Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

mikeguava

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    24

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mikeguava

  1. mikeguava
    like i said - I am a bit slow - - and lazy at times - soorry LOL I swear I was looking for a sticky - and did not see it - I am blind as well. lol
  2. mikeguava
    got it - sorry I can be very slow sometimes. Plus the bell was already inactive - so the result had already been moderated
  3. mikeguava
    ok cool - I misunderstood the sig of jmke - don't pm mods for scores and hardware... my bad
  4. mikeguava
    Just curious, what is the best way to handle if you "think" you spotted a cheated score. As I understand the way would be to post it here - but that posting this in public might hurt that person without the cheat being 100% confirmed. You're not supposed to contact hwbot mods about this - right?
  5. mikeguava
    well said Kingpin -that's 100% my thoughts as well. @stummerwinter - didn't see that thread - got that link sent from a friend without info and only saw that the 6 seconds were actually over 8 seconds...
  6. mikeguava
    did someone forget to turn off time warp????
  7. mikeguava
    Andre cheating???? Lol -he's waaay too slow to be cheating. OPB -is whole different story - he can be so quick sometimes that you don't know what has hit you. But then this gy is relentless - he just doesn't ever stop. Well then so is Andre - relentless...Taiwan benchers rock! On a serious note - it's waaay to easy to go on a witchhunt with results - sometimes a bencher simply finds a new tweak, a golden CPU or just the perfect combo. Smoke always clears at the end of the day On a funny note: how many seconds does a Taiwanese minute have?
  8. mikeguava
    wow - another interesting PCMark05 thread...looks my favorite benchmark is getting ready to get canned. Well maybe the time has come to kiss PCMark05 goodbye. Fact is - HDD scores are too heavily scoring if SDDs/IRAMs/ACARDs are used. It's getting too confusing what is legit and what is not. To the OP - sorry as cool as your score is - like Gautam tried to relay - 9000mb/s as simply not possible by current hardware alone. A single RAID controler in a perfect setting might!!! hit 1200/mbs, 3 PCI-E theorectically could hit about 3000mb/s - but 9000mb/s simply is not possible without the help of some innovative caching. Whether the caching is done by a driver, software solution or software ram drive is secondary - the problem is that the scoring is not representing real world performance of your actual hardware. I am using software ramdrives in my 24/7 settings - they truly do make computing a lot more efficient! But at this point in order to "police" the bench I feel it gets too hard to monitor what is legit and what is not if we want to only benchmark the hardware.
  9. mikeguava
    back to 220 cap? Pretty please
  10. mikeguava
    So in this example it seems like that using the regular HDD with HT disabled is better then SSD+MFT ??? The problem I personally have is not the real world performance gains in applications, and again MFT is great for SSD and all other drives as well. But as you can the the real world speed improvements are minor and are not 20X the performance which we see in HDD tests in PCMark05. For the way PCMark05 calculates scores allowing softwares RAMdrives and MFT tweaks the total socres get completely messed up. The 220MB limit kept the score skewing somewhat under check - a fast quad core system will outscore a dual core system. With software ram scores the entire benchmark score system gets ruined and whoever runs the best memory will get the top scores. Isn't there SuperPI etc for that? I tried to make the point by submitting my untweaked AMD air benched score which kills a LN2 bench of mine with Core i7 @ 5GHZ. Allowing HDD based score to get that crazy kills PCMark05 in my point of view. I just ran my AMD system with an IDE drive - I got 12k, with MFT I get 35K - 23000points coming from HHD based points is just way too far off.
  11. mikeguava
    From easyco install manual: MFT runs nice nevertheless - beats some of my software ramdrives. Allowing MFT and or SOftware ram will allow more peeps to competively bench PCMark05 - thsi at least would be a bonus. Just the idea of an overall system bench will get lost
  12. mikeguava
    why did my result not get accepted? I worked sooo long for it!
  13. mikeguava
    MFT can be used there too
  14. mikeguava
    I don't want my score to be allowed - that was sooo slow ...
  15. mikeguava
    let's just ADD PCMark Vantage and keep PCMark05 :-) nicely put!!!
  16. mikeguava
    The reason I enjoy PCMark the most is that your ENTIRE system gets benched and not just part of it. Obviously there are some problems with it e.g. 3D part does not credit multi gpu etc. but still the PCMarks are great tools to give credit to your entire system. Again in respect to MFT - I think what MFT does is to setup a software ram drive to store the data temporarly and afterwards to dump it to the HDDs ( whether IRAM , SSD etc. ) During the PCMark bench the data that is on the software ram drive only gets benched which gives us these artificially high scores. Not sure where I claimed to have run software ram in my bench, but not that I care to have it removed - MFT and Software rams is the same to me and all should be not be allowed Kingpin posted a nice run a couple of days ago still maintaining the old 220mb limit - NICE!
  17. mikeguava
    i second that - but I am pretty sure that there is no difference between software and MFT because I suspect that all that MFT does is to create a software ram to temporarly store the data and later dump the data to the drives. MFT works on any drives - not just SSDs I am all for finding ways to speed up drives - I have been enjoying the game of fast arrays for a long time - but it is sad what has happened to my favorite game.
  18. mikeguava
    40K sounds low??? check out the dude that had 26000mb/s in Virus check - maybe 50k???
  19. mikeguava
    How can you tell what I used?? MFT + IRAM gives ya about 3.5k XP startup - without fully tweaking. I am confident I would easily break 4k if I wanted. Sorry CHispy - tweaks like that have been around for a long time - you and EVA are not the first to find it. Problem is you are not measuring the HDD speed with an array configured the way you have but memory speed. Things were fine before this thread started...
  20. mikeguava
    You can not tell between software ram and MFT or similar configed drives. But then running MFT on cache drive is not much different from running software ram - data gets dumped without getting written as fast as your system memory can... Works fine in PCMark Vantage to limit ORB benching on OS drive. Vista on 1 Iram??? Been doing that for quiet a while...vlite is our friend in need... who needs a Vista that is bigger than 2gb???
  21. mikeguava
    the problem will be to distinguish between software ramdrives and creative RAID array solutions etc. For example I can configure a single Iram to hit over 800mb/s at XP startup - pretty much the same 800mb/s I can get with one of the popular free software ramdrives. Now how can we tell if a certain score is an Advanced Hardware Based Drive or a slow software ramdrive? I personally got into PCMark a long time ago, for the reason of finding the max possible overall systemspeed - which always entailed insane drive arrays. It always is fun for me to find a new way to speed up the transfers, startup etc. I would greatly miss this part of PCMark. Only way I can see to prevent this as mentioned before - would be only allowing the OS partition to be benchable. But even for this solution, there "might" be workarounds - depending on how good the "update - fix" would be coded. I assume that such an update might require a bit of work from Futuremark's coders - not sure if they have the budget for such a thing at the moment...considering the fact that they haven't been doing anything lately to fix?/upgrade the ORB....
  22. mikeguava
    ...yep bad news... would have enjoyed some "action" from you in PCMark05
  23. mikeguava
    problem is - very very hard to distinguish between hardware and software in some cases. I can beat many software ramdrives with hardware - but not all. One way would be to limit PCMark05 only to be benchable/publishable on the OS install drive. This would prevent most software ramdrive based scores... Would be a simple update to PCMark05, but doubt that Futuremark has the brains to implement such a fix.
  24. mikeguava
    looks like this communication resulted in a sad development - we are back to the software ram based results! Let's see who's ramdrive software is best... #1 spot on ORB is already ownd by a software ram...
×
×
  • Create New...