Given the prior discussions about the benchmark scores, some of which didn't seem to line up, I took a little closer look at the "detailed" data.  Here are seveal points that I noticed:

1. The OS is always listed as x86 even when SW is listed as x64, which is not a valid combination.
2. The processor speed, which is obviously a critical component, is not always captured.  For example, see gTest1, DGraham_HP9400, purCAB1.  They list the model, family, and stepping, but this is not necessarily unique to a specific processor frequency. Additionally reporting the info just from the CPUID will not properly reflect any overclocked machines.  I have attached the partial output from PassMark for reference.
3. RichardB's score of 34393 has to be incorrect (or there is something very wrong with this machine). This type of data needs to be deleted.
4. Is is possible that resr123 with a 3 GB machine that was introduced in 2006 has a score that is 33% less than next best?
5. Only gTest1 seems to have any render results.  Burke, Ed Laptop, and LynnC have timings of 0.1.  I have yet to figure out how to turn this option on.
6. Consider the following "anomolies":

• NAME       SW BENCHMARK         WEI
  
• Burke          359              5.8
• purCAB-1       369              6.6  14% greater WEI (assuming that this is a linear measure) yields 3% reduction in benchmark
  
• resr123        164              7.1
• SolidMuse      246              7.6  7% greater WEI yields 50% reduction in benchmark

For the benchmarks to have real value the underlying data must be squeeky clean.

Ken