IanCutress

Nice startup What's your config for Gen Usage and VS?

SuperMicro ftw

Code is not public, same reason FM doesn't make its code public I suggest getting a book or two ofc. I get a portion of my computational code from back when I did my PhD, as such it's based on real life problems. As long as your buddy is proficient in C++, have a look at n-body simulations. Those are always interesting and taxing, or black-scholes for finance. It's a case of picking up an algorithm and having a go. A strong background in mathematics always helps, especially when writing optimised code :thumb:

Got my head around some C++ AMP at the weekend and wrote a benchmark for DX11 GPUs that probes some of the computational aspects in grid solvers. Each stage lasts for 30 seconds - CPU score is designed to be less than 5% of the overall grade, but as always having a fast CPU helps keep the GPU fed. AMD doesn't fair too well, but that's more a weakness of the DX11 API with C++ AMP for this sort of thing. Download below and feel free to test! // System Compute // (c) 2012 Ian Cutress // // System Compute is a benchmark designed to stress the CPU and AMP device of the system // // Changelog // // v0.4 : Added CPU detection // v0.3 : Added AMP MatMul // v0.2 : Fixed Score calculation // : Added 2D IMP CPU // : Made it look nicer // v0.1 : Initial Build // : 2D-CPU // : 3D-CPU // : 2D-AMP // : 3D-AMP Still need to add result verification tools. SystemComputev0.4.zip

Moose: http://www.amd.com/uk/products/server/processors/firestream/firestream-9250/Pages/firestream-9250.aspx When dealing with systems at work there's not always a 7970 handy. Depends what the customer wants

Ever played with a Supermicro board Moose?

This is quite positively the worst argument I have ever heard. 'X people said it, so it must be true!' Please Mr Moose, come back with evidence. You yourself continuously state that sometimes VS is high and 'it isn't a bug' but just sometimes you score higher. If that is the case then apply some damn statistics, work out your mean and standard deviations for a distribution curve, and actually calculate the possibility of a score getting so high on one of these 'golden runs'. Things that happen 1 in 64,000,000 times actually happen pretty often. To say otherwise is to severely underestimate the number of things that happen.

Makes sense I just ran it on my daily rig without issue, Win7 64-bit.

Maybe it's one of those '1 in 20' awesome scores

Works great in all aspects so far, until I submit the file: Invalid data file: Unable to read Aquamark data file. Also, I got confused when the directory on the desktop used the AQ3 icon and initially couldn't find my screenshot.

Certain mobile benchmarks do an 'offscreen 1080p' test to be consistent across screen sizes rather than run at native. Also stops scaling up/down as required

There are lots of things we ban which are part of the driver/software. Mipmap for example. Please stop using this as an argument. It's done on a case-by-case basis. I still reckon that having 1300+ MB/s for VS with only two SSDs is an anomalous result, when total sequential of two in RAID-0 is only 1000MB/s. The write back cache only affects the writing to the memory, though I fear that is what PCMark actually detects rather than the full write through. Would be interesting to see how much it actually effects by profiling the functions

A 2D calculation based GPU benchmark would easily scale over generations. But then no pretty pictures

Even vantage becomes a CPU Mark when you're pushing multiple high end GPUs though

3D11 wasn't much of a story

It needs to have a story. Fed up of benchmarks which are just graphical showcase. More Jane Nash or something

'Good Moments' are often called 'bugged runs' in the world of 3D. If this RST glitch happens 1 in 20, then anyone could set up a 3D run on a card that bugs 3D01 one time in 20. But in 3D we see it as a black screen and call it a bug. In PC05, it's not that easy to see, but if it's 1 in 20, then we should be calling it a bugged run due to the inflated score. I still don't see how two SSDs can hit 1300 MB/s with RST without something going on. Even with write back and them being clean. That's technically faster than the two drives could do together.

Half the argument was about tweaks that could easily beat $5000 storage setups. So why allow a software solution like RST with features that can easily beat $5000 storage setups? I say disallow *until* we are told otherwise. (Personally I'm fed up with 2 m4 SSDs attached to the ICH beating 2 acards when clearly the Acards should be ahead)

I agree. Strat gets: HDD - Virus Scan 1310.47 MB/s for using only two SSDs on ICH. I couldn't even get that using two ACARDs (http://hwbot.org/submission/2327525_borandi_pcmark_2005_core_i7_3960x_43966_marks), so something isn't right here.

Example, here's what I did with the Battlefield Bad Company 2 XML API: http://www.borandi.co.uk/BC2XS But with access to submissions and points data, lots of interesting things can be made

Never mind, it was tessellation Always fun going after your scores man

Which version of 3D Mark? I'm about 2k behind on similar clocks

Epic bump for an epic idea. I have plenty of ideas!

I'm in enthusiast league... I doubt an air/water score on Sempron would do any better

No bug, Dewi is that good ! Was a great score to come from the UK LN2 OC Event