nedernakker

just tried it on my 2160 and it gains 30 points at 150 MHz less cpu speed. all runs after were giving lower scores. it's very inconsistent

but the remaining fact is that running the bench on just the threads it autmatically sets and adjusting the threasd results in more computing time.. where a normal submission would take 20 seconds. Mr. Paco's submission of his E4300 shows 20 threads all running ~8.5 seconds a piece.. (and that's what's only visible in the screen, there are 5 more not visible)that is 12~13 times as long as normal, that could easily explain the gain in numbers even though the threads are set higher... and please Mr. Scott. I don't know you and you don't know me. there is absolutely no use in talking to me like you do here: I don't disrespect you so i'm expecting the same back. you have no right to talk to me like that. This is just how the system works, mods can't look at every submission theirselves, that's why the report button is there just like the forum to discuss it. there is nothing wrong with that or me asking what is allowed or not. I'm just writing down what i see is happening and looking for an explanation for those numbers. English is not my native language, so i'm guessing people are misunderstanding what I really mean since again there is assumed I can't stand losing which really isn't the case. I'm just writing down what in my opinion looks like causing the strange behaviour of the benchmark. I don't know what kind of discussions have been held about this benchmark in the past, I haven't been using UCbench for years, nor have te time to dig through the forum to find posts from the past. I noticed it in this competition and found this the place to ask. I find it kind of harsh that some people react to me in such a disrespectfull manner and totally lose the point of this discussion. So now I'm just gonna wait for an awnser.. this discussion allready took up too much of my time..

I just don't understand why anyone thinks this has to do with jealousy or envy.. I don't give a shit about who has the highest scores. i just want clear rules. people have been comparing and discussing the wrong things today. Like Mr. Paco is doing in his post. even if i uncheck the cpu test in 3dmark tests it does not affect the GRAPHIC settings of the benchmark. which are the one of influence of the score. if you allow the affinity 'tweak' we should also allow 3dmark 11 entry submissions as performance ones. Cause in fact that is what happens when fiddling around with the ucbench settings. but lets just stop this discussion, it is leading to nowhere. just want to know if it is allowed so i can 'tweak' my runs in the same way or the tweaked submissions need to be removed... @I.M.O.G. that was not in response to you.. you ninja posted while I was responding to Rasparthe

so what you say is that i'm a bad sport? working the bench for this competition i allready found this out. I chose not to submit scores using these settings due to the strange outcome. the discussion during CC 2011 was about wether to allow the adjustment of which test to run, not how it is run. this second thing is pure manipulation of the test. it's not that hard. imho you are looking at things in a wrong perspective. lets just let the mods decide..

i'm not trying to offend you guys. just saying this for 'the greater good' the first E5300 submission 19 days a go got flagged too: http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2290963 not by me but for what i can see the command line adjustment got mistaken and therefore no action was taken. just bringing it to light so we all know how to bench.. I have a lot of cpu's to rebench if this gets allowed.. it's only 11 days left and i have a life too

I only found out about this yesterday browsing through the scores and noticing the difference. i'm awaiting the outcome. for future events the rules should get more clear to prevent this from happening. I only checked the submission in the top of the competition, found that some do manually set the affinity but do it according to the type of cpu they are benching, this doesn't affect the scores. the only two 'bugged' scores are those by Mr. Paco

nice one mate..

That depends on which os you are using, and is more due to the age of the hwbot version and detection of the type of cpu. But that has nothing to do with ucbench.

but there is obviously a big difference between altering the tests being done and altering the way the test is done.. disabling all other tests except SSSE3 gives no change in the scores outcome. changing the affinity settings does. don't know how these calculations are managed by the program, but is seems from the scores that each next core continues where the previous left of. since dual core scores consist of two parts where the first part is about half the points of the total score. this means that if u change the affinity to 64 eacht core will have 32 tries to improve the score. although it has less cores the score does seem to improve due to the fact the cpu has more then one chance to do the calculations...

@ knoflerbruce I think that is not the solution, a lot of people have put a lot of effort in producing score, some of them even using ln2. this means they have to redo al those benches without even knowing if the results will be accepted as legit. HWbot should come with an awnser to make things clear....

in wprime setting more threads then the cpu has gives you a lower score (in my experience) I just want to have a clear awnser or a link to the awnser from a mod if it has allready been given to make things clear. if it is allowed the rules for the benchmark need to be changed because running like this has nothing to do with using the benchmark at standard settings .

I'm not talking about leaving instruction sets out, I do that myself too, since SSE3 seems to give the highest score there is no need to run the others. During the country cup 2011 Massman already approved scores with such settings. I'm am talking about these two scores bij MR.Paco: http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2290924 http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2290963 where he manually adjusted the affinity settings which clearly gives him a gain to beat scores which are with 500~600 MHz faster cpu's

so I guess it's time to discuss the manner of how to run the benchmark. since there seems to be posted scores witch have an out of proportion high score for their clockspeeds. this due to changing the benchmarks command line.. is this allowed? so yes then I'll rerun my benchmarks too.. rules state then benchmark must be run at it's standard settings..

I'm not aware about what has or hasn't been approved bij moderators. it has nothing to do with trying harder.. what do you expect yourself, you gain a score with some sort of magic efficiency and you submit it. rules state that you must run the banchmark in it's standard settings, it's clearly that this score is achieved by manipulating the way the benchmark is run. how else doy you explain the too high score for the frequency. so yes I reported it to have a moderator look at it because i find this submission not according to the rules...

so tell me, how do you acchieve such a score with 500 MHz lower coreclock then me? gues there is something in the way you run it cause there is no way this is possible...

upping the NB voltage is not the only thing needed for high FSB. Hate to bring it, but the flaw must be in the settings..

sweet cpu.. now crank up the clocks on that VGA

no prob, happy to explain

nice one mate!

not weird.. using SB-E and 11.12 drivers works great with 5 series cards. most scores are run with GT's or SB's and give lower cpu score.

your benchmarks settings are not visible, so this screenshot is invalid

awesome! congrats, sick performance

this score is impossible. your GT2 score is way out of proportions. are you benching with two monitors installed?

nice chip. what can it do in 3d benches?

promising.. nice result