Mr.Scott says:

12 year and 7 months ago –

Optytrooper put you up to this? CPU-Z is invalid.

Angry says:

12 year and 7 months ago –

Its been approved by Sweet. I used MSI's software to adjust FSB and Vcore.

I.M.O.G. says:

12 year and 7 months ago –

Good job Angry.

ShrimpBrime says:

12 year and 7 months ago –

Its been approved by Sweet. I used MSI's software to adjust FSB and Vcore.

Hey nice clocks. But unstable. That's why it won't validate.

Idealy even though Sweet is letting it slide, you should try to get a validated cpu-z up so it looks better for you

Angry says:

12 year and 7 months ago –

Hey nice clocks. But unstable. That's why it won't validate.

 

Idealy even though Sweet is letting it slide, you should try to get a validated cpu-z up so it looks better for you

Thankyou, Im definitely going to try.

xXSebaSXx says:

12 year and 7 months ago –

I don't get it... CPUz validations in RED get submitted/accepted all the time. We all know it happens quite regularly with AMD and more so now that CPUz has the time delay on validation. Why is this, all of a sudden, a big issue?

ShrimpBrime says:

12 year and 7 months ago –

I don't get it... CPUz validations in RED get submitted/accepted all the time. We all know it happens quite regularly with AMD and more so now that CPUz has the time delay on validation. Why is this, all of a sudden, a big issue?

It was questioned because it's a competition.

xXSebaSXx says:

12 year and 7 months ago –

That's the part I don't get. AFAIK there is no rule that says that validation must be accepted by CPUz for it to be submittable for competition. I thought the same rules for normal CPUz submissions applied; therefore, my question.

I understand the underlying basis of why it was questioned; I just did not see any rules stating that explicitly.

Mr.Scott says:

12 year and 7 months ago –

I don't get it... CPUz validations in RED get submitted/accepted all the time. We all know it happens quite regularly with AMD and more so now that CPUz has the time delay on validation. Why is this, all of a sudden, a big issue?

As far as I know, the only problem CPU-Z has with AMD is in socket A, and the 3 second time delay is to guaranty at least a slight amount of stability. Failed validations are not submittable according to the rules............unless this has changed recently. Besides, nobody else in K8 seems to be having any problem validating. Staff? Ruling please.

2.1. General verification rules

Underneath you will find the links to all the different benchmarks, which contain the specific rules for each benchmark. Read them through and you’ll find them to be very easy to remember. In fact, most of you will only have to pay attention to one or two rules, because the other rules are so obvious. In general:

- For Futuremark benchmarks (3DMark/PCMark): top 20 global (HOF) requires a valid FM ORB verification link

- For CPU-Z: only valid verification links

xXSebaSXx says:

12 year and 7 months ago –

As far as I know, the only problem CPU-Z has with AMD is in socket A, and the 3 second time delay is to guaranty at least a slight amount of stability. Failed validations are not submittable according to the rules............unless this has changed recently. Besides, nobody else in K8 seems to be having any problem validating. Staff? Ruling please.

Not quite. Rejected CPUz validations happen on many other AMD sockets and it has nothing to to with stability. It has happened to me in the past, even before CPUz implemented the 3s delay on validations. It has to do with the way HTRef fluctuates on AMD boards and the way CPUz checks the frequency for validation.

- For CPU-Z: only valid verification links

Ambiguous rule is ambiguous is all I can say about this one. Valid link can easily be interpreted as having a url that links to an existing submission. I think that is how it is being enforced actually because if it weren't we'd have a lot of the newer FX submissions get taken out of the rankings due to their being "rejected" by CPUz.

Please, don't see my replies as any attempt at antagonizing any teams here. I just want clarification of the rules that apply.

ShrimpBrime says:

12 year and 7 months ago –

Not quite. Rejected CPUz validations happen on many other AMD sockets and it has nothing to to with stability. It has happened to me in the past, even before CPUz implemented the 3s delay on validations. It has to do with the way HTRef fluctuates on AMD boards and the way CPUz checks the frequency for validation.

 

 

Ambiguous rule is ambiguous is all I can say about this one. Valid link can easily be interpreted as having a url that links to an existing submission. I think that is how it is being enforced actually because if it weren't we'd have a lot of the newer FX submissions get taken out of the rankings due to their being "rejected" by CPUz.

 

Please, don't see my replies as any attempt at antagonizing any teams here. I just want clarification of the rules that apply.

For clarification, I would not get away with it. So I've never posted a no valid cpu-z. If it was, it got flagged, removed/validated properly. This is partly because my team captain would not allow it and HWBot rules state VALID.

If FX cpu-z aren't valid, it's not valid. The cpu is beyond it's top frequency, the save file barely made it and the validator knew all about it.

xXSebaSXx says:

12 year and 7 months ago –

I get what you're saying. I just hope that the rule gets clarified to avoid these situations in the future.

Christian Ney says:

12 year and 7 months ago –

We will have a staff meeting then