mickulty
-
Posts
544 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by mickulty
-
-
4 hours ago, _mat_ said:
The reasons why I am publishing this right now:
1) I have first talked to benchmark vendors (including Intel) and they know about these problems, yet they do nothing.
2) HWBOT knows about this, yet there isn't even an official statement on the current state of benchmark security.What responsible disclosure deadline did you give them? Did you share steps to reproduce with Intel, and any other active benchmark developers?
-
-
Is this the same as previous years where all submissions need different hardware? If so, how does this work for the dual DIMM DDR1 frequency stage?
-
6 minutes ago, LordNicoll said:
Um, idk where to find €5 GPU's, that seems insanely cheap. I could get a scam ebay GPU and get refunded I guess
dude if it comes to it I'll ship you a 5450
-
1
-
2
-
-
Thanks for doing this, really looking forward to it.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, speed.fastest said:
Database without point will be great, who care about points anyway? Nice write @RULE.
The thing with points is they provide a way for legacy stuff to have some kind of meaning, providing instant context. Without them only the latest top-end stuff will matter because that's all people care about, and that makes XOC a lot more exclusive and hurts the community.
4 hours ago, RULE said:@richba5tard i really wanna know what's your plane for the future. I mean you build this and i assume u care to keep it alive. Sadly i believe the only way to keep overclock alive is to burn hwbot from the ground and start over, probably move database in another more active community like overlcok.net or something like that. Seems people have no problem to pay an annual amount of money for have something smooth to play with, so i'd start from there. I know this might be painfull for you but really now are we talking about life or death for hwbot.
HWbot is alive. This would be death.
-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, marco.is.not.80 said:
Actually, that is one question I've had since joining the bot. Why are some benchmarks allocated points and others aren't? What is the criteria? Is it because of the algorithm? Too many points from too many sources equals overload?
For new benches to have points added they usually need to be secure, I think the exception is hwbot prime which served the purpose of being cross-platform with mobile.
For old benches to have points removed, that's a bit more difficult. Putting aside my usual extreme cynicism and all the obvious cynical reasons for established people to object, a lot of people might feel that it would devalue a lot of overclocking history to make those benchmarks "irrelevant". PCMark05 (which was described as "unmoderatable") faced a lot of resistance when removing points was proposed.
-
Low leakage chip?
-
One single thing? Give ycruncher points, it's an interesting benchmark that can run on an extremely wide range of hardware with a validation system and a developer who cares about security.
In a broader sense, the problem with insecure benches like aquamark or 3dmark2001se is not that they necessarily are cheated, but that when someone puts a lot of effort into finding legit tweaks and gets monster scores other people will accuse them of bugging the bench or cheating - often without any sense of irony from either group. It doesn't matter if anyone is actually cheating - if everyone knows you *could* cheat that alone is a salt mine.
On the other hand if those benches lost points it would REALLY fucking suck because there's not much else you can even run on the kind of ultra cheap old-ass agp cards that are good for getting into competitive OC.
-
8
-
-
-
Pretesting for a stream this weekend? :P
-
Holy shit dude, awesome work! Seems like c-die has a LOT of potential for mhz.
-
2 hours ago, Leeghoofd said:
Frederik is busy with his daily work, Team cup will start mid July earliest
Really great to hear that it's still on, thanks.
-
Nice score! Shame I have to delete it. Try again on an OS that doesn't have the clock bug.
-
This definitely belongs here - @buildzoid taking advice from twitch chat on how to save a CPU-Z validation
-
3
-
1
-
-
Hi,
The download link for GPUPI 3.3 goes to the 3.2 page. Please can it be updated to the correct page; https://www.overclockers.at/news/gpupi-3-is-now-official
-
1
-
-
I noticed NVMe isn't an option for storage configuration, please could this be added? It'd also be good to have USB as an option, as I've had team members who found that on platforms that need PCIe raised for high bclk OCs an OS installed on a USB stick (eg with Hasleo WinToUSB) was far more tolerant than IDE mode SATA. It'd be good to be able to show that that's been done on scores.
-
correct memory frequency is 2032 as shown in the cpu-z validation
-
-
Heh, look at that little alien. Just chilling.
-
15 hours ago, yosarianilives said:
It's not like I was sharing the fact that lower desktop res = higher score or any actual tweak like that.
nicely done lol
-
Use pure Ethanol as an interface fluid, rename to C2H5OH vs LN2 :P Really good to see you on cold(er), hopefully the results will shut a few people up. How did the venom behave? Everyone I've talked to said it's no good for dice because it leaks interface fluid.
-
7 minutes ago, Alex@ro said:
It is 7700k remember not 7350K, different IGP and also 7700K clocked better on average than 7350K, so this is apples vs oranges....
Amusingly it's the same category on hwbot but yeah the 7700K's bigger cache is a fairly big advantage. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll have a 7350K.
-
7 minutes ago, Alex@ro said:
So you are saying that last years people didn't find proper driver and everyone failed at igp benching
?
Hopefully we'll find out soon. Yos has a 7700K that did 1900mhz+ IGP in 3Dmark03 so it should be no problem at all for him to smoke all the scores made on 7350K last year. I do believe him that it's more about memory than IGP core, but the proof is in the benching.
_mat_ - Ryzen 7 2700X @ 3530MHz - 1566 marks XTU
in Result Discussions
Posted
I don't think that means what you think it means, full disclosure would be immediately making everything public including a guide to using the exploit.
Responsible disclosure is the practice of reporting vulnerabilities to those who would fix them first, giving them everything they would need to fix it, and then setting a clear deadline for when you go public. By setting a clear deadline you encourage action rather than people just hoping the vulnerability isn't found by bad guys, this is the way that for example google project zero do it and is standard practice in infosec. Obviously it's not suitable where the benchmark isn't actively maintained, but for XTU it seems appropriate.