Barton
-
Posts
204 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Barton
-
-
Several submissions yesterday with an Athlon MP 2000 received no points. The submissions hung up during the calculation.
Tried to recalculate this morning and the recalculation routine hangs. Is the calculation engine broken?
http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2263669_
Other submissions included PCMark 04 and 05 for the Athlon MP 2000.
http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2263671_
http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2263672_
Neither of those two received points. The 2005 submission was submitted, but doesn't even appear in the lists, much less receive any points. What's wrong?
-
So what are the PCMark benchmarks (04, 05, 07, Vantage)? Are they CPU benches or GPU benches?
If they are CPU benches, sharing of video cards, SSDs, I-rams, real ram, and motherboards is permitted, correct?
-
This is a Mobile Duron 1000, not an Athlon 4.
You can see that by the amount of Level II cache.
-
This is a Duron Mobile 1100.
CPUZ mis-identifies it as an Athlon 4.
It is not an Athlon 4.
It's a Duron Mobile. You can tell by the 64KBytes of L2 cache.
-
This is an MP, not an XP. Trying to delete it and resubmit it.
-
So what is the actual rule? Is all hardware sharing still outlawed?
If so, where is it written... ?
-
If they had been on the same team, would it have then been a crime to share the same hardware component between two team members?
If that is answered, "YES, it would then have been a crime", what if the sharing had been at a benching party at one member's home or at a hotel room in a central location, would the sharing then still be "a crime"?
If the answer to the benchmarking party question is "NO, sharing at a party is fine with HWBot", what is the logic of making one form of sharing a crime and the other form of "Party sharing" not a crime?
This is a serious inquiry. I don't know the answer to the above questions and would like some clarification. At one point in time prior to a previous revision there were some forum posts that indicated that party sharing was now perfectly "legal". Is that true?
-
What effect does IOMeter have on Hard Drive General Usage and Virus Scan subtest scores?
Does it pull them down, too?
Or does the 15sec timing mean that IOMeter "kicks out" after that period of time automatically allowing the rest of the benchmark to run normally?
-
How is clear that the runs were on LN2 or DICE?
The one or two that I viewed said they were on air.
Is it impossible to get a 10 sec Super Pi run on air with a Core2 Q9550?
-
IMO, rule should be "once is okay" Repeatedly by the same person should be "no, not legal".
-
-
Ticket ID: 1461
Priority: Low
It looks like we have a class for the Pentium 4 511J, but not for the plain Pentium 4 511.\r\n\r\nWould you please add one? I have one with benchmarks I\'d like to submit.\r\n\r\nHere is the information on it:\r\n\r\nhttp://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium_4/Intel-Pentium%204%20511%202.8%20GHz%20-%20JM80547PE0721MN%20-%20HH80547PE0721MN%20%28BX80547PE2800EN%29.html
-
There is a category for a 511J Pentium 4/533 processor.
Perhaps that is the same as the plain 511?
Here are the specs for the 511 P4:
-
Got 'em.
Thanks, Massman. Much appreciated. :>))
-
See second post (#11) on page 2 of the following thread:
http://www.hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?p=142949#post142949
-
Me thinks this is it, Massman....
What do you say - can we get all the categories enabled for all the benchmarks now?
That would be my first choice - treat them all the same for all the point categories, Global, Hardware, Team, and all individual users.
-
KB, is that question directed to me or to Massman?
If it to me, please tell me how to enable team hardware points to PCMark 04.
If to Massman, perhaps you and Christian Ney have more influence in those decisions than I.
Massman, how 'bout it? Will you enable all the point categories for PCMark 04 or at least the Team Hardware Points?
-
imo, HTPP should be enabled also for ''Reference clock'' , ''memory clock'', ''pcmark vantage'', ''ucbench 2011'', ''Unigine Heaven Basic DX9''. And of course ''PCMark 2004'' as well, as they all get UHP ?
No ?
Yes, another good suggestion. That sounds like a winner.
Plus, no need to set up a tent city that way. ;>)
-
Thanks for the support, KB. That's a good suggestion.
-
Got what you meant. What's not clear is why it matters to you? You run new hardware and collect tons of points like one of the 1%.
Given all you have why should you begrudge the poor folks running old hardware who want to earn a point or two from the old benchmarks that were designed for the hardware we run.
Seems petty, small minded, mean spirited and selfish. Greed just isn't pretty.
-
Don't scrap PCMark 04. Many of us with older hardware still run it and still enjoy running it.
It does no harm to members who run newer hardware to allow us with the older platforms to have a couple of benchmarks we too can run.
-
PCMark04 is problematic with >2 core systems. It requires people to switch affinity during the benchmark, which makes it very/too complicated to be used as serious benchmark.
At what point should affinity be switched during the PCMArk 04 benchmark on multi-cores.
Is that required starting with dual cores or only for tri cores or more?
And what is the affinity switch that is required?
From all cores to only one OR from one core to all cores?
Very interesting concept and brand new to me.
-
Would you please add UGP, GTTP, and HTPP points for the PCMark 04 benchmark?
(For some reason it seems like all those are not included for PCMark 04 - just plain UHP points at the moment.)
-
Never mind the entry now shows up in the list - somewhat delayed.
When a score has no points -> Force recalculation
in Submission & member moderation
Posted
Ah, Thank you!