Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


_mat_ last won the day on February 27

_mat_ had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

485 Excellent

About _mat_

  • Rank
    robo cop
  • Birthday 04/11/1982


  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Did you use Realtime or High Process Priority? If you did, the measurements were not made during the run, but before and after which leads to an inaccurate value. The upcoming version will.do this correctly even with Realtime priority enabled.
  2. It's far more complicated than your analogy assumes. Using CINEBENCH on Windows 7 has a completely different timer implementation than running it on Windows 10. By changing OS settings you can additionally change the hardware being used for the meaurement. Actually you don't even need to change anything, Windows might select different time keeping hardware on its own depending on the available platform. And that's alright because benchmarks use WIN32 API functions to measure time and these functions exist to separate application code from platform-dependent code. All of the above truly leads to comparing apples and oranges in line with your analogy. The worst part is that we have no data showing time measurement information to understand what is happening behind the scenes. Now with BenchMate in control of the benchmark code we can do two things to fix this: 1) The same time measurement code, logic and hardware is used for all benchmarks. 2) Add timer statistics to benchmark runs for better analysis BenchMate obviously does much more to ensure reliable results. Like using multiple timers to at least triple check the measured time period. Of course it is true that there might be differences between BM runs and unprotected runs. The same goes for runs between different systems and OS, so there wasn't any integrity in the first place. But it's never too late to do things the right way.
  3. Where exactly does it crash? The error message might also state the source of the crash.
  4. I only see a single stage for BM and that's wPrime 1024M with AM4. All good there.
  5. I don't know what stages and hardware will be used with BenchMate. Can you list them?
  6. Please specify the bugs that you are referring to. It would really help to come forward and offer feedback and bug reports. There are currently a few limitations mainly because BenchMate currently works best with modern platforms. These are: Old or cheap CPUs won't work because they don't have the AES-NI instruction set. The benchmark will just close. Don't use a 12 year old NVIDIA card because the driver wants to inject stuff into the benchmark, which is a big no-no and BenchMate is right to disallow this. Windows 7 without SHA2 patch. BenchMate won't start. Installt the patch first. Don't mix BenchMate 0.9.3 and 0.10. If you want to bench Geekbench, you are on your own. Thank the Geekbench guy for that! All of the above was named many times in this thread and in the Discord channels. And every single point is already fixed and will be released with the upcoming version. I really don't know how to be more understanding, open and thankful for feedback, reported bugs and critique. I answer fast and always, nearly around the clock. If there is a problem, just let me know! I'm sure it can be fixed. The only thing I currently need is your patience. We are working very late hours on BenchMate 1.0 and the new online validation platform to make it happen asap. We gunned for July but it seems like August will be more realistic. In the meantime just bench without BM if you have a problem. The way I see it, HWBOT will always stay open for manual submission as long as the results can still be moderated. Especially old hardware will always need a fallback. As for the improved speed with BenchMate: I looked into every single benchmark, saw the time meaurement mistakes and fixed them with an appropriate, more reliable method. That's what you get for doing stuff the right way. I'm not even sorry.
  7. Good idea. It would also be great to let people know that BenchMate 0.9.3 should only be used on a separate OS, so it is not mixed with BenchMate 0.10. That causes a lot of frustration on all sides.
  8. @Leeghoofd @mllrkllr88 David found a method to create verified results of a 7980XE @9 GHz with BenchMate 0.8.1. As these very early versions are severely worse in terms of security and bugs, I would advise to only allow results made with BenchMate 0.9.3 and greater. (They are used 99% of the time anyway.)
  9. Latest driver release is R302 from 2012. Also no Windows 10 support. It will work with the next release, but that will take at least another two weeks or so. We are working very hard on it.
  10. Literally one click away from a world record on air. Cheat Engine ❤️
  11. There is without a doubt a solution for that. Please send me the log files (whole BM/logs directory as zip) so I can look into it. You can also use the BugReport.exe tool in BM's directory if the system is online. You are ditching a new take on benchmarking because of a single bug of an early beta version. If any software developer would stop working on something because of that, the world would not have a single software product. You really have to distinguish between flaws in the concept and the implementation. Ah, here wo go again. Screenshots are so great, manual input of results is really efficient, nobody is cheating, the future of overclocking is bright! I've heard it all before and watched it quietly while supporting GPUPI for many years here. HWBOT is already bending backwards to manage the situation with the tools at hand. Platform/OS matrix with has to manually checked by the mods against timer skewing? Seasonal ranking needs a text editor open or a certain version of CPU-Z? Beginner's scores are often removed due to the complexity? Benchmarks and results have to be removed when a flaw is found (if it can't be verified that it's valid, it has to be assumed it's not)? When will we realize that we at least need an alternative that's being worked on in parallel to tackle these problems FOR THE FUTURE. I'm not saying that BenchMate needs to be mandatory right now (or maybe ever) here on the bot. But I am saying that it's unwise to not explore (over-zealous) solutions, that would allow benchmarking and overclocking to reinvent itself.
  12. I do understand it. Soon every benchmark will have a result database that is much better than the Geekbench database. Better integrity/quality, better hardware detection, nice graphs, screenshots. And it costs ... nothing. ❤️
  13. Be my guest. A bounty to take down BenchMate's security is something I always wanted to do. It's an early beta version. You can contribute by posting your problems so I can fix them. This is pretty normal, especially with something that difficult like BenchMate. Everything that is not security-related is logged to file. Check the debug log path inside the BenchMate directory. It is well known that this doesn't work. You can thank the Geekbench dev for that, because 0.9 wouldn't even be available for download if it wasn't for his legal threat. But I didn't want to let benchers down, so I kept it online if you really need it. It was never meant to be used in parallel with other versions, so that is by design. That said, the next version already supports to run different versions of BenchMate at once. This sounds like you are mixing BenchMate 0.9 and 0.10. Don't do that! Use another clean OS to keep them separate for now. No. There is next to no impact during a run other than measuring sensors (like GPUPI does). This was optimized for the next release as well to have even less impact for the work that is done. What happened with pretesting on air? Things should work nicely before you start with cold. This is the same process as it is with any benchmark, tweak, driver or OS install in general. I'm always happy to help as quickly as possible. Sometimes BenchMate is not even the issue, but that's fine with me. I help anyways. Please do that. If it helps competitive benching, then it's a good thing. HWBOT (as it is now) and BenchMate are two very different approaches to competitive benchmarking. HWBOT uses screenshots, CPU-Z started after the benchmark, uploading with manual form entry. That was always problematic to begin with, because the data to moderate scores is simply missing. So even if you have ten paid fulltime guys, you will fail. The concept is flawed, but without any universal alternative it had to make due. BenchMate however tries to create a new workflow similiar to that of Geekbench and 3DMark, but for every benchmark out there. This even works for benchmarks that are not supported anymore. Time measurement, process memory protection, result saving and uploading - these features are hard to do and very time consuming. With BenchMate's eco system the benchmark developers can simply use the actively supported infrastructure and focus on the workload. Is that hard to do? Fuck yes. It's a nearly impossible, non-trivial task. Security alone is hard enough, but BenchMate needs to be fast as well to have no impact on benchmark performance. So the only thing I need to ask for is patience so I can make it happen. I like feedback. Good, bad, ugly, it's all fine to me as long as it helps to improve BenchMate in the long run. To me it just seems that you have mixed 0.9 and 0.10 to make Geekbench work, which is no longer officially supported. Neither is version 0.9.
  • Create New...