SF3D

Unbelievable attitude! Can I say anything else

Some people really need to start looking a more civilized way to handle these issue/ things. This conversation here is like some gang of bullies are trying to get their will through, no matter what will happen. Think about this concept once more. Calm down and then try to talk with Nick again. Like he said in XS, there is some room left in MSI team etc. Stop pressuring Nick and let him do his work. Please!

Hmm.. that last part doesn't make sense Of course you need to contact HWbot moderators, so we can start investigations. Please, send PM to someone of us and we will look this for sure. Thank you! That is the best way, if people doesn't want to have public fight about some scores.

True Gautum! I just have to wonder where all this is coming from? If someone got CPU for review purposes and would have done the same score, nobody would have cared. Then someone does the same thing under time limitations and huge pressure form other teams and the score should not be posted anywhere. Why? Because it is too good or the "loan" period is only 2 days. I just don't get what this whole thread is all about. I have asked valid arguments for this issue and there is none so far. To Bazx. It is not your business to track what is my status on the site or on this forum. I guess you did not read the news back then. I stopped moderating HOF (Top 20) scores, but my status/rights here are still the same. You and your past arguments does not have anything to do with it. Sorry.

Please, explain to me what is the problem again? If two guys bench together and only other submit results to his account : No issues with rules, if that is OK for the both users. Only one will get points and there is no extra gain for both users or some team Hardware provided by manufacturer for competition (short loan) : No issues with rules. This happens all the time. Same situation in your overclocking video. That hardware belongs to intel in the end. (If there was any ES cpu's used) I am still expecting what that valid point will be.

HWbot does not have any problem with scores coming from different events. There is a hundreds of these results in HWbot database already, so why is this any different? If some manufacturer give some hardware to be used in the event, there is no issues at all. They do it for reviews and the situation is exactly same. To see and show what this particular hardware can do. Massman does have all the rights to submit this score and this discussion is totally unnecessary. If Thomas would say, that this is not OK, then there would be a problem. That will not happen, if I know these guys at all. Give me even one valid point, why he should not submit this score to HWbot database and we reconsider to keep this thread open.

We have tested and discussed about this benchmark over a year ago. The author of the benchmark did not do cooperation, so there is no possibility to add this benchmark. We need HWbot edition of it.

This was a clear case. Score is blocked. Thank you!

One week is a very long time. I hope financial problems are not involved. Maybe Gautam or Movieman could call to Charles and ask about time table.

Our cap in HWbot is still 220MB/s, but Futuremark raised their cap to 300MB/s in XP startup test. We haven't made any decision yet. We might follow FM on this one.

Millionth time I will say, that do not take these issues to personal level! I have nothing against this benchmark itself. I should not even write this, but I will. I do have plans to make some 4x SSD RAID 0 array for my 24/7 + gaming PC. I have nothing against SSD's or the speed gains what they are bringing. I feel good, cause this is the part which have been lagging behind in normal use. I do own I-ram and at the moment my web browser is launched from it. Fastest internet browsing I have seen ever So, these issues are not personal. They are PCMark05 problems and we are still finding a good way to solve this mess. Futuremark raised the cap to 300MB/s, if someone didn't know that already. So you can get to hall of fame now with the scores we have seen here. We are not ready to say, which will be our decision, but we might go with 300MB/s cap too. Then everything will be like before, but cap is just raised. If we start to see a lot of bugged HDD scores, PCMark05 will be under discussion again. Stay tuned.

Aquamark and 01/03 are all using only one core. These are single threaded benchmarks and adding cores have no impact. Maybe there is very little gain, but benchmark results are still valid. 03 scales perfectly with multi GPU setups and it is still best benchmark to show the power of CF or SLI. 01 cant use SLI/CF properly. Only Nature test have some noticeable gains. Aquamark does not get too much gain from multi GPU. So all those benchmarks are giving results which are valid, no matter how you look them. The examples I have given earlier might not be the best ones, but again I have to repeat myself. It is all about weighting a different parts of benchmark. I have tested PCMark05 for years and I didn't like the situation when I-ram got in to picture, but now I have one of those too. I-ram was already giving huge gains to final score. This benchmark gains too much from HDD tests. That is the point. I will not repeat this again.

Fixed! It was pointing in to old CPU-Z database.

We have a nice discussion going on in crew section about these issues. I know what these two guys are saying and it doesn't change anything for me. I still haven't got any valid argument towards my own. My argument about PCMark05 being weighted wrongly in the first place haven't been proved groundless. Or if you can do it, please do so. I have to say it again, that it was a design error in first place. They developed this benchmark 2004-2005 and I don't know why they didn't thought about future. If there would have been different weighting method, none of these problems would be here. And please, explain how 3DMark01 and Aquamark is connected to this issue, what PCMark05 have? I can't see any similarities. And in general: It is my job here to evaluate the benchmarks we have in our database. If there is something wrong or if there is even some questions, we have to check them all. It is so funny, when people always think, that I have some personal issues with this. If other moderators who have posted here don't see the problem, it doesn't mean there isn't one. If some benchmark loose points, it is the same situation for everyone. There is no winners or losers in these situations. Aquamark have been under discussion many times, but still there isn't any similar problems present, so there is no need to start taking it down.

Monstru- You are not right on this one. It is all about weighting a benchmark. PCMark05 was designed to run with normal HDD's. The HDD tests are giving too much gain to the final score and that is making final scores meaningless. Simple as that. It is same with 3Dmark Vantage --> If you use PhysX, final score doesn't mean anything, cause "new technology" was used and score got a lot better. I haven't seen any top 10 guys saying any bad words about this situation. (Gautam said something, but he doesn't care about those things you are suggesting) I'm not even top 20, so this is not issue for me. I don' have time to answer most of the point you are making, cause they are not worth it now. We all know that you are good bencher. We all know you can tweak systems well, but there is no need to always bring these same issues up. Someone is always better than you, no matter what is the matter. THIS IS NOT the case here. It is all about the PCMark05 benchmark itself.

Yes, but again we can say it was ment to be used with traditional HDD. Not SSD or even with I-ram or Acard or anything else. If SSD's can get you a huge boost in real life usage, we have to have a reliable benchmark for it. Not 4 years old tests suite, which wasn't designed to hold this kind of storage power. It is totally same situation if graphics processing unit can do physics calculation and it will do it 20x faster. It is clearly a better method for it, but some tests are not designed for it and we don't allow it to be used. This is same situation.. some test were designed to be run from HDD. We have better hardware nowadays, but it doesn't change the fact that this benchmark wasn't designed for new hardware. I have to say again, that it is their error in design. It is not our fault.

For me HDD is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_drive This is not relevant at all. So please, no comments like that anymore. We should take point's away from this benchmark. Just like we did with PCMark04. PCMark04 wasn't able to use dual cores in grammar check test and we dropped it. Now PCMark05 can't give any reliable results with those monster SSD setups. 9000MB/s virus scan is not the value FM had in mind, when they designed this benchmark. It is their error in design, not ours. I understand why some of you like this benchmark so much. For me this is just like cheating with PhysX, cause benchmark is not designed to run some tests with some different type of hardware. Of course future will bring more powerful parts, but it doesn't mean that we can use them without any discussion. I'm thinking what is best for HWbot. There is 16000+ users and only very few are defending PCMark05. The end have to be somewhere.. this benchmark can't be here forever.

I didn't report your score. I blocked it. If we have a 220MB/s limit in XP startup, what do you think 235MB/s is? We have to follow this rule strictly. No exceptions, no matter who have done the benchmark or how it was done. This rule will be overwritten when the time is ready. And yes, that 9000MB/s virus scan was a bit too much for me. So, if you can't follow the simple rules, you start to call me a kid? Well, if we will meet someday, come to say it on my face I'm sick and tired of this PCMark05 and the "HDD" issue we have. No one is using HDD with it anymore, so we should just dump the whole benchmark.

We are not FM. Their database can have whatever scores they like. We don't allow these scores which have been under discussion in here. I have been extremely busy in my real work, so our PCMark05 HOF is unchecked. I do it now! P.S. There is nothing wrong, if someone wants to know answers to his questions really quickly. If some matter is important, it is important.. simply as that.

I understand that point of view perfectly Gautum, but we have to set some limit. This test is so much biased to HDD/storage drive tests, that it is meaningless, if we don't set limits. I wouldn't mind if their policy wouldn't allow more than 15MB/s in the test 1. Rules are rules and we have to follow them. I really hope there will be PCmark09 or something similar to show us the real life SSD performance. PCmark Vantage was a really weird test, if you ask me. PCmark05 was good, but it is getting old and all this fuss is about that issue.

I will start to remove MFT scores manually later this week. Everyone who knows, that MFT was used, please take these scores out from your account and DB. Thank you!

I just got information about this issue. The old cap will be there again and the change will be online very soon. Good decision from FM! So, we will not approve any MFT scores in to our database. PCMark05 will need working FM orb link in top 20 and out of top 20, you will need to show test 1 in screenshot. Prepare for this, cause wrongly posted scores will be removed. Thank you!

Massmans example is with 4x OCZ core SSD's. It is valid point. Increase in MB/s is huge with MFT. Your example is doable with I-rams/acard and that is nothing exceptional. With MTF you get 1600MB/s and that is crazy. I think Praz is only one so far who think the same way I do. SSD'S raid0 configuration + MFT is nothing from real world in this synthetic test. That is the point. Scores are artificially high in this particular test.

Yes jmke. That is real life use. Not some synthetic benchmark, which will give totally insane results with MFT.