Mr. Fox

It this expected for all 3D graphics benchmarks or only 3DMark? I ask because I see lots of submissions for things like Catzilla with ECC disabled and the only way to compete with them is to disable ECC. Are those with ECC disabled at risk for moderator deletion like the 3DMark submissions?

PM sent on the SP106 13900KS. Still available? What is the SP rating on the P and E cores individually? Do you know the MC SP rating?

All of my systems are multi-boot with multiple versions of Windows booting next to Linux because of the variance. The newer the OS is, the larger the payload of performance-killing telemetry and other worthless trash it will be packing. The greatest challenge we face as enthusiasts is interference from the Redmond Reprobates and their efforts to strongarm the world into doing things their way. Finding and modding drivers that allow you to use the best OS for the job has never been more difficult, and that is due to their deliberate efforts to manipulate outcomes and maintain control.

Yes, I ran that better one after posting. ? I think what happened with the bugged submission is that a TDR kicked off the ECC enablement. Since this is all driver/software based and not baked into the vBIOS the chances still exist for it. Otherwise, I would not know how to explain it being enabled in Control Panel and not actually enabled. Weird stuff... lots of bugs and glitches with the new tech.

Yes, I understand what the problem is. In fact, here is another twist. I just submitted a bugged run by mistake. NVIDIA Control Panel shows ECC is enabled, but GPU-Z shows a memory value that tells me it is NOT enabled. So, maybe a driver glitch. Please delete this. It should not have any points: https://hwbot.org/submission/5201294_ I rebooted and then ran another Firestrike right on its heels and this is a valid run. This one should stay. NVIDIA Control Panel AND CPU-Z both confirm ECC is enabled. This one should stay and get points. https://hwbot.org/submission/5201316_ (but it shows no points because my bugged run is stealing them).

What is being repeated? I don't understand. I merely offered a suggestion to provide an additional point of reference just as the CPU-Z and GPU-Z are required in screenshots for validation purposes. But, we still require them even though you can Photoshop them. I took your invitation to offer a suggestion seriously. Perhaps I should have just kept my idea to myself. I apologize if it was a point of frustration, but I appreciate you taking the time to respond. If NVIDIA had never added ECC as an option then we would not be having this a topic for discussion. It impairs performance on GPUs just as it does system memory with ECC. So does G-SYNC, which I also hate and always disable. And, bugged 3DMark scores have been a reality since the very first benchmark was made. I suspect that many submissions are bugged and the people submitting them, and those displaced by those scores, have no knowledge that they are. Cheaters are going to cheat. I can Photoshop almost anything if I want to go to enough effort. There is nothing to be gained by cheating, at least when it comes to submitting scores on the leaderboard. No money to be made or anything else of substance. Cheaters have to live with the knowledge they are actually losers and trashy human beings that don't deserve the air that they breathe. Unfortunately, those worthless bastards make us have to jump through hoops to foil their foolishness. Their nonsense creates division and controversy among people that should enjoy friendships built around the hobby they have in common.

A suggestion... if ECC enablement is required, perhaps also require NVIDIA Control Panel in the screenshot. I purchased a 4090 since this debacle started (received Friday) and all of my submissions have it enabled. I see many older submissions (before ECC checking was a thing) often with lower core and memory clocks than I am running with signficantly higher benchmark scores. If I disable ECC, I can match them, but don't see any point in uploading 3DMark runs only to have them deleted later. It is a shame that we have to gimp performance by having this enabled, but I suppose if everyone has to gimp their 4090 it will level the playing field. I have ECC disabled when I am not submitting scores for the leaderboard. I kind of wish the option was not even present in NVIDIA Control Panel. Example of my suggestion:

Thank you, @Leeghoofd. That explains why I was constantly having my account locked due to failed logins. It was getting to the point of seldom being able to access this community as a logged-in user. It happened to me again Sunday and again today. Inserting my email instead of user name solved the problem. The password reset email sometimes doesn't arrive. Is that a manual process that requires human intervention on the moderation side or automated? My impression is the former rather than the latter since the reset email is often never received until another password reset attempt is made on a different day.

That really stinks. If they are going to remove 4090 submissions, then they should just remove all of them across the board and make everyone start over rather than making arbitrary assumptions about which ones are legit and which ones are not. Example: https://hwbot.org/submission/5130021_splave_3dmark___time_spy_extreme_geforce_rtx_4090_21023_marks https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/83861241 Why is this still on the leaderboard and receiving points? But others are removed?

Hi bro. I think the point John was making is someone actually did to him what you keep saying will not be done. I think it happened to others as well. So, you are saying you're going to stop doing that now because doing so was a mistake, or you were not aware that had already taken place? Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Congratulations. That's pretty amazing.

Yeah, probably right. I hadn't thought of that, but now it makes sense. I love Catzilla, so that would be fine with me.

No wonder this sport is dying. Going Stasi-psycho-chihuahua because of a few random cheaters because it threatens a small group's ability to claim dominion is enough to make a lot of people (the peasants) say to hell with all of it. If this is the new approach I think all of the submissions from the least to the greatest should be wiped out completely rather than taking guesses at who might be cheating and who isn't and arbitrarily invalidating the scores of someone that "must be a cheater" because they are not a known member of the HWBOT Royalty.

I guess 4090 owners are not the only early adoption casualty. Team Red has their own drama going on now, too. https://github.com/Mesa3D/mesa/blob/2ed9eb1b633f214ff8900ab3be9e639f87cebaef/src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_shaders.cpp#L671

Then nobody can say they're being treated differently, scrutinized through biased eyes or having their scores treated unfairly. I mean, if it is really that important to make a new rule that applies to a new niche product, it would probably add value to have only clean data as well as not generating additional angst and controversy. If the people with high scores that get wiped out were submitting legit benchmark runs with reliable hardware they can just do it again and resubmit. Not the end of the world, and certainly removes any questions or doubt about fairness and rules applying equitably to all. Until UL fixes 3DMark and updates SystemInfo to determine when ECC is enabled/disabled, nobody gets to submit 3DMark benches. Uncomplicated and fair, and no basis for controversy or an appearance of loose and subjective rule enforcement that varies by user name.

Maybe all 4090 GPU submissions should be invalidated until all of the details are worked out and then everyone benching a 4090 can start off with a clean slate and level playing field rather than arbitrary selection of scores based on an individual's impression of the result.

It seems so. I am not sure what that means. Futuremark's products were better before UL got involved and messed things up. But, we see that scenario play out with lots of things. Big company buys little company, then turn their gold into garbage... then eventually get rid of it because it wasn't their baby and became too much of a burden to support it.

Things have seemingly gone downhill with UL over the past few years. Most of the new things they do with their bloated 3DMark "Swiss Army knife" benchmark suck. But, that is the case with a great deal of things in the realm of PC technology. Everything is becoming buggier, more dumbed-down and effed up. It might make sense to ban UL benchmarks like what was done with XTU. They need to get their act together, so maybe giving them a "vacation" from HWBOT relevance is a better idea.

Man, I sure am glad I did not waste my money on a 4090 at this point. Between this and the melting cables nonsense, my avoidance of frivolous money handling (and being a cheapskate) turned out to be a wise move purely by accident. I guess this is what happens when a half-baked product is rushed to market without all of the kinks worked out. For the ludicrous price tag it carries it should have been a little bit closer to flawless. Hopefully, all of the other lesser GPUs (that cost less) from NVIDIA and AMD are not going to be unstable garbage without ECC.

Correct, I did not catch all of that. Maybe the LN2 clocked scores were run with the ECC handicap enabled by mistake? The part that confuses me is singling out one GPU and enforcing a performance-crippling feature on it just because it has the exclusive option. Nothing else ever had it before, and it is not clear why anyone buying a 4090 would want it enabled unless they were using it for business-related reasons. To make that logical would require the exclusion of all submissions by GPUs that do not have the ECC feature as well. Unless what I mentioned before is accurate and the 4090 is a flawed product that produces consistently erroneous results without ECC enabled, in which case there should not be an option available in NVCP to disable it. It shoulld be enabled with no option available to disable it if that is the case. Or, not allow scores for 4090 GPUs because they are an inherently bugged product?

How are they inflated? i would have ECC turned off for normal everyday use as well. i've never wanted or needed ECC for anything. This means anyone that buys the most expensive GPU has to deliberately cripple it. Makes no sense you are required to gimp performance in order to be allowed to submit benchmarks. Is it because the RTX 4090 is flawed and engineered incorrectly and produces erratic results unless it is gimped?

The more complicated things get, the less enjoyable it is to participate. I sure am glad I haven't already wasted a butt-load of money an overpriced 40-series GPU, and seeing that doing so is going to create extra rigmarole and nonsense to have to be concerned about with respect to EEC on versus off, chances are a lot greater that I am not going to bother. Lack of Windows 7 driver support was a good enough reason not to, but this new reason is an extra excuse to vote "no" by not opening my wallet.

Thought I would share something here that might benefit others if they are encountering the same thing. Every time I would try to access this community, I was locked out for failed access attempts. I thought maybe someone was trying to hack my account. When I would request a password reset, often the email would never arrive even though the email address was correct. I would get lockout emails, but not the password reset email. Being locked out again this evening, I discovered Google Chrome is saving the same password for hwbot.org as community.hwbot.org. This is fine if they are the same, but if the passwords are different between the two web sites, Chrome will attempt to apply the one that was last saved in your password manager and you will end up locked out. You either have to make both passwords the same, memorize or save the password for the site that is different and manually enter it every time.

Here is this if you or anyone else still need it. 2052809590_MSIDragonBall.zip

PM sent