Benchmark software

To make a submission bot asks for a saved DATA FILE. But there is no option for saving anything At least non that I can see/find. Some help/info on how to make a submission please. Thank you

I've seen some people run this benchmark on windows 7 and was wondering how the hell they did it, also is it possible to run it multi-threaded or does it have to be single core only I can't remember. Cheers. Lewis.

We did it, thanks Franck Fixed Memory Frequency (Ratio) Reading by CPU-Z on Intel i815 / Socket PGA370 Enjoy valid old school kickass SDRAM memory overclocking on PGA370 Download the CPU-Zx32s370 version at Ocaholic All Multiplier are working well now, tested and approved. 66:100 100:100 133:133 133:100 Just to show you it's working: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2473966

At OCN we are seeing results in Win7 showing "Time measurement data not available". We also see "Time measurement inaccurate" which Futuremark specifically states on its explanation page is not acceptable to them. http://www.3dmark.com/support/troubleshooting-my-results/#validation.anomaly.TIME_MEASUREMENTS_NOT_AVAILABLE They do not have a heading for, or explain "Time measurement data not available", but do exclude results with that error. What is the HWbot position on this particular error?

FYI, updated 3DMark 11 and 3DMark Vantage this week. Minor bugfix updates, no changes to workloads or scores. Details here; http://www.futuremark.com/pressreleases/minor-updates-to-3dmark-11-and-3dmark-vantage

This tool allows you to change Level Of Detail for ATi/AMD cards on the fly (in-between GT loading screens i.e). Will support NVIDIA cards when they fix their nvapi (never). Binaries: https://github.com/GENiEBEN/quick-lod/releases'>https://github.com/GENiEBEN/quick-lod/releases Source: https://github.com/GENiEBEN/quick-lod HWBOT Mirror (v1.01): http://downloads.hwbot.org/downloads/tools/QuickLOD_v101.exe Notes: * To close the hotkeys monitor, press Ctrl+Alt+0 on your keyboard. * The hotkeys monitor is written in AutoHotkey and will trigger false-positives with some antivirus software. Get the source code and compile it yourself if in doubt. Let me …

Title says all... It's allowed to use the 2011-10-14 build with XOP support from UCBench site? http://anrieff.net/ucbench/ Thanks!

Just a heads up, if someone doesn't have a 3DMark Advanced Edition yet (I know, most at HWbot do and some probably have press licenses and so on...), there is a good opportunity of getting it on the cheap for the next ~20 hours; it is available at 90% off on Steam in the Steam holiday sale. (key from steam version can be used with standalone version)

So I was just benching Cinebench 11.5 on my PC and I accidentally managed to do something stupid. I has found the super tweak for Cinebench, you may thank me later P.S. I am quite clearly joking but please let me submit it

Prompt how to correct it? ! I am tested up to the end, but instead of points there is a message "Run Time Error "13": Type Mismatch" That it means?

Just an early heads up; within the next two weeks, Futuremark Hall of Fame will raise the minimum SystemInfo version requirement to version 4.22 or later. So if you are doing Serious Benching, make sure SI is updated or your record might be gone from FM Hall of Fame in a week or two. We are also in final stages of getting 3DMark v1.2 update ready. Major bits include fixed hardware monitoring and greatly improved GPU detection (featuring licensed GPU-Z dll - why reinvent the wheel and all that), and the inclusion of Ice Storm Unlimited tests (to keep Ice Storm in parity with the mobile versions). Should be available in a week or two.

I suggest adding FAHbench as a gpgpu benchmark it scales very well, works on AMD, Nvidia and Intel GPUS. And well anything that runs OpenCL so CPUs as well. http://fahbench.com/

Hi guys, my Antivirus Antivir means that Hwbot Aquamark has a trojan in it... Can anybody confirm that this is true... I can´t imagine that. It seams to be TR/Crypt.XPACK ... It´s a bit strange to me. Thanks for ya respond. And sorry for my bad english. ;-)

Okay so this is wierd. http://www.overclock.net/t/1443493/amd-290x-3dmark03-bugged-scores-have-anyone-seen-this-before Have you guys that bench 290X subzero seen this before? Almost 9000 point per 25 mhz gpu clock seems legit Either 3dmark03 makes bugged score or AMD have made an 03 monster!

i have tried variuos tools found thruogh google search. and nothing is working...!!! HELP

I wonder, if anyone can explain me this - wPrime 32M test on the very same hardware - a ancient MSI 6340 mobo, same ram settings, same FSB, same everything: except for a CPUs! Athlon 900MHz: 182sec Athlon XP 1100MHz: 228 sec ...now could anyone explain me, how 200MHz slower CPU with half the cache could be 46sec faster?! WTF! http://hwbot.org/submission/2436983_trodas_wprime___32m_athlon_900mhz_%28socket%29_182sec_972ms Barton core suxx so much, compared to Thunderbird A4 core or wPrime have probem with Barton CPU's, killing their score somehow?! ... Similary weird is the MaxxMem score, even there is the difference minimal: Athl…

Based off initial reports from Schmuckley, I decided to do a bit of testing into this issue myself. To replicate, do the following: In the OS, hit F7 to save your validation file Change the clockspeeds (or cause speedstep to kick in) and hit F7 a few more times Go to valid.canardpc.com to validate your files Submit your first validation (it should work) Wait a few minutes and try to submit any other validation (hint: you'll get the error "This ID is invalid") First sub (works) Second sub (doesn't work) I could use a few more people testing! Since 1.65 is about lose validation capabilities, it would be great if we could figure out a way around this.

In two weeks online validation support for CPU-Z v1.66 will be dropped. This means you will no longer be able to validate any dumps of v1.66.x. Please make sure to use v1.67 when benching and submit all your v1.66.x valid files before the 28th! Download v1.67+: click.

Next monday online validation support for CPU-Z 1.65 will be dropped (aka you won't be able to validate 1.65.x saved files anymore). Please make sure to use 1.66 when benching and submit all your 1.65.x valid files before next monday!

Hello guys , I buy GTX 780 Ligthining , and I need msi afterburner xtreme for overclocking the card well. Send me on private message if you want help me. Thanks !! I am on Air / H2o league.

Hello all I have tried to upload a validation file of 3Dmark03 (done with v360) but 3dmark.com gives the following error: Upload failed: Support URL: http://www.3dmark.com/receivingfailed?error=4&product=3dm03&submitinfoid=19411383 Message: Unsupported Futuremark SystemInfo version. You can update only the Futuremark SystemInfo without reinstalling whole benchmark.; (problemId:19411383) Exception: any chance to help me with this?

I have two DX 9.0 video cards (FX 5200 Ultra & Quadro FX 700) both dump to OS when fire fly starts in 06, tried fresh install of OS, 6 or 7 different drivers, deferent 06 packages to check for corruption. Other cards from the same time frame no problem just plop them in same drivers and OS, completes the bench. Did I just happen to get two cards with the same problem?

I seem to be getting horribly inaccurate voltage readings with the newest CPUz; just straight up crazy values. On an M6E + 4770K, 1.29V is read as 1.776V in CPUz. On an X79 Dark + 4960X, 1.41V is read as 1.016V. Both are measured with a multimeter. Obviously I'm used to small differences between software & DMM but this is way off. AI Suite III & ELEET, respectively, are reading what I would think software would read. So it seems to be platform-independent. Both are on Windows 7. Is anyone else seeing this?

Hey guys, I was searching around the forums, could not find anything related to the topic. So when i try running 3dmark99, i get an error telling me to use directX 6.1 or later. I do have directX installed. when i go to adding the .dll file that is within the .zip file i get a different error. something with an error in hex.

You have a beta benchmark "Profeus" listed, but it is a user submission and should not be there. I could not find a "report" facility, so this seemed as appropriate as I could find to bring it to staff attention.