SteveRo

Mr. Shag, if you would - in the future - please include either a futuremark link or if not top 20, include the contents of the results.txt file in your screen shot. The results.txt file is located in the Pcm05 exe folder. Thanks

Not all are out of line, Moose's intel submits all look good to me as does Denis's latest 4x. When the decision to not allow non-512's is made - Moose will do the right thing.

From what I can see this is a good score, well done.

Based on this I think the use of amd raid expert (when 512 sector size is used) is perfectly legal and probably not that much different than using irst for intel based boards.

I haven't used amd raid expert that much either. The remaining question regarding amd raid expert is can you adjust the amount of system memory used by the amd disk controller and if you can how much? I think the main issue with raid expert (that we know of) is the use of amd raid expert to set a HDD sector size greater than 512.

Mr. Moose, I have not used amd raid expert that much, can you adjust the amount of system memory used by the controller? If it is adjustable, what is the range?

Note - when you create a partition (non-bootable) you have the option to set the cluster size for the partition - I'm pretty sure this is different than the HDD sector size. On rotating storage I think the 512 sector size is hard coded - not so now for many controller/SSD combinations, pci-e drives. Can a check for this be added to the wrapper? - again not partition cluster but drive sector needs to be 512.

I strongly concur

Regarding amd raidexpert and intel rst - they are not the problem, they do allow some amount of raid caching but its not huge. The real problem with amd raidexpert or with any controller/ssd that allows it is the changing to a non-standard HDD sector size. This is how I think it works - pcm05 assumes the SSD sector size to be 512 all the time (hard coded?), if you use 1k sector size, pcm05 reports 2x the actual datarate for virus scan 2k sector size, pcm05 reports 4x the actual datarate for virus 4k sector size, pcm05 reports 8x the actual datarate See below,

It's about time, sheesh!

Denis looks good to me, well done! If you have it, please include the futuremark link and any pictures

Yep, looks good, don't you have a job or anything else you do with your life!

Including pictures should probably be mandatory. Its a shame that we need to require it. Probably best to include pictures of both storage and cooling used.

Yep, looks good to me, well done!

Four 64GB SSDs using the old ich10r gets 2000+MB/s in virus? I have never done it but perhaps you have found a better sweet spot?

Provided Master Moose used his areca 4gb + 10SSD for this - I believe 2000+MB/s virus might be achievable.

I agree that we should NOT try to change who won what in previous competitions. However if you agree that we do not want to obviate storage then increasing disk sector size beyond the default 512 should not be allowed. Again, this trick requires only one SSD and a utility to increase the sector size from the default 512, this can be done on just about any motherboard with iodrive, probably several others. It could be - the true virus scan score for 4k sector score of 9500MB/s is simply – 9500MB/S * (512/4096) = 1187.5MB/s Again, I agree that we should NOT try to change who won what in previous competitions but I believe that tricking the benchmark in this way should not be allowed and points (including previous points) should not be awarded for using it.

deleted - dup post.

Denis - If you would, please pm Mr. Pro with you tweaks for TW, thanks.

I was trying to be courteous What I am trying to say is scores above these levels were probably obtained using banned tweaks.

WPR is tougher to call, there are many legal tweaks for this subtest. On 6ghz ivy's - probably WPR of 75, (maybe even 80) and lower is good? For 1x semprons - WPR of 30 maybe 35 is probably good?

For 1x core probably anything over 15k is probably using (what is now) banned tweaks?

Anything with TW over say maybe 40k, for sure anything over 50k was probably using (what is now) banned tweaks? Maybe less then that for 1x core? edit - if an individual thinks his tweak is legit - pm Master Pro and explain it to him but don't get your hopes up #2 edit - for older cpus (E84, E86, Q66, E66 ...) make that probably anything over 30k is probably using (what is now) banned tweaks? For 1x core probably anything over 15k is probably using (what is now) banned tweaks?

Yep, looks good, congrats!

ok I'll take a crack at verbiage for the additional screen shot requirement, note - might not be needed if the wrapper includes this. - 1. "Futuremark link required for all top 20 submissions either global or hardware. 2. For all non-top 20 submissions either Futuremark link or Pcm05 Results.txt required via screen shot." (This is a 1st cut, I'm sure others can improve on this).