chispy
-
Posts
2556 -
Joined
-
Days Won
61
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Everything posted by chispy
-
PCMark05 HB Rules,FM Rules and correct submision for ranking.
chispy replied to chispy's topic in General overclocking
Sad to hear that bro , i feel your pain and frustration. Dont give up and keep benching , i like a little competition on the GTX 285s category , and im sorry for taking all your trophies on that category . I think the rules of PCMark05 should be more clear as to what are the bounderies of HD xp start up , HD general usage and HD virus scan in order for things like this not happenning no more. The HWBOT Rules need to be rewritten for this benchmark as they are very unclear as of now and very confusing I wish you the best RAMDAC and thank you for stand up and bring this to other members attention. Good Luck. chispy. -
This tread will be used to raise our opinions as benchers on this community regarding PCMark05 HB Rules , FM Rules and the correct submision for ranking on PCMark05. Please disscuss the subject in here. 1. Can hwbot confirm exactly what FM have done as far as the 220 cap xp start up HD test , is it 220 ,300 ,400 ? 2. It would be nice to see in the screenshoot a pic of device manager with the alleged HD used (Acard raid0 , SSds Raid0 , i-Rams etc...). Thank you. chispy.
-
Thank you to the mods who have taken the time to answer my questions and PM , it would be nice if the real FM cap its announced for others to know and what are the limits of HD test in PCMark05 , as it is not fair seen the top 10 scores work hard to not go over the 220 start up to get a FM links. I know i myself try not to get close to 200 just to be on the safe side and have FM link for submission. Again thank you for the help mods. chispy.
-
Thank you Maxi :celebration: , thats what i want it to know exactly , you have answered my question fully , now i understand the cap for xp start up HD test in FM has been raised to 300 instead of the old 220. Im at ease now because i did not know that and just now im aware of the changes. Lets keep on benching . Good Day. chispy.
-
I wont discuss your opinion as thats yours. I have contacted mods via PM already before i posted in here with no answer from them , hence why i posted asking about it in here to gain the attention of the Mods and suceeded . Yes this is a Forum but i dont like the way you used yor CAPS when refering to me thats is very unpolite of you UNDERSTOOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your talking about me being aggresive right , If you dont understand my way of trying to get things done go cry on a corner , once you stop crying come back and post on this tread . Is it this problem related to a member of your team ? I knew it , hence why you are trying to get the attention of the topic in here wich is the 220 cap xp start up HD test. @SF3D Thanks for your help ,I apprecciate the input and answer from you , sorry if I sounded a little bit harsh but its frustrating seen things like this. Have a good day you guys
-
This topic its been here for months and nothing has been done in hwbot rules for it , so dont give me that i must wait stuff, keep your opinions of my post to yourself im not asking you i am asking the mods UNDERSTOOD !!!!
-
So finally you broke the silence , im glad you are swimming in money thats good for you . If you would have given this answer instead of trying to be funny i would not post asking again , BUT as always theres that sarcasm and attitude coming from you . Hey but whatever floats boat RIGHT?
-
Great answer , very smart of your part and helpful to the community , that denotes how much you care about been helpful as a mod.
-
Can a Mod please explain that result if is valid or not ? Please i want an answer from a mod.
-
So silence its the way to deal with this problem ???
-
Check this score please - http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=824951 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=1871822
-
Futuremark have not placed the cap on the 220 start up , i am seeing PCMark05 Results with very high HD Start up and unusually high HD tests results ???? Whats going on ???? SF3D said - ""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!'' By SF3D -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last edited by SF3D; 02-03-2009 at 02:21.
-
I totally agree with you Sweet , the rules need a facelift and be more clear to include MFT Usage. PCMark05 Rules - http://www.hwbot.org/benchmark.application.info.do?applicationId=9 No Change. chispy.
-
Thanks for the update SF3D , i will remove my score using MFT as I respect the decision and I will always follow the rules. Ok guys lets have fun with this benchie again . chispy.
-
No desicion have been made , understood ,jmke Thanks for the update. chispy.
-
Any news on this benchmark , i need to know if the rules are the same and have not change before I go with a different set up and LN2 , i dont want to spent LN2 if the rules suddenly change. Update on this subject please chispy.
-
Well said Eva , i could not explain it better myself. You are absolutly correct on your statement , hopefully people will understand better SSds technology now , i hope we dont get stuck back in time and hwbot move forward instead of backwards with this benchie bro. Yes the future is here now...
-
Futuremark removed the 220cap for xp start up for a reason Guys , Let the fun begin All or nothing at this point
-
In escence i-Rams use DIMMS (memory meant to be used on motherboards and not hardrives ) HDD platters or normal HDD usage right ? Ok.
-
Im 100% with you here , those 2 options seems reasonable to me , either Remove the usage of i-Rams , SSds , hardware Ramdrives and any other drive but Normal HDD. let the benchmark run only on normal HD like it was meant to be. or Let all kind of HDD set ups in. I Promise this is not the last time that something like this would happenned again , technology will always bring something new to the table. SSds are new technology and will need the use of new Firmware and software to get the most out of it , alignment to run propperly as well as software for the Raid Controller. without software the SSds will not run propperly. This new technology will not work as it should without the use of software. IF you guys are going to ban MFT Tweak to assist SSds in write / reads , then you have to ban the use of i-Rams as it uses memory for this benchmark and not normal HDD platters.
-
I totally agree with you on this one Gautam , let the fun begin
-
Thank you for taking your time to read and understand this new technology Massman , in future release i they will release a version that will support bootable drive from MFT as i have contact them already. Please make a fair decision and update your PCMark05 rules in regard to the use of i-Rams , the HD test in PCMark05 was meant to be run on normal HD NOT i-Rams , Hardware Ramdisks or SSds.
-
My point of view and opinion , if you ban the use of SSds and MFT wich is the software that was made with SSds technolgy in mind solely, you will have to ban the use of i-Rams and hardware Ramdisk too as it will give you an inflated score on this benchmark '' Like in 3DMark vantage using PhysicsX as was mentioned before '' i-Rams inflate the score on the HD tests
-
I know the majority of top benchers will feel bad about new technology and the way its implemented in benchmarks , im sorry if it make you guys feel that way , i did not meant to start all this fuss and problems , reality check technology its catching up with old benchmarks.
-
Sure Massman , http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47301 https://ts1.easyco.net/buy.easyco.com/mft/mft-downloads.htm http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47212