I.M.O.G.

Your perspective may be different than that of Americans, however in many parts of the world Overclocking has grown up. It was 14 years ago when the first sites came onto the scene for enthusiasts - overclockers.com, anandtech, hardocp, etc. Now we have every major component manufacturer (who hasn't already closed shop like dfi and abit) catering to the overclocking enthusiast scene, and they further specialize in this segment as time continues, as the market is becoming almost exclusively enthusiast oriented. That could be taken as a positive note, or a negative... Positive as companies recognize enthusiasts as a viable market unlike looking down on them as they did in the past. Negative in many market segments, there is a shrink continuing as more people are interested in commodity devices like smart phones and tablets. As more companies further specialize, they are struggling to be the best, as there isn't as much room as there was in the past in this industry. The recognition overclocking gets now is a double edged sword. While it seems like a really good thing for the hobby, it is also indicative of a harsher market for the companies that make our toys. In the US, last year crazypc closed up after 10 years in business, and more recently dangerden went under as well. Abit, Soyo, and DFI have bit the dust too. Elpida in there as well. Others I'm forgetting. 3dfx long ago. Just sharing some perspective, in some respects overclocking is reaching a twilight... In a growing market, it is less common to see businesses folding. As the industry advances, the enthusiasts do make up a larger relative portion of the remaining market. Also worth noting it isn't a good sign either when leaders of the industry like AMD and Intel totally miss the boat with being on the cutting edge of processor design. The likes of Qualcomm and ARM executed far better on emerging markets. Intel is only just now trying to get into mobile devices.

FYI Beepbeep2, the file I use to get .net4 on my benching rigs without any network connectivity is dotnetfx40_full_x86_x64. It is 49,268KB in size. Dunno if that helps you, but I don't do anything special to get it working. I do have the offline versions for the other .net installs as well, so maybe some things require those also. Dunno.

I like the proposed changes for Pro OC. Makes more sense to me, and more interesting. If this is the way it goes, I think K404's suggestion to keep a history of the leaderboards should be incorporated as well. I think with this setup, everyone would be more interested in seeing the current results. But also it should be more manageable to keep a history so everyone can look back to see who dominated the rankings last year, or through the past several years, or past several "seasons/cups". No one is really keeping a history now. Even the big live events, to find who did well in times gone by you'd have to find an article summarizing it... The events themselves don't keep any history, or standings over time. Those in the know recognize Kingpin's name because its been around enough, as well as others, but they couldn't really say what records he's held in the past, when he held them, or for how long he's held them. A score that's currently 14th globally, could have been 3rd globally 4 months ago - but there is no way for anyone to know unless they've been following closely all along. This creates a lack of perspective for the potential audience/fans. For a lot of categories, first place right now is less meaningful because we know it won't be first place next week and then will be forgotten shortly after. The person who achieved it will remember they had first for a few days, but no one else does. Keeping track of the past, makes the present more meaningful to everyone.

Sounds good.

Thirded. Would be awesome to see how long different titles are retained, and how often they change hands... If you don't follow daily, and thats the largest part of the audience, you miss most of the battles where top rankings are actively changing hands very frequently. I'd come back to check this out regularly to catch up on where the toughest battles for first are and who is dominating.

Thank you for the update.

No .net4 crap: http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=207241&postcount=6 I'm pretty certain there is an offline installer for .net4. I never connect my benching rigs to the internet, so I know I got it loaded by USB in the past.

Hey Genieben, is your version of the wrapper still planned to be accepted? Any idea when? Thanks for your work on it.

Almost twice the virus scan SteveRo and I got on this same motherboard and Areca controller combo. Stevero: 1142 Virus scan with a half dozen or more ram drives (http://hwbot.org/submission/2253530_stevero_pcmark_2005_fx_8150_41278_marks) I.M.O.G.: 1126 Virus scan with five Vertex 3 MAXIOPS (http://hwbot.org/submission/2259791_i.m.o.g._pcmark_2005_fx_8120_42727_marks) One can't help but wonder.

It should be reported. These sorts of scores were supposed to be removed voluntarily. This is an invalid virus scan score.

Nice score.

There's a new wrapper that doesn't have these problems, but its unreleased.. Once released, hopefully this issue is a thing of the past. There is another thread about the new aquamark.

lol nice find on this one! Great run. Kinda a bummer though, this had been my favorite worthless score!

No Moose, you relentless twat.... That doesn't make me wrong. In fact, my point was that 4GB cache may not be needed vs 2GB cache, and your comment does nothing to address this. Also, my point was that if 4GB cache is not reported correctly in Areca BIOS, Areca support was NO help in advising on what sticks are compatible. Perhaps this problem has been addressed, or perhaps you got lucky on your 4GB stick being compatible - your testing does nothing to indicate one way or another, except that your 4GB stick and your 1882IX happens to work fine. Good for you. Additionally, you failed to grasp the point I was communicating. Your post also doesn't mean that 4GB cache yields any advantage over 2GB, as in my past experience, my Gen Usage was competing directly with other top Gen Usage scores given the SSD's I was using... A few of the people I was competing against were also on the 1882IX, and may have been on 2GB or 4GB, I don't know. I was unable to test 4GB vs 2GB 1882IX cache, because out of all the 4GB sticks tested, all were detected as 2GB. So, if you test various other 4GB sticks and they work too, that would be relevant. And if you find 4GB does present an advantage in PCM05 verses 2GB, that would be relevant. If you find 4GB cache is better than 2GB cache in PCM05, then you can accurately say that I was wrong. Finally, I'm sick of seeing you around the forums pestering everyone over PCM05. I don't even run this shit anymore, partially because everyone who trashed it, and partially because people like you going on like PCM05 belongs to them and they are some sort of gift to the benchmark. You are annoying.

Thanks Radip. That's at least one example of good retail results. You are probably right (most already are in the pro league it looks like). However this isn't the reason I brought this up (I don't personally care what league others are in). Having watched 5 piledriver CPU's jump me in the CPUz rankings, I was mainly just looking for personal reasons at how good/bad my odds might be of improving upon my existing decent score.

Has anyone posted Piledriver records that aren't from binned AMD samples? Interested to see if anyone has done anything interesting on CPUz records on retail piledriver CPUs. Was thinking of buying, but with bulldozer many records were done on early retail samples. Most records I've seen currently on Piledriver have mentioned being sampled by AMD directly.

1882ix doesn't need 4GB cache. In fact, we went thru many different sticks, and the 1882 failed to detect any as more than 2gb. It supports 4gb, but if you check in bios, it only reports 4gb sticks as 2gb. Areca also was no help, couldn't give any detail on confirmed compatible sticks.

No need to get defensive about your sub - you didn't bother to defend anyone else's. Please reference "could affect" above... You know more about the CPUz bugs than me or anyone here I think. Thread title states 1.61.x. Looking at your first post, I see you clarified 1.61.1 and 1.61.2... I hadn't seen that before, so I lumped your sub into my last post with everyone on 1.60 or 1.61.x in the top 20. FWIW, I have no interest/concern for rejected CPUz validations - they have been accepted in the rankings here for a long time and I know about the other than module #0 issue. I brought this up for what I thought was the same reason you started this thread... To look at rejected submissions made on "highly bugged cpuz".

I forgot about this one. The rules might also mention something about how potentially invalid scores are addressed retroactively. Recently PCM05 was cleaned up after getting a bit out of hand, once it was realized by staff that some tweaked scores were actually violating existing rules. So retroactively, offending submissions were blocked. Then similarly there was also the CPUz issue, where it was realized 1.60 and 1.61.x were badly bugged... Submissions were inconsistently cleaned up. 1. Multiple memory records were blocked from the ranking without any voting. 2. The CPU frequency records were left to stand. Valid.canardpc.com has already removed invalid CPU frequency submissions from their records page, and the hwbot members vote supports investigating and blocking invalid scores... But nothing has been done for 3 months on hwbot about the scores in question: http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=54369 Maybe if the rules covered how these situations are handled, these types of situations could be addressed consistently.

Any updates on this? This could affect 6 out of the top 20 CPU-z globals on hwbot, 2 out of the top 5, and the vote seems to support taking a closer look: Christian Ney: http://hwbot.org/submission/2326765_christian_ney_cpu_frequency_fx_8150_8181.1_mhz Name GT: http://hwbot.org/submission/2322981_namegt_cpu_frequency_fx_8350_8176.5_mhz wytiwx: http://hwbot.org/submission/2277245_wytiwx_cpu_frequency_celeron_lga775_352_8160.94_mhz Ananerbe: http://hwbot.org/submission/2318479_ananerbe_cpu_frequency_fx_8150_8156.76_mhz just_nuke_em: http://hwbot.org/submission/2284616_just_nuke_em_cpu_frequency_fx_8120_8373.8_mhz wizerty: http://hwbot.org/submission/2297410_wizerty_cpu_frequency_fx_8150_8406.34_mhz

I ran the same setup (same board, onboard raid0), couldn't get anything like those virus scan results. Tried with onboard and areca. My actual subs are done with the best scores I could manage. If you run single core, you know that virus scan ran alone scores way higher than virus scan ran during mtt3 due to the other tests running at the same time. The score isn't reproducible, but I don't care if it gets removed. If everyone wants to keep running pcm05, gonna have to accept that sometimes there are exceptional subtest scores that aren't easily reproducible. If you dont like it, pcm05 isn't a good place to play. There are bigger problems, like top 10 global cpu frequency records on known bugged cpuz versions, where scores were 300mhz higher than submissions made previously on the same chips, and no high frequency sp1m or sp32m from those chips. It's hwbot... Sometimes its hard to know if results are bugged or legit. I see little point in fixating over it, bench as well as you can, and an exceptional score here or there just happens sometimes.

I heard ney pushed the button to recalculate all scores. I think it will be slow until that finishes.

Looks like all the rules pages are broken at the moment. But... 3DM11 has no rules. That could use some improvement. The rules could be linked from the submit pages, at the top. Currently there is a "more info" link on the submit page, but it just lands on the benchmark ranking page, and the rules would probably be a more relevant landing page for more info. The rest of the stuff that needs addressed and clarified is stuff that ensures the rules are enforceable in a consistent fashion - some things do have to be addressed on a case by case basis, but many things can be handled more consistently if there are rules that are written down to reference. I think Massman addressed some of that in the link in his last post, however that hasn't been published with the rest of the rules, and there is no main rules page. Basically, the biggest problem with the rules is that there are a lot of rules and clarification stated in the forums that are not stated anywhere else, and the rules don't reflect that. That is really what needs fixed. An example of a recent problem that happened as a result of bad rules? John Lam. Submitting screenshots virtually identical to other people's submissions, but it took forever to actually address that problem (high exposure, pro league, WR scores). In comparison, Dejo and Dejo's Daughter were shut down very quickly, because the screenshots looked too similar (low exposure, enthusiast/OC league, no top scores). The rules should be written in a way so that they are enforceable in a consistent fashion. They shouldn't be unwritten in a way so they can be unenforced in whichever way suits the enforcers at the time. Both these example situations are just a couple examples, there are many similar examples, and all of them cause frustration/dissatisfaction... At the root of these problems is lack of clarity in the rules, and it looks a lot like unfairness/favoritism when unwritten rules are selectively enforced. I don't believe the enforces mean to be unfair - but if the rules aren't written, it just isn't possible to be consistent, even with the best intentions.

*woosh* The point he's been reiterating in his recent posts is that VS scores like that are bogus for onboard RAID SSDs, and the example WR score he provided is intended as a demonstration of why it should not be accepted and that should be clearly stated to move PCM05 forward.

I don't know that they are that hard to find, just under the benchmarks tab in the header: http://hwbot.org/benchmarks/processor http://hwbot.org/benchmarks/videocard There are however a lot of items uncovered and awaiting clarification. Many of those are covered in the work-in-progress which is at least a sideways step in the right direction (because it is unfinished, and a timeline is uncertain on it becoming the reference for what is enforceable): http://hwbot.org/news/7914_rules_update_2012_hwbot_general_rules_and_guidelines