Benchmark software

This is my favorite benchmark , since 2006 i have been playing it , but as of lately people have started to look for loopholes and abuse those loopholes to get Very high scores , too much tinkering and manipulation of each test with the benchmark and too many programs running in the background (manipulating how pcmark05 scores) does not make any sense at all since its giving you an artificially (false) very high scores wich does not represent a real and legit score ,Now Its not PCMark05 running as it was meant to be run , Now its all about what program can i find to cheat the score lol. I had it with this BS , Massman please remove this benchmark from hwbot or make new re…

Hey, Just tested the Catalyst 12.6 Beta from June 4 and I noticed a 1.5 % improvement on 3DMark 11's Graphics Score. Almost 120 points. There is also a little gain on 3DMark Vantage and an average gain of 3 % under games. Btw for the gamers out there, it fixes the performance problem under The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrime, so you will see a gain of 27 % going from the Catalyst 12.4 to the Catalyst 12.6 Beta. For those interested to see all the graphs, follow the link Download the Catalyst 12.6 Beta (June 4) at Guru3D

I've noticed the first videos showing the new 3DMark for Windows 8 are online. It's a recurring scene which lasts about a minute. It shows a sci-fi-scene with a cloak-wearing villain(?) and a flying unmanned aerial vehicle with some sexy tentacles. Technically it offers a lot of smoke, many particles and overframing glooming. MSI GTX 680 Lightning @ SLI can handle it, but I guess we're not seeing more than 20 Fps here most of the time. However it's hard to tell from the video, because tearing, micro-stuttering and the recording itself can have a large effect. Video from PCGH: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,889272/3DMark-for-Windows-8-Erste-Szenen-im-Video/Benchma…

Can anyone share 173.67 driver for XP/2k with modded inf? I've tried inf enhancer, but it doesn't work good, in some tests fps went higher, in the other I had huge drop (2001 SE). My card needs it so badly, with normal vmod + gamer hud maybe I'll be able to hit 110-112k range. http://hwbot.org/submission/2282995_bartx_3dmark2001_se_geforce_9600_gt_105048_marks Thanks in advance

hello, I does not how include to put an aquamark score, can help me? thank you MAX

So...i ran this two in my backup rig and i was greeted with this?

3DMark 12 will bench kidnapper pigs and killer birds Lot's of PhysX involved http://www.rovio.com/en/news/press-releases/147/rovio-entertainment-acquires-futuremark-games-studio/

Just a heads up; NVIDIA requested and FM approved the GTX 680 specific 301.10 drivers for 3DMark 06/Vantage/11 as of today.

I have a new system.. when i am trying to run mark 03, 06, 05.. i says> No system info error when i type -nosysteminfo The submission fails.. I need help, please help.. mark 11, and vantage works

Just as a heads up, the latest 12.2 Catalysts are now officially approved for Futuremark benchmarks so HD 7xxx series scores can now get to FM Hall of Fame as well. If you have already submitted a HD 7xxx series score with these drivers (dated 7th March) before the approval and it should have a high enough score for Hall of Fame but it doesn't show there yet, you can "refresh" it by clicking "hide" and then "unhide" so it gets re-processed for FM HoF. (In related news, new NVIDIA drivers that came out yesterday should also be approved by early next week) Edit: NVIDIA 269.10 drivers are also now approved.

when i open GPUZ 4 X HD7970 freeze all the time Win7 64bit 12.1 driver btw it's latest one 0.5.9 2 Oses crash dump here http://www.mediafire.com/?7q677t479afm70z GPU-Z.0.5.9 caused an Access Violation (0xc0000005) in module GPU-Z.0.5.9.exe at 0023:00410d26. Exception handler called in AfxWinMain. Error occurred at 2/27/2012 15:31:32. C:\Users\cebit2\Desktop\GPU-Z.0.5.9.exe, run by cebit2. Operating system: unknown Windows version (6.1.7601). 12 processor(s), type 586. 40% memory in use. 2028 MBytes physical memory. 1210 MBytes physical memory free. 4056 MBytes paging file. 3105 MBytes paging file free. 2048 MBytes user address space. 1886 M…

I have a prob.. I cant get my 3930K to perform in pcmark05.. Its like it running at 30% power, not going warm at all, with poor extremely poor results Anyone have a clue??

I'm playing with a new multi-socket Westmere rig and trying to run UC Bench with two CPU's installed but running into a bit of an issue... It appears the bench limits itself to using 32 processing threads even though there should be 40 available. Can anybody confirm or deny this limit? Is 32 cores a hard ceiling for UC Bench or is there a way to manually force the number of max threads the bench can use? I know that you can force the instruction set used with the -cf flag, but I don't see any documentation regarding #threads. Any input would be appreciated. Cheers!

Well...gettin this error in 3dmark 03 and 3dmark 06 if i launch and run with nosysteminfo option...will the submission be valid? lemme know.... - sumon

Have a random issue with Sempron 140 & 145s in which when running the Multi-Thread test #2 I'm getting between 0-2 MPixel/s on the Image Decompression test. I've tried other motherboards and 3 other processors - same issue. Reinstalled Windows lots of times - tweaked and vanilla - same problem. However, my Text Edit score before the Image Decompression is very high. At stock 2.70GHz on the 140 I'm getting 160 pages/s which is odd as people with Semprons clocked at 4.00GHz can only get 110 pages/s. After days of testing I've realised it happens when I run the WEI score. My Text edit at stock clocks jumps from 90 to 160 but my Image Decompression drops from 14 t…

Well...this may have been discussed to death in this forums...but i ask again(maybe) Why no Global points in refclock? whats the logic behind it? don't think the reason is technical...then what it is???

Hi there guys, I need your help about a thing I ran through. I think that the upgrade between version 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 brought some problems at consistency of the scores in Physics test. I first found this in the Llano competition. CPU@3,45ghz, ram@1200 9-11-9-27, 5.065 in that test. After having 3dm11 patched to 1.0.2, with the same settings, the score went down to 4.833. Same "fall" in points can be seen with a SB system. If you pay attention to the fps rate during the test, you'll notice that with version 1.0.1, the fps are incresing througout the entire test. With patch 1.0.2 installed, in the last 3/4seconds, the fps are descreasing a little. So, the purpos…

Anyone ever seen this before? I cannot submit my result with this problem

Just a heads up... 3DMark 11 version 1.0.3 release notes * Bullet physics library updated to 2.79 in order to improve compatibility with current and future CPUs and GPUs * Manual GPU Selection option now available on the Help-tab * Updated SystemInfo module to version 4.6 with improved compatibility with current and future hardware * Improved error handling and messages * A new “More” tab with information about new Futuremark benchmarks * Professional Edition activation now requires online key verification SystemInfo Version 4.6 Release Notes * Updated CPUID SDK * Added new security measures against benchmark result file tampering * Updated system s…

Hello all, For some time now, I've been thinking about the place of SiSoft Sandra at HWBOT. The benchmark's rankings lost its meaning with all the different versions floating around and has been hwboint-less since 2007 and even back in 2006 we had a discussion about the future of the bench here at HWBOT (http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=336). For me, this benchmark is no longer needed at the bot. I notice from submission statistics that very few people are still submitting scores to it and if they do, it's probably just to fill their profile. In the last 7 months (2011) less than 100 people submitted a score to the database. Next to that, the vast amount of…

Hi there, I never personaly experienced problems with benchmarking 03, but I come across people that easily score like 190k-230k with dual cards(CFX 6xxx series), with barely an impressive overclock. They are not correct of course, because the WR's here are much lower in most of the cases. But what I want to know is, what is this weirdness?

I was just testing a Sempron 145 in Pcmark05 and could not get my scores up to where they should be an after looking at other scores i realised that my Multithreaded Test 2 Image decompression test was way too low (only 2.750Mpixels/s) Why is that? Text edit is 264.515 pages/s and that seems normal. My best result so far. http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2226529_the_mutt_pcmark_2005_sempron_145_13575_marks

Guys, Having this problem with the Unigine Heaven benchmark, really anoying! http://i53.tinypic.com/11lsux2.jpg I tried version 2.0 and 2.5 of the Unigine Heaven benchmarks. It runs fine. When I start the HWbot application and run it from there, I get the screen above. I tried 1.0.2b and 1.0.3b of the HWbot application. Does somebody know the problem? I really want to bench with the three 580's on this benchmark. Thanks!

Just a FYI... http://www.futuremark.com/pressroom/pressreleases/60054/ Not much yet, but "it's coming". Key bits off the PR: Edit: Oh, and there is one concept art image (*not* a screen capture)... http://www.futuremark.com/images/products/3DMarkWindows8_ConceptArt.jpg

I have a problem with PCmark04 on win 7 64 bit,every time i start pcmark i have a post "In order to run properly,PCMark04 requires Windows Media Player 9 or newer ....." and i can't find any version of media player that fix this. The major problem is that because of this I can't see PCMark Results. ("sistem suite must be selected and run to obtain PCMark score") ??? ..and of course sistem tests were selected Help? THX