no idear... all i can do is post them in the fm forums... if they dont think its a fake they wont remove it, its not my decision what gets zapped and what stays...
Printable View
no idear... all i can do is post them in the fm forums... if they dont think its a fake they wont remove it, its not my decision what gets zapped and what stays...
okidoki....all i needed was a reason... thanks and good work :D
saaya: you are a good man for doing this dirty work. WTG!
doesnt my sig look so nice...thanks to you...
lol thx, and it was photochop who made that pic look good not me :D
btw someone on Guru3d is trying to pass a 18k score, which (lol) has apparently already been taken down
and the "gurus" are scrambling around wondering if its real...
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2963836
Almost 14k with a 9800Pro...lol.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3109055
this ones awfully fishy, it might be valid, but unless it's a (extremly rare) 16 pipeline modded 6800, I don't see how this person got this score.
yeah, very suspicious
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7748888
bugged nature score tops 5700 ultra charts.
taking a hard earned top spot from ALT 13.
posted on fm forums :)
Yeah...there's nothing wrong with this score.....
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8157745
:rolleyes:
posted :)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3216137
bugged fill rate.
its 5 times higher then what anyone elses fill rates are.
posted :)
Heres one with a 8+ ghz amd xp
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=66686
posted :)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3213541
6800 GT, 18000 3dmark2003 points.
super bugged fill rates.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2947064
19,000 on 2003... with a ATI 9200.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3009542
forced pixel shaders low, and admited fake score.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2939070
extremely questionable score.
17,000 with a GT, and a plain P4P800 and 3.4 ghz P4.
all from the first pages of 2003.
thx a lot kunaak!
they should have some more people checking at least the top pages...
hmm, 835 FPS nature from a Ti4400 ... wow he must have good cooling :p:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8188540
at least if people are going to cheat they should have the brains to be a bit more subtle :rolleyes: :mad:
Just my opinion, but there seems to be a lot of cheated 6800GT scores. The first six in all drivers option and many below.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3213541
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3009542
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2939070
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2784471
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3014069
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3231009
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3228346
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2923702
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3087843
that'll do for starters ;)
EDIT: This one I just don't know :confused:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3102671
just looks suss, even if those clocks are real it just doesn't seem right.
posted all except for the last one.. looks ok to me... but i dont know... havent looked at many 2k3 scores with the new cards yet.
what does everybody else think?
Yeah I think your right, just a really low GT1 thats due to low CPU spec.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Looks they someone couldn't help hemselves and put one straight back up.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3228346
other than that it's looking really good.
Thanks :)
no problem :)
glad i could help :D
please post this one.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3216137
it's really annoying to be trying so damn hard to take number 1 on the 6800 list, when theres a fake on there with 5 times the fill rate my 6800 gets with a A64 at 10x270 cas 2-2-2-5 at 1:1, 16 pipelines, 6 vertex shaders, and running 455/1180...
when all this guy has is a P4 at stock and a 6800 at stock or 325/700.
it's an obvious fake or glitch, but it's been there for weeks.