I.M.O.G.

For the sake of accuracy, that is wrong. There are no 2G VS on Areca. If you see someone with a 2G VS and running an Areca, they have switched storage for the VS subtest to use RST/RaidXpert with onboard raid storage. Of my top 5 PCM05 scores, my best Virus scan on Areca 1882IX with 4GB ram cache with 3-6 OCZ Vertex 3 MaxIOPS was 1171MB/s. My good scores vary between 900-1171MB/s Virus scan on this setup. (I went SSD, because I believed enough of the newer SSDs could compete against stevero's acard ram drives at lower cost - I was close, but I was wrong) Out of Stevero's top 5 PCM05 scores, his best Virus scan on Areca 1880IX with ? ram cache and a gaggle of Acard ramdrives was 1243MB/s. He has 3 other scores between 1150-1243 in his top 5. One score in his top 5 has virus scan of 1812MB/s, but its safe to say that isn't normal for Areca, and he may have been using RST with onboard RAID for Virus Scan that run... Or the stars aligned and he got an exceptional result from the Areca storage. That may be the case, but SteveRo is as good as they come with extreme storage, and if it was done on the Areca, I believe it is the best Virus Scan score submitted on any Areca based storage on hwbot. MikeCDM also runs Areca, maybe an 12XX version with 1GB onboard ram cache. Out of his top 5 scores, his best VS was 967MB/s. Also worth noting that Areca Virus Scan performance is heavily mitigated by CPU capability during MTT3. Virus scan on single or dual core processors is much higher on Areca when running just Virus Scan, but during MTT3 other tasks suck away CPU time and lower the virus scan part of MTT3. The same effect is not observed for single/dual core using RST/RAIDXpert, the VS ran alone or ran during MTT3 scores about the same. The above is just my awareness... I don't watch everyone's results, but these are some sample Areca results I had paid attention to. I might have missed others also running Areca. But if 2G virus scan were possible on Areca right now, I think Steve or I would have managed it. Areca's true power is in general usage, it is much harder to artificially inflate by RST/RAIDXpert.

You can also turn of CPU tests and feature tests - the benchmark will not take as long to run. Nice result, crazy vram freq for these cards.

I had read every post in the IB results/binning thread, up until 2 months ago anyway. Air testing was not reliably accurate - plenty of good air chips come out mediocre 6.2-6.5 cold chips. I've had chips that ran the 5GHz sp32m on ambient temps (with a CPU pot on and just a dash of LN2 here and there to maintain temps) at 1.25V-1.35V, and there was no pattern to what did better under cold. I agree with the take them all cold philosophy and see what they will do. I started all on air at 1.4V@5GHz though, every chip I've bought can do that and seem reasonably stable (or something like stable). My binning settings for 3D Frequency: HT off, 4 cores enabled 107MHz FSB 1.7V PLL 1.1 IO/SA 1.65V DRAM 1.55 CPU, pull down temps, go to 1.65 around -100Cish and apply load (helps prevent coldbug in my experience), continue pouring to take it to -190C, once full go to 1.7V and find max frequency using CPU multiplier, crash, 1.75V find max frequency using multiplier, 1.8V find max frequency using multiplier. That is enough to see what the chip wants to do, and how it scales with additional voltage. For the chips that showed promise, I'd screw around more with FSB and fine tune the voltages. I don't remember how many chips I've binned, only 7 or 8 maybe. I've killed 3 I think. 2 of the dead were the best I've had, not stellar. Some chips I bought discounted at microcenter and sold to break even including price/tax/$30 gas round trip to microcenter. Some chips I took about a $50 loss on total, to move them quickly so I could buy more. I've seen other guys recommend 1.25V on IO/SA, or keep one a little higher than the other. Also seen other guys saying tweak PLL a lot. For me, none of that has changed a good chip into a bad chip, or a bad chip into a good chip... Just the good chips ran faster with pretty much the same settings, while the bad chips I could tune them in for less than 100MHz extra, but they didn't turn from sucking into being good.

Fix members tab on team pages: http://hwbot.org/team/overclockers.com/#Members In the first line there, it says "Overclockers.com has 411 members which have contributed to the team total points. Woomack has contributed the most, with a total of points". Whoever has the most TPP + UP/10 on the team should be listed there, and the number of points contributed should be accurate. For the longest time, it used to list their league points there, and now it just doesn't list any points. Also genieben made a new aquamark wrapper, and it'd be good to get that integrated instead of the old wrapper (the old wrapper has bugs on old nvidia cards, requires .net, and blows): http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=59811

Those would be hit the hardest I suppose. Other well known benchers would be knicked as well. Stevero has a couple big pcm05 points in low competition categories. Can also look at all benchers of the top 10 in x5 multicore (that includes me) - there are only 32 total ranked submissions for wp32 in x5, but still big globals for top 5 spots.

Sweet!

I can clarify - he meant subtest scores. In the current wrapper, it lists scores for each subtest. In yours it just lists total/cpu/gpu in the screenshot you presented. Nice to see subtest scores, but given a choice, I'd be happy to just take a wrapper that works better. Assuming yours does, do you have any idea when hwbot would begin accepting it for submissions? Sometimes things go quickly, other times more slowly.

Piling on for the awesomeness of new wrapper. K404 is spot on.

LOL... Does Rev5 change points scheme again?

7 produces the best storage scores for areca also, beyond xp and vista. Server 2k8 r2 is equally good as well for storage, though more troublesome to get CCC working for 3d subtest settings... which is why I typically opted for 7.

Haven't used it yet. How's it different from the usual submit from previous using the right sidebar?

Doubtful. I'm chasing Stevero, I want his spot in the US rankings... But my plan is to do it in 3D mostly. I'd only buy strong storage again if I can't manage to catch him without it. It's too expensive for my taste/wallet. Plenty of points out there other than PCM05.

New rules were wrong of me to say. New enforcement of old rules is probably more appropriate.

I wonder if everyone has seen this? Took me probably a good 6 months of being on hwbot to realize that many rules could only actually be found in the forums. Granted, some people submitting should know better, but benefit of the doubt, hopelessly optimistic, trying to be positive. Thanks for your efforts. Don't mean to grief you, but if this somehow gets somebody to poke massman with a frontpage or rules update on the official pages that are prominent, I think that'd be great.

That's a pretty safe guess RULE. I'd like to know as well though.

Can you talk to the guy that bought my Areca 1882IX and 5x maxiops to give it back to me for the $1500 I sold it for? Ya, I took a $1K loss on that when the tweaks got crazy and I bailed on PCM05. I'm kidding about getting it back. The clarification is good, and I think it will give PCM05 a fighting chance.

I think I'm buying now just to be safe!

No reason to ban iometer. It just helps pull down xp startup. With your storage, there isn't another good way really. Someone said no scripts. Need batch script to change drive letters on strong storage.

Thanks. I think there would be more response from mods/MM if anyone knew a fix. :-/

You are doing it wrong.

Nice score! Did you test more than 1 for this, or is this just a lucky draw?

I found no solution yet Angelo. However I got hitched a couple weeks ago, and with preparing for the wedding I haven't hardly benched since this thread really. I'm not out of the game though, just been real busy. Getting a 150L fill this week, and will be turning back to some of the older nvidia cards I haven't fully benched yet. Aquamark is one of the most valuable benches for old nvidia cards on 3770K, so I'll be trying some different things to get it going. I'll post back here if I figure it out.

Sweet, RAID expert uses RAM for caching. Intel Matrix Storage manager can do the same thing. However with AMD RAIDXpert, there's a bug with changing sector size that makes pcmark05 wig out and scores go through the roof. I mentioned this in the pcmark05 tweaks thread, as a teammate of mine had found the glitch months previous, but never submitted it because the scores were out to lunch - he knew it wasn't right to submit, so no one on our team ever used the tweak. Once I mentioned it though, other people started looking into and using it, and Massman tested it as well. Moose's statement that RAIDXpert is the same as Areca cache isn't 100% accurate in my opinion. RAIDXpert's use of system cache, with tweaked raidxpert settings, absolutely crushes anything the Areca RAM cache is possible of scoring... So basically, with 2x cheap RAID0 SSDs and the right RAIDXpert settings, you can trash a $5000 Areca 5x RAID0 storage setup. It's coo-coo. You can change sector size on the areca's as well, and you don't get the crazy boost - its an exclusive feature/bug of raidxpert. I don't know why Massman stated it wasn't a bug. I think it seems clear things wig out when you change sector size in raid expert, no longer producing "realistic" storage performance. Just posting to share my perspective on my experience running this stuff. ALL: please don't take offense, just my opinion on the raidxpert topic. (Also, I sold my big storage setup, and exited the pcm05 scene - I don't think I stand to gain anything either way, but am glad to see efforts are being made to restore faith in the pcm05 rules)

Cool, thanks.

I've heard this a lot the past 12 months, as interest grew, "tweaks" exploded, then things got kind of off the chain and only a handful of people bothered making competitive submissions, while the rest turned away. Doubt its dead. If policed in a way where people understand the rules, and believe they are enforced/enforceable, people will keep running it. Edit: I can't really tell what has been ruled as invalid lately. Interested in hearing what has changed.