a link to a laptop used by me - where it will be listed chipset?

Wow, some of these stages are certainly controversial. Anyway, here is what I found with my 10 minutes of Google research, your model number seems to only be sold in your area, my Russian is.... limited.

Here are two other G50-70, neither with your specific CPU...

http://www.cromaretail.com/Lenovo-Ideapad-G50-70-(59-413698)-156%22-Notebook-(Silver)-pc-21743-855.aspx

and

http://www.flipkart.com/lenovo-g50-70-notebook-4th-gen-ci3-4gb-1tb-free-dos-59-422421/p/itme2y47ranmcgan

If you believe these sites that particular notebook series was built with both chipsets, QM87 and HM87 so not really much help to you, perhaps someone that can comb Russian sites would be more help. Although, you may want to take all this with a grain of salt, I have been recently accused of cheating...

Good luck!

Although, you may want to take all this with a grain of salt, I have been recently accused of cheating...

 

Good luck!

Same as GPU thread.

Is the realbench stage still open or not?

It says 30th September up top but is stating closed down lower and all sorts of errors for time remaining.

I want to run this this weekend as well and don't know whether to bother now.

Check my post over there

Rasparthe.

Thank you. But the laptop is no longer available. Without him, there was nothing to prove.

I made more than 200 runs katzilla 775 socket and logs found - like you could get a great result.

Ive already posted this in another thread. I think it should be clear now why those results didnt qualify for the stage.

You are right, you have indeed an 8 series chipset. But Massman restricted the stage to HM86/87. And your board hasnt one of these two.

 

Haswell ULT cpus feature a one chip design.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7047/the-haswell-ultrabook-review-core-i74500u-tested/2

 

And there are differences to the two chip variants:

http://www.notebookcheck.com/Intel-Haswell-Chipsaetze-8-Series-Chipsets.93706.0.html

Please excuse my lack of clearity on this,

I doesnt read anyware that ES arent allowed. Is that correct?

ES are never allowed in HWBOT competitions unless specifically mentioned in the rules

Can we get clarification on ES rules for this competition? This always seems to be a point of contention,

Is it as the normal ES rules of HWBOT that ES is not allowed for any current generation of CPU/GPU?

or

No ES of any shape or age or type?

No ES, no Skylake, in general no hardware released after TC Start

I do realize that for Competitions unless specified no CURRENT GEN ES are allowed or Hard Ware released after the commencement of said competitions. That is understood.

My question is quite simple; What about OLDER ES CPUs that are say 2, 3, or more years OLD? Are they allowed like they have been in the past?

TIA...

Nope mate not even the old stuff is allowed

Please excuse my lack of clearity on this,

 

 

 

 

 

I do realize that for Competitions unless specified no CURRENT GEN ES are allowed or Hard Ware released after the commencement of said competitions. That is understood.

 

My question is quite simple; What about OLDER ES CPUs that are say 2, 3, or more years OLD? Are they allowed like they have been in the past?

TIA...

Old ES generation are allowed automatically as soon as a new generation comes out...that's clear.

Nope mate not even the old stuff is allowed

Old ES generation are allowed automatically as soon as a new generation comes out...that's clear.

Apparently not

My understanding was old non current gen ES was allowed for general subs, but not allowed in comps.

No ES at all were allowed in comps. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Correct correct...

ES old gen are allowed for submits except in competitions.