Well,I am new to this forum.and when I read this thread about cheating on your benchmarks,I can't believe that people would stoop so low to gain recognition!WTF!
Well,I am new to this forum.and when I read this thread about cheating on your benchmarks,I can't believe that people would stoop so low to gain recognition!WTF!
As in a previous post its pretty strange to cheat at something so Geeky..Quote:
Originally Posted by Sword
I think this is a bugged score:
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=4825
Im almost certain its bugged :| As well as the 6.6ghz score i posted for Kunaak.
Shamino has the no.1 fastest EE :)
I am still working on testing new benchmarks and programs.
I will update this real soon.
I have also sent the information to get the obvious fakes removed from the CPUID database, so we can keep the legit stuff in the hall of fame :)
I hate it when people fake scores. it make the legit people with high score get scrutinized.
:(
i hate cheaters
it's sad, it's supposed to be fun benchmarking on high levels without cheating
About three years ago I posted a sarcastic thread "I've found a new way to overclock."
In that post I stated that by setting the Windows clock ahead the PC was tricked into thinking it was running too slow, ergo it's runs faster. The further you move ahead the time the faster the system runs to "catch up".
Funny how that silly thread actually held some truth.
My take on cheating is simple, it's a reflection of one's character (or lack thereof). Cheating isn't the problem it's a solution to a problem from the mind of a disturbed person. As destructive as it may be to the community cheating is worse then character assination, it's character suicide minus the reprieve. I don't know if we should fear, puinish, or try to help such people, the latter being the most constructive and of course most difficult.
By the by here's a screenshot I'd asked about in a former thread which shows a clear discrepancy in software results. When surpassing numbers no system has seen in an attempt to break records, there's also bound to be some anomalies. The screenshot below exemplifies how inaccurate results can be in a science in which we expect accuracy, especially at extreme frequencies (relatively speaking)...
Kunaak I found a way to cheat prime 95 by accident im not going to post how or show a screenie but it is way to easy pm me for details please.
who would cheat at a program like prime95? Is that prog even declared a benchmark. I've always looked at prime95 as a stability tool only. That's like saying I hacked memtest86+ now my ram doesn't show errors even when the memory is erroring hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
Now that's about as funny as what occured during the development of my Pat. Pending Singularity Frequency Booster. The software is based on the Special Theory of Relativity Time Dialation axiom. I reproduced (to the best of my ability) J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating's Time Dilation experiment (Science 177, 166 (1972)).
The original experiment went as follows;
My experiment involved two cats; Socrates (my cat) and a firends cat Plato. I used my Frequent Flyer miles to fly each :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: in an opposite direction around the world each with a Casio digital time piece on their collars. The test was rendered moot the first time when it was discovered Plato had taken an unscheduled tour of a Tokyo Brothel where he requested a "Massuse" dressed as Catwoman to give him a "flea bath." His indiscretion was only discovered after charges were found on my Mastercard to Feline Fetish Leather Shop, Naughty Natalies House of Oils, White Trash Limo Service and room service requesting a mini-bar filled with Cat Nip, Organic milk from Vermont and two disposable cameras which have not been found yet. Of course we couldn't make the numbers work which was our first indicator something was amiss...Quote:
"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."
On the second attempt my cat Socrates took it upon himself to adjust his Casio for Daylight Savings Time tyring to be helpful. Eventually the experiment worked and I wrote a program which basically reproduces the simultaneous effect on time in opposite directions. We basically trick the PC to run faster by giving it the impression it's being drawn into a Black Hole. The CPU panics and speeds up to save itself. The program will be avilaible soon as Freeware....
You really are Rather strange... But hey, it's all goodQuote:
Originally Posted by Liquid3D
Its just sad when you cheat.. When it are real results you feel happy bout it when people compliment you bout it.. I dont think you have the same with cheating tho...
Cheat with memtest and DFI Lanparty Nf4
If you use 120/200, 140/200 or 180/200 ratio for memory, memtest will show the FSB and not the real frequency..
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/8844/fake2up.th.jpg
lol, after reading the first post I put the slomo hack to the test. Lol. SOOOoo unbelievably cheap. worked like a charm on 3dMark 03. Used an old prog I keep to play all those cpu speed based games that run at the speed of light on a modern day comp. Lol, a 9800XT and barton core just beat Kinc. YAY FOR THE WORLD RECORD!! lol. :( if only it were legit.
yaaaaaaaahhhh
http://users.tpg.com.au/weigner/wtf.PNG
goooo the banias
nice guide! Thanks
I have found from personal experience that Futuremark detects my system about 99% of the time with accuracy based on what I set in the bios. It gets the 1% wrong when I enable Intel's EIST function to "minimum" in bios and misinterprets the multiplyer on the cpu.
We'll see those kind of speeds when they go to diminds to replace silicon. :cool: Speeds like that are impossible even military wise. 32ghz was it. lol On one of those faked cpuz shots. :stick: Only diminds can make those kind of cpu speeds realisticly it would be easaly 3 times that. :woot: To the future!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
prime and sp2004 are both vulnerable to this and its just to easy. Always request a pi 32m along with prime or someone might pull one of these. Be especially aware when people try to sell you a cpu.
http://members.cox.net/wmdieselmc26/hack.bmp
i have heard from somewhere u can cheat on Prime too!
SP2004 and Prime 95 are both exceptionally weak indicators of cheat free stability testing. for instance I can run prime 95 for a hour, so it looks legit, then make it look like it ran for 3 days... with no real effort at all.
the only programmer, that really takes my advice, is Wizzard.
in Systool, the iterations are so close, that even one fluctuation, screws up the even-ness of the results, and then become obvious that they were tamperd with.
WIzzard and CPUZ, and SNQ are about the only people that actually take my advice when I give it.
other programmers seem to work with me, then wimp out at the last second, claiming "no one will go for online verification"...
but look at CPUZ... :)
if it helps prove something, and is easy, people will do it.
I just seem to get alot of programmer, who want half hearted attempts of cheat free stuff... then give up.
SNQ (the makers of Super Pi-Mod) CPUZ and Wizzard, have all been a joy to work with however, cause they actually take my advice and build on it.
I am just glad someone gives a damn :)
Well this days almost every cpu you see in ebay shows a prime/sp2004 screenshot showing "3ghz 24h stable". So making it show 24h in only 1 REAL hour is a way of cheating. One of the worst, as they cheat people's money :slapass:Quote:
Originally Posted by cmay119
i accidently cheated SP2004 when i reset my bios and changed the date to current date. it changed to 200+ days stable, lol. nice to see SP2004 Beta fixed it.
hehe, faking results at its best:D
I unintentionally discovered a way to over double a score in science mark.
I did this twice to verify. I had it run all of the tests, I got impatient because I was running F@H in the background and knew it would screw up my test results, so I clicked skip, or stop, on the primordia test, it said are you sure, I clicked yes, then I let the rest of the tests finish. In the end, It said I sucessfully completed all tests (even though I clicked stop/skip half way through primordia). My score for primordia was 2500 or so, something really ridiculous to get on my A64 3000+ OCd to 2.5GHz.
I did this again after I turned off F@H to make sure it wasn't an error involved with that. It wasn't I did it again and I got the same result. I am not sure if it will do the same with the other tests, but it definitely messed up (doubled) the one test score.
Someone please verify this for me.
Also, sorry if this has been posted before, I did a quick search and didnt find anything so...
Thanks for verifing.
Can anyone verify this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rippon
i think this belongs here...
555.22 FSB with Yonah? :slapass:
and 925MHz on the memory. :slap:
or did someone figure out the golden key to OCing Yonah :rolleyes:
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=89136
http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php
Can someone verify if those two are real or fakes please.
These were posted in on a overclocking competition in Hong Kong. The scores seem pretty high for a X1800GTO (with unlocked 16pipelines).
http://www.geocities.com/darkknighta.../Cheat_002.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/darkknighta.../Cheat_001.jpg
Thanks.
that is the bug for CPUz, not cheatQuote:
Originally Posted by Joe Camel
Hey Joe :)
Wow I never thought people would do so much to cheat.
I have never even tried what would be the point.
Ihave a question: If I have a relative long list of computer configurations and their claimed benchmarks. Id there a place I could compare them with what is expected? I am doing a study of inflated claims in a project and I need all the help I could get. You can PM or contact me at peterdehoundt@yahoo.com
TIA
Jose
can i beleve when somone says that hi can use higher then org multipel on the cpu?
i have alredu sean pictures of unlockt amd64 and some opterons.
of courese i can beleve it when i seas a unlockat socket a but i dont know what to think about amd64.
cheating is no fun,you can never get e better computer becouse of cheating,just tweaking can gives you better score and better fps in games :)
Ahhh, how silly that seems now...Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Also, is cheating still so easily passed off by others?
good read, you learn something new every day ...
Well this quote was from 01/12/2004Quote:
Originally Posted by tom12519
This is an answer to that, this time on 19/01/2006Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
:D:D:D:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Serge84
i was trying to demonstrate that a score is a fake in an italian forum...and i unintentionally found a way to cheat cpu-z very easily with an external program ( can i post the program name ? )...i was able to fake cpu multiplier and frequency...validation also works :stick:i think it is a completely new way to fake cpu-z, the type of cheating i used is not listed in the firts post...
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=103363
p.s. bad news...it is possible to modify also fsb/htt.....the only thing which cannot be changed is fsb/dram ratio...but it is not a problem if you want to fake an async score or only increasing fsb....
this is a perfect fake score...also concerning ram speed...the validation i posted before reported cpu/9 as dram ratio, instead of cpu/25....
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=103572
Okies follow Benchmarkian's do I have something to show youse!
I recently sent my 2x 256MB 7800GTX's to a mate in Sydney who volt modded them to 540/1350 (stock 430/1200). Whilst in the "testing for stability phase" he did a 3DMark06 run and achieved the WORLD RECORD 3DMARK06 SCORE WITH MY 7800GTX's!
According to XtremeSystems.org, the World Record is currently 14022 in 3DMark06; www.xtremesystems.org/fo...read.php?t=59753
THIS IS THE 3DMARK06 WORLD RECORD RUN OF 17361 FEATURING MY VOLT MODDED 7800GTX'S IN SLI AND HIS YONAH INTEL CPU; http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3...6bugrun2ii.jpg
He tried to validate the score with Futuremark but it wouldn't let him. This is what we call a BUG RUN as he wasn't able to mimic this incredible score ever again as ~9.5k was more the average.
But who cares, I have a legit screenshot proving my 7800GTX's helped in obtaining a World Record 3DMark06 score!
A BIG thanks goes out to my amazing GPU Tech in Sydney, Victor, for his continuous online support! Love your work mate!
im sure these are real. x1800gto @ 16 pipes is an X1800XL. x1800xl at those clocks does over 10k for sure. i think even 12K is no problem with the right equipment ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by hixie
hmmm... isn't the multi of a opteron165 locked at 9x???
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=78027
fake?
€: o i see it could be real: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=88876
3DMark03 26579
A64 3700+ @ 2.95GHz
single X1800XT 772/913MHz
*muhahaha*
INTEL AINT GOT :banana::banana::banana::banana: ON THIS!
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=473684
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=112636
6575.98 MHz (692.21 * 9.5)
What's the hell ?
Quote:
AM2 3500+ 6.5 gigs LOLOL LOOK!
I know this is a continuation of my other thread, but the subject has sort of changed in that I just wanted people to see and laugh at this.
My AM2 and Abit board have been screwing with me lately. I'll be playing CS:S and it will just begin to slow down gradually until I am moving about half as fast as everyone else (which really ****es the other players off). At that point I will alt/tab out to check cpu-z and clockgen and see something like this:
I highly doubt that is legit. k|ngp|n broke 17K and he was on a pair of 7900GTXs with LN2 cooling. A pair of 7800 and yonah? Yea right!Quote:
Originally Posted by peteypete271
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=110956&page=5
I noticed a cheat method today.
It's strong...SuperPI-mod and 3DMark2001SE are affected, sadly:(
But recent CPU-Z is not affected by this method, fortunately
Now, still-image is not enough for evidence of any OC results, I think...
...at least, CPU-Z is must.
http://222.151.145.219/c-board/file/cheat-8G_small.jpg
Edited: IP address maintenance.
Hi Kyosen,Quote:
Originally Posted by kyosen
:(
How badly does it effect 2001? Is it easy to spot ?
Regards
Andy
I hope this is not the end of 2001... :(
hi kyosen-san
Very sad event......:(
Yeah, very sad affair...
I could reach 3DMark2001SE - 130k and 3DMark05 - 40k at fake 8GHz.
It seems that ORB rejects publishing suspicious score/clock for 3DMark05,
but I can publish 3DMark05 - 29873 score at fake 5.6G:(
http://222.151.185.16/c-board/file/3...heat_small.jpg
http://222.151.185.16/c-board/file/3...heat_small.jpg
http://222.151.185.16/c-board/file/3...heat_small.jpg
Edited: IP address maintenance.
Sad day for benchers :( :(
Thanks for sharing kyosen-san:clap: :clap: :clap:
Very bad news.
Anyway i have an ideia of how it works and how it's done, maybe i'm wrong about it, my ideia it's just a extrapolation of one tweak that was used in the past.
If this cheat becomes public then i will know if my extrapolation is right or wrong.
Let's see what the future brings...
very very sad .
it loos like that works by setting false CPU and VGA Cloks .
regards
very very bad notice :(
Thank's for the info Kyosen :)
Wow thats crazy. I bet that program started off over in Europe ;)
i think it is not a program, but a hardware mod or sth, there was a guy back then, he had abnormally fast Spi times and also al 3DMarks were fast, so author of spi mod figuerd out that his internal clock was a little slow, so his mobo needed for normal 1s, more, lik 1.1s, so FPS and SPi time is calculated thru that internal clock, so you get the pic.
No worries kyosen :)
We know you'll reach those numbers in REAL in a few months :p:
Perkam
Hi,
zbogorgon> i think it is not a program, but a hardware mod or sth,
--
Unfortunately, the program/software makes these cheat results...very easily:(
perkam> We know you'll reach those numbers in REAL in a few months:p:
--
Ahaha, desperately imposible:D
then it is just terribleQuote:
Originally Posted by kyosen
One of theese days I was overclocking a bit and before I set the new settings I reset the bios cause it hung up then I set the new settings but forgot to set the time.SO I started windows and started SP2004 so I can stress test it and I saw the date was wrong so while I was boired I set the time and the hours in SP2004 became like 700H.So thats easy for someone to do and you can hardly figure out imaginehe does 3H and he can adjust a bit the time and he has 8H.maybe they hould do smthn about it.
Well that's easier done by just changing date or time after starting SP2004 or Orthos.
But that's not a benchmark. I can't understand why someone would want to cheat a 3dk01 result, but a stability Orthos time? That's just someone with a totally insane e-penis :D:D
Why not he does let say like 4G's on AMD tottaly not stable for more then 10min or so and he can barely hit 3.4 stable and he decides I can get past the honest man and show him I'm better by doing this.Some people are not that resonable they think that cheating get's them somwhere but they'll always know that they are just retards.They always consider what others think not what they think.Thats our nature.
cheating on an effing benchy is just retarted. what will it amount to your life?
dammit its a oc.
by the way, one way to check for honesty might be as follows: say there a Mr. 5 Posts who has an fx55 at 3.8ghz(yes i stole this from someone ot the beginning of the thread), but on a different forum, ie bit-tech or tomshardware, he is a mod who has dice cooling ln2 or wutever and he was insane ocs with cooling pics and all, then he should be respectable.
my 2 pence
On the romanian forum Crazy PC,there's a competition for the best time SuperPi 4M on a connie at 3600mhz.Some dude came up with this result.Is it fake?I attached his movie too.
http://rapidshare.com/files/25287796/film.wmv.html
Yes, the question is : Can the Cpuz 1.39 be modified to show different MHZ for cpu?
That score was reached with 680i ...
and RAM to 1210 5-4-4... (GMH)Quote:
Originally Posted by M3kk
And , more important then that , the mobo is an Asus Striker . :)
i don't think so , the best thing you can do is to ask him to open the task manger before the bench then focus with cam on it >>>> bench >>>> open againQuote:
Originally Posted by M3kk
Any way here is his different pi results before starting that bench (from the video)
1M 20.xxx S
2M 52.xxx S
4M 1m15.xxxS
8M 4m32.xxxS
16M10m00.xxxS
32M22m00.xxxS
Surely any screenshot could be faked realistically even using paint and pixel editing. You just don’t no who to trust :S lol
Personally I don’t see the point in people faking benchmarks, just seems a bit stupid because when I overclock I do it for increased performance or for the hell of it to get some accomplishment.
If you fake it what do you really get out of it. No rush. No accomplishment. Nothing.
I dreamed that I got this overclock the other night....
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com//imag...369b88b467.jpg
hahha that made me laugh
Ive seen a lot of fake :banana::banana::banana::banana: going on on this forum especially at the overclock results of some cpus.. Lik e E6420's way to high
I dont bother they do it or not.
I got my own nice overclock. Anyway those people are really retarded. They really need a girlfriend. XD
Prove it
is this true or fake?? :confused: :confused: :confused:
LOL at the 32000 mhz processor!!! I want one of those!, it must have 1000 cores too!
Hi guys :)
I can't find WPrime here. V 1.53 is reported to have a much better cheat protection. Is it "safe"?
WTFQuote:
Originally Posted by Lias
why don't you speak factually rather than crap on because you can't reach OC levels others are reaching
:worship:hello, in "Coder's Corner" i have write and posted a new benchmark program "xs bench" (freeware), i see your pc.. :worship: .. wow!, please try this, and report here the time to be display at end of test ..... if you want :rolleyes:..sorry for my bad english. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Just what I was looking for. I know a way to get wrong/inaccurate results and readings but it wasn't cheating or fake, and nearly every program I tried fell for it, which alarmed me. All it involved is throwing the FSB far higher than usual on a 2002 Duron (for the first time anyway). I first noticed it about April (IIRC) and threw up in shock because the system would throttle real-time from low MHz to high and benches were scaling as expected. Franck/Samuel and many other benchmark software developers know about it.
I can give you a shocking and thorough example if I get enough requests. :D
To check for wrong MHz, just find out what the CPU Base Clock Timer is and run a few low-level instruction calculations to roughly approximate the clock. CHECKCPU32 does that fairly well.
The best and ONLY way to verify truly is not to use a program benchmark, but use your brain to devise a simple real-life benchmark instead. ;) Encode some 100MB+ file and Decode it, Compress some 500MB+ file, Decompress it and so on. If real, you'll be able to tell pretty easily.
One thing you CANNOT correct is when you have a bad or inaccurate PLL (which can be caused simply by raising FSB). All synthetic benchmarks will be wildly wrong and so would others that toot to be non-synthetic.
Nuclearus, Fresh Diagnose, Cinebench, WinRAR are also some benchmarks not susceptible to the wrong, inaccurate or fake benchmark results that I've seen.
Although a screenshot can easily be faked (photoshopped), faking an actual bench/monitor result is what I'm talking about.
Woah, I didn't know people were sad enough to cheat on these things:shakes: It's supposed to show achievement, how can you get a thrill from just cheating. But I suppose that basically covers cheating in general.
? wtf/?Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid3D
New Known Cheat.
people validating overclocks with "Memset" screen shots only.
boot with a half multiplier = cheat.
adjust multiplier in windows = undetectable cheat.
Penryns? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunaak
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1338/85341916fb4.jpg
:D
I know I'm late on the joke :toast:
Seriously, nice list - but there's little we could do about editing memory values.
But really, who stoops low enough to cheat in overclocking records?
"overclocking records" are quiet nerdish to begin with, it's right down there with cheating in WoW and D&D
http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/5707/4ghzhe9.th.jpg
Post it here so now discuss is this true or is this fake :):)
4 cpus but only 2 threads?
Just post a cpuz screen, lol.
First inclination: Fake. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stip
Reason: Common using AM2 board with poor support.
Run me a Cinebench 10 multiple CPU render and I'll tell you if otherwise.
The Picture is NO FAKE!!!!!! but on the board bios i can turn the multi to 20 and boot the os all monitoring programms show 4GHz but only CPUz shows the right clockspeed so i dont post a screen of it :)
Regards Stip
EDIT: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=317431 Iám a noob of overclocking but this is what i make this week
That's what I meant. :)
Many MB's have poor BIOS support which give no speed change even though some have got up to 27x multi.
BTW, which board did you do the first pic with?
Hi
Sorry for the late replay :( it is a K9A2 Platinum with Bios 1.3 and TLB fix is disabled by software
Stip
Whats wrong? http://www.tarz.planet.ee/3dmark%200...17041003.jpg?2
I asked him to rerun. Second result: http://www.tarz.planet.ee/3dmark%200...%20katse.jpg?2
Vista, BUG?:confused:
yeap, vista sometimes bugs in 03
yep
Hey guys I ran a super pi run a few months back. The checksum number is 222D711D well here it is.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...Zilla/85pi.jpg This was run on my P5Ke wifi
Now a guy is posting claims that he is running his P5Q-Pro at very close to my P5Ke speed and his super pi time although it starts slower ends with my time exactly!!! and the Checksum number is the SAME!!!
Now this seems a little suspicious to me as I have done well over a 1000 runs as most have and I have never seen the same checksum before..
I think some one has done some photo-choppin...
Here is his post.
http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php...&postcount=138
Let me know cuz I have outed cheaters before and really want to again!!!
his Pi time are not scaling right its a fake
I would *never* do anything such as this. I have no idea how that happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Acid-
That was just a quick run on air, it isn't even submitted to HWbot or anything. My guess is it happened because I was running running it at the extreme edge of stability.
Also, there is no way I could have even pulled it off that screenshot, it is a reduced size (note, mine is NOT) and his had the quality reduced. How would I have got it that good?
I am confused as much as you gentlemen are.
Wow, thanks for accusing me without even contacting me. I had an Admin PM just now letting me know of the accusation you made.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeldZilla
hmmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by WeldZilla
this is a run from last night on my P5Q3 :D
http://www.abload.de/img/1mcd6d.png
Same time and same Checksum, but starts faster and ends exactly ;)
LOL, that is just funny.
So...now I guess we both ripped him huh?
The initial loops can be all over the place in relation to the final value depending on how the OS is tuned.
thideras here would never cheat, I can vouch for that. ;)
Wrong you can't start with a .172 and end with a 9.84 I have tried between 200 and 300 times to emulate that claimed run. It can't be done!!!
Not at the claimed processor speed. I got it to start with a .172 at speeds between 4050mhz and 4275mhz playing with mem and mem timings and none of them ended up in the 9.xxx range!!! ever. Run it again posted along side a validated cpuz with your same claimed setup. Hit the mark and I will fall all over myself apologizing to you.
I know you can't. It would sure make it simple if you could!! So get out that great p5Q and get with it.
Gautum look a little closer set aside your feelings look not just at the initial value but also how the loops vary. This is not possible.
Again put a validated cpuz with the link pictured with your pi run. And then tell me who on the staff oover there edited my post. #121 in the P5Q thread and put a different link to a amd setup when most everyone one knows I have never owned one. So who has the ability to go in and change posts and hide their lies?
PUT UP THE PROOF
Better yet just come clean say you are sorry and don't do it again. The world will keep spinning.
WZ