Results in list contaminated by nonsensical entries

[Rainer]

The score for the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v3 @ 3.50GHz is distorted by one dismal outlier.

There, the E3-1275 v3 scored 5,877 instead of the 10,000+ that are to be expected, doubtlessly because it was plugged into a Z87 board that isn't designed nor specified to run Xeon CPUs.

IMHO it isn't helpful to contaminate the list with entries that are clearly erratic and result from nonsensical builds. It upsets the order and forces us to look at every single number of which the score is composed, just to put things into perspective.

Deletion of such entries would be advised. Just my two cents.

[Richard (PassMark)]

The results are an average of all submissions. As such the more samples we get the more accurate the results become, whereas CPUs with only a few samples have less accurate results.

With hundreds of submissions each day, there are bound to be a few outliers every now and then. When we notice it or when users like yourself point out the anomalies, we do clean up the charts a bit. We have manually excluded (but not deleted) the submission. The charts should be updated to reflect this.

Side note: While the Z87 might not be the most suited chipset for Xeon E3-1200 V3 series, the board the user used, Z87N-WIFI, does specifically list the E3-1275 V3 as being supported.

http://www.gigabyte.com/support-down....aspx?pid=4600

[Rainer]

While the Z87 might not be the most suited chipset for Xeon E3-1200 V3 series, the board the user used, Z87N-WIFI, does specifically list the E3-1275 V3 as being supported.

Hello Richard,

you are totally correct in that the desktop chipset probably is not the (sole) cause of that improbable result:

Meanwhile I checked some of the figures on the site, and found that systems with a Xeon in a desktop board are not as rare as I would have believed, and do not always produce such dismal scores.

So, I have no explanation for that particular result either