CPU-Z Validation Changes, bogus dumps removed.

Quote:

---

Hi guys,

Just a note to tell you I just changed some steps of the internal validation check. Now, to get your dump validated, you need a clean frequency over time ("time" is, of course, not an hour but 2-3 seconds max.). This was added in order to reject all dumps where the CPU was throttling or unable to keep its rated frequency more than some milliseconds. Some guys spammed the validation key as long as needed to get a result "validated". We don't think a quarter second frequency might be called a "validated overclocking", so I added that check.

This issue is mainly affecting AMD K10 CPU (Intel doesn't seems to be concerned). No problem found so far with the Bulldozer OC Contest currently in progress.

PS : many bogus dumps were removed from world records.

---

Source - http://forum.canardpc.com/threads/60...h-overclocking

I can see this fixing QPI error runs on X58, but 90% of WR's aren't going to be valid anymore.

Will they just get the Red X now? I assume the bot will continue to accept those?

As for the bot question: problem with the Red X-mark is that it's also given to perfectly valid scores.

I'm confused as to what the red-X even means... :sofa:

It's never made sense to me, to have three different responses to your checksum. It should either be 100% valid, or if there is even a hint of in-validity in the cpu-z file, then it's not validated. There should be no "in-between" valid and invalid.

"Bulldozer OC Contest" ??? :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sunfire

"Bulldozer OC Contest" ??? :eek:

---

^^^

hmmmmmmmmm interesting

indeed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

As for the bot question: problem with the Red X-mark is that it's also given to perfectly valid scores.

---

no good

seems like a bit of a silly rule this. Who makes this rule and why is a fraction of a second stability worse than 3 second stability and to whom? Why dont we then make it 1 minute stability or 1 hour, where do you draw the line? Pretty silly IMO

if its max frequency benching who cares if it's a nanosecond or 3 seconds seriously

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

no good

seems like a bit of a silly rule this. Who makes this rule and why is a fraction of a second stability worse than 3 second stability and to whom? Why dont we then make it 1 minute stability or 1 hour, where do you draw the line? Pretty silly IMO

if its max frequency benching who cares if it's a nanosecond or 3 seconds seriously

---

I care about this a lot, due to HTT float (only affects CPU-Z, I can check with any other program for example THG Clock Tool and it stays still) on my motherboard about half of my validations are invalid.
I sat in windows for a while at that clock? :clap: Completed Sandra bandwidth/latency for a competition at 1990 6-6-6-17, (took about 3 minutes) CPU-Z dump was still invalid...

how much does your HTT "float around"?

completely agree with dino.

if CPUZ is the only program suffering from FSB fluctuation they should solve the problem, not just set this silly 3 seconds rule.

That's ridiculous, CPU-Z is now a stability tester for three seconds? Wow, how long before CPU-Z starts putting 100% load on all cores because -

Quote:

---

We don't think a 0% load might be called a "validated overclocking", so I added that stress.

---

Absolutely silly to be honest, it's kind of like moving the target halfway through the race. FAIL :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

how much does your HTT "float around"?

---

2.2-2.3 Mhz HTT, it only shows in CPU-Z. It happens in both Vista/XP 32-bit + Win7

Very familiar with this on AMD platforms. My wife's PC fails validations because of it. And it's only CPU-Z that it bounces around in. It seems to me the problem is the program, not the machines. So what gives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayin

Very familiar with this on AMD platforms. My wife's PC fails validations because of it. And it's only CPU-Z that it bounces around in. It seems to me the problem is the program, not the machines. So what gives?

---

Obviously its to make it harder for you to beat old frequency records or even match them on better hardware, and to fix the problem by adding more problems.

lolwut. Sounds to me like it is a band-aid to fix an underlying problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeepBeep2

Obviously its to make it harder for you to beat old frequency records or even match them on better hardware, and to fix the problem by adding more problems.

---

Get serious, Franck was very clear in the motivation for making the change. If it helps clean up the rankings it's a good thing, we'll still see 8+GHz shots with the new version, trust me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G H Z

Get serious, Franck was very clear in the motivation for making the change. If it helps clean up the rankings it's a good thing, we'll still see 8+GHz shots with the new version, trust me.

---

Why can't he just fix his software first? I'm pretty sure almost all of my validations will now be invalid due to CPU-Z's inability to read the correct clockspeed.

Interesting

what the?

I totally agree with dino. What a stupid rule to set. Since when is max clock related to stability?

Didn't you hear... To hit a clockspeed it has to be stable for 3 seconds. That's so obvious how didn't you know that?

[/sarcasm]

Absolutely, get your :banana::banana::banana::banana: straight first and perhaps this would not happen in the first place.

this is dumb rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sin0822

this is dumb rule.

---

agreed

max frequency should not require a time limit:down:

Hey easy guys :) ..

Max frequency is not bound of any time limits. Its the software that our used to use, that has changed its way of reading frequency.

Its in Franck`s fully right, to implement what ever He wants into His program.

Beg up and keep coding it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliver

Hey easy guys :) ..

Max frequency is not bound of any time limits. Its the software that our used to use, that has changed its way of reading frequency.

Its in Franck`s fully right, to implement what ever He wants into His program.

Beg up and keep coding it

---

This. If you don't like it, don't bench it. It's a free program and has been for years, no need to complain about software that you did no work for and paid no money for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filmbot

This. If you don't like it, don't bench it. It's a free program and has been for years, no need to complain about software that you did no work for and paid no money for.

---

Okay wait I just tell HWBot that I will use a different tool in future for verification.

I appreciate Franck's contribution. It is of a magnitude that most will never realize.

Despite this, I reserve the right to disagree with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by der8auer

Okay wait I just tell HWBot that I will use a different tool in future for verification.

---

Not sure whos forcing you to bench but then just don't bench CPU-Z. Nobody here is entitled to anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bassplayer

I appreciate Franck's contribution. It is of a magnitude that most will never realize.

Despite this, I reserve the right to disagree with him.

---

I'm not saying you shouldn't disagree with him, just that nobody here is entitled to anything from a free program that nobody else helped develop.

It's not easy like that.
CPU-Z became a big part of HWBot within the last few years and the overclocking community doesnt have the opportunity just to change the verification-tool. If I want to proof my overclocking result I get forced to use CPU-Z...

maybe we need more than one verification tool? So i guess no more brink OC? for me, not most i enjoy seeing the maximum speed i can pull, no matter how long it lasts.

Attachment 120754

more than one tool, i dont think there is anything like CPUz. It's an iconic piece of software, definitely no need to look for anything new imo

The only thing that sucks about this is the fact that all the scores done with the old version of cpuz are not honestly compareable with the new version of the benchmark. I mean how many of those validations were done with the required time limit.....

I feel some of you guys forget a thing or two... take setFSB for example. It loads the system for a few moments. If your rig is actually stable enough to set the frequency, then it should be stable enough to idle for 3 seconds too. It's not like he added some stability test, right? Like a 3 second load on all available cores?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian y.

The only thing that sucks about this is the fact that all the scores done with the old version of cpuz are not honestly compareable with the new version of the benchmark. I mean how many of those validations were done with the required time limit.....

---

I agree, it changes the base rules that all have used for years BUT that said, I can understand the why's of the change.
Bottom line at least to me is that this is one of those tough ones to make a call on.

if the 8.4ghz world record stands, omg thats hard to beat lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hondacity

if the 8.4ghz world record stands, omg thats hard to beat lol

---

and that one was held for more than 3 seconds, much more. I was there..:D

I know!!! hahahahah