Printable View
Probably "dudedess" if it is my girlfriend on tweak.dk (Heidi aka Sadako Yamamura), you are refering to. I posted the CL1.5 0 0 0 7 0 133mhz screenshot with the checksum, so I can confirm if they are truely running at these timings :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pejsen
AMD Tweaker says they do run at these speeds. If the reserved values aren't effective, then wth are the timings then?
I hope we clear this once and for all. Don't let her get to you, if she is the "dude" you're refering to :)
2.4 on water : |
There is a way to fake screenshots, and have it look verified.
as soon as the next version of CPUZ is out, I won't validate any version of CPUZ lower then 1.26 or 1.25.1 Beta, without Mips shots to accompany it.
there was a cheated post here about a week ago, and it since looks like the person who found the cheat didn't keep his word and went around blabbing about it, cause there are obviouse fakes popping up, looking like verified OC's.
they want me or other people to verify thier fake CPUZ shots.
When the cheat is fixed...
I personally won't validate any version of CPUZ lower then 1.26 anymore.
Sounds good. Very good actually. When is 1.26 going to be released?
I really don't know when 1.26 will be out.
I been bugging the guy too much lately, at the moment, I think it would be better to leave him alone to do his thing, then constantly bug him about the details.
he's heard enough from me about the CPU-Z exploit.
I don't think it will be too long though, we are still using 1.25.1 beta, and I haven't had a problem with it yet. so soon I hope.
does this check out or is it fake?
http://img120.exs.cx/img120/2746/32g.png
fake^^^^^
the checker gives 3263MHz but a fake is a possibility
Tras = 5 is the minimum the mem controller will do. You can set it lower but it doesnt have any effect despite what some people may think ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek
http://img118.exs.cx/img118/5662/nie...rpiresultz.jpg
Are the numbers on the RAM screen enough to check the CPU speed ?
Fake :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by alz85
Now i :toast:
http://img110.exs.cx/img110/4553/264x10.jpg
me thinks a bit of photchopping going on there.Quote:
Originally Posted by alz85
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...chmentid=20118
.....and not even "GOOD" photo-chopping, at that!
Check this out, my new CPU :stick:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/dani69/DFI%20nF...MHz%20fake.gif
yes, it's fake, when I use Prime95 it's just jumps over 3GHz :D
theres no way I can verify a screen shot, with CPUZ anymore.
theres a few very huge cheats on the net at the moment, that could easily post screenies like these.
only things I found that aren't vulnerable to cheating programs, from alot of my testing, is
Hexus Pifast,
3dmark2001se,
CPUMark2
Clockgen,
and Windows>Properties.
Programs that are extremely Susceptable to cheating with the recent programs I have been notified about are...
sisoft sandra.
3dmark2003 and 2005.
PCmark2004.
Aquamark 3.
Super Pi.
CPUZ.
WCPUID.
Crystal CPUID.
I am not able to verify CPUZ shots, and call them accurate until various things change.
all I can say is that each one of these shots do appear valid, atleast to CPUZ.
but without, clockgen shots, 3dmark2001se, hexus pi fast or CPUMark2 (not CPUMark99)
theres no way I can verify these OC's.
not calling them fakes, just saying...
a recent cheat program, just made everything very "questionable" lately
I am on the case, Emailed Futuremark and suggest how they can fix these problems with thier new patch. thier reply was "we will look into it" and nothing else.
no reply from the people of Sisoft sandra.
Aquamark forums seem to be offline for me... can't email them.
still searching for ways to verify Overclocks, that the cheat program, can't fake.
at the moment...
only Hexus Pifast,
3dmark2001se,
CPUMark2
Clockgen,
and Windows>Properties.
can be atleast highly reliable at this point.
CPUZ should not be considerd solid proof of a OC-even when verified
I can produce mips shots to match any ghz, from 1mhz to 100 ghz.
I can mimic any bandwidth you can imagine.
I can fake a 3dmark shot of anything from 2dmark2003 and 2005 well past 100,000 points... and it all looks valid.
it is a very recent problem, that I have been working like hell to kill.
I have emailed every program maker, every person I thought would care to know, even microsoft, asking them to find a way to fix this.
but the plain fact is... a cheater has the advantage if they want to do it.
I have found a few programs are still reliable, and not susceptable to cheating programs that are popping up.
I am also working with the guys from CPUZ trying to find a way to make CPUZ ahead of the pack in the cheat busting department.
even the very latest 1.25.2a beta, is vulnerable to this new cheat.
but Clockgen, so far, isn't.
so there may be something about Clockgen, that CPUZ can't do at the moment, that can be adapted or something...
the ideas are still floating around.
kunaak or anyone...Quote:
Originally Posted by alz85
can you check this screenie still?
I'm 99% sure he doesn't know about the cheats, he just photoshopped it (rather poorly :p)
http://img89.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img89...erpi33sec1.jpg
this is from the same guy as from the picture in the quote
This screenie should be his legit score
the thing is, I know it's v1.24, but the checksum from the memory tab is different from the checksum from the cpu tab.
Now I stupidly already pointed a finger at him but the checksum verification was done based on the memory tab. the checksum on the cpu tab is blocked by the seccond cpu-z.
but the checksum seems about right.. 25** mhz
both CPUZ shots pass the check.
but if you want it completly verified, I suggest you ask for a hexus Pi-fast score.
a 3dmark2001se link (2003 and 2005 wont do) and a CPUMark2 Benchmark.
or Clockgen shot.
more then one, of these perferably.
little to nothing can be used to verify a OC at the moment.
especially super pi shots :(
oki thx
I'll ask for clockgen and hexus pifast or so..
(what about the plain pifast?)
so the memory tab can also be used to verify cpu speed? it's not used to verify the mem settings?
no, it doesn't verify the cas latency unfortunatly.
You think my overclock is verifiable? ;)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...Mods/CPU-Z.jpg
I don't see the big deal with these cheat programs. You know the people who have respect and whom you can trust. Everyone else might as well have never overclocked in the first place. That's how you really tell who's ligit, who has respect of the community.
cheating is alot more of a risk then you may guess.
take the orb for instance.
alot of people put a ton of work into getting into the top of various catagories, like top ti4200, to $300 videocard, top of the ORB, top of the low end cards...
if some of these programs become more common, any kid on any forum who wants to look cool, can fake any number of screen shots, and be top dog in thier little circle without ever earning or learning a thing, other then how to use a few programs.
every benchmarkers would face the issue of being tempted to cheat, even just alittle.
any person pissed off that they can;t get top OC's from thier hardware could easily just make one.
the orb would be flooded with fake scores, from any catagory you can think of.
the ORB would be useless.
cheating poses a very real risk, if you actually like overclocking, and the challenges around it. ignoring cheating, is just ignoring the inevitable.
doing something about it now, is better then doing alot about it later.
not cheat, can u check 4 me, thanks...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...PUZHighest.jpg
My Intel P4 2.8c @ 3.45GHz Air cooling (intel box).
N verify 4 my PIV 2.8E@3.9GHz, DFI LanParty 865PE.... Thanks once ag'n...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...PIV/Press2.jpg