Gautam
-
Posts
382 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Gautam
-
-
Whenever you get off that yorkfield.
-
Right now the rules themselves are in question. The 220 cap was placed arbitrarily because people complained, then removed for the same reason, and now being reinstated for the same reason. Whoever is dealing with them should ask them for a reasonable cap so that this fiasco won't repeat itself.
-
Hmm could they raise the cap a little rather than leaving it the same? Maybe 300 or 400? 220 forces us to purposefully cripple our setups. A happy medium is necessary.
-
Both sides of this debate make some sense.
-
You're behind the times dude lol. The cap got removed a couple of weeks ago, if it didn't we wouldn't be having this discussion.
-
-
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.
No, they are totally different situations. i-RAMS use DIMMS as storage. Just the sticks as their storage medium. Not system memory.
MFT uses a software buffer in system memory. This is why it's scores so closely match a software ramdrive. This is what people are raising issue with. In essence it's a software layer in between which is written to. Not the SSD array itself. The usage of software is the issue, not the storage medium.
-
The reason I enjoy PCMark the most is that your ENTIRE system gets benched and not just part of it. Obviously there are some problems with it e.g. 3D part does not credit multi gpu etc. but still the PCMarks are great tools to give credit to your entire system.
Again in respect to MFT - I think what MFT does is to setup a software ram drive to store the data temporarly and afterwards to dump it to the HDDs ( whether IRAM , SSD etc. )
During the PCMark bench the data that is on the software ram drive only gets benched which gives us these artificially high scores.
Not sure where I claimed to have run software ram in my bench, but not that I care to have it removed - MFT and Software rams is
the same to me and all should be not be allowed
Kingpin posted a nice run a couple of days ago still maintaining the old 220mb limit - NICE!
Yeah it seems like MFT is a FIFO queue...you write to this software queue first, then it writes to the actual array in a linear fashion. So it's very much a software buffer explaining why it performs like a software ramdrive.
Well...if MFT is to be allowed then your score should be as well.
: If not then neither should be. -
TBH PCMark is showing its age and its goofiness more than ever before. I wouldn't be totally opposed to removing points to it myself but then again it is an interesting bench to run. It was just poorly designed with little foresight of some repercussions. (Just like the "CPU" test in 3DMarkVantage) FM can't be trusted to deal with issues such as these, so it's up to the community to decide what's fair and what isn't and to establish guidelines for ourselves.
-
All I care about is competition.
Let's make a decision and have it stick for everyone. If we're gonna allow MFT, then get ready for some 40K+ scores; I know Andre is. 
P.S. I don't believe Mike used a software ram...I believe he just used MFT to prove a point.
-
So then it seems that Mike's score was removed because you guys thought it's on a software ram disk. It doesn't seem like he said that anywhere explicitly.
In fact...it seems like the "g@y" HDD tweak he's referring to is the usage of MFT.
-
No, I mean in an objective manner. Where's the giveaway in the scores that we need to look out for?
-
And how can you tell he did?
-
How's Mike's 34k score different from chispy's? And I'm asking honestly, this pcmark stuff is beginning to confuse the hell of out of me.
-
Ugh, you can't be serious. :-/
Optimally we'd need the limit lifted and constant vigilance from the community. (On hwbot this doesn't tend to be an issue)
-
Ok well the main thing I use it for is to ALT + ENTER to full screen so I can run it without graphics drivers installed
Good thinking.
-
i Think That It's Not Fair For All Others That Have Hited Over 30000 To "put An Hwbot Score" In This Bench....
All Of Them/us Have Benched Hard To Achive A Score By "fm Rules" And "hwbot Rules" As We Did...
We Didn't Upload Our 32000+ Pcmarks And Wait For Fm To Approve It You Know.........
We Benched "by The Rules".....
When And If Fm Approves Such Scores, Then We Could Upload Our Scores To Hwbot But Not Now........if You Can Understand What I Mean....
Do You Know How Many Have Hited Over 30k In The Past Without "fm Rules"?....many....but None Have Uploaded His Score In Fm Or In Hwbot To Get Points In A Bench That It's Not Approved Yet...
Fairness For All.......
If Fm Approves It, Then You Can Upload It......
Qft!
-
Nahhh...the 220 cap for hdd startup. I actually remember trying to deal with them over it a couple of years ago and it was like talking to a wall.
-
The futuremark people don't even know what's going on, this was an attempt by one of them years ago to block ramdisk scores.
-
Congrats, but you're not the only one that's done unpublishable scores due to too high XP startup...
(Like youngpro for example)
The FM rule is pretty goofy, but if this score is to be accepted by hwbot, it's establishing a precedent, and everyone should be able to submit PCMark scores without verification. (Which I wouldn't be totally opposed to personally)
-
Why can't we ask hard questions from time to time? Overclockers can't handle a little heat? So you have to field a few questions, big deal.
-
I would be interested to hear the explanation for the CPU-Z incident.
-
banned from both XS & hwbot at one time because of it.
And CPU-Z
TaPaKah you made it well but all of this is fake.This is your validation :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=128596'>http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=128596
This is a fake because the code name Allendale only results from the L2 size detection (namely 2MB). If there were really 4MB, the validation would have displayed Conroe (Phile : this may be wrong, you're right, but in this case this helped finding out the fake
)Also we found out that you already tried your cheat here :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=122548
(the submission IP is the same as yours)
Some other fakes attempts by TaPaKah (these were well detected as fakes)
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=120207
If the CPU really was a E6400 with 4MB it would have reported something like this :http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=100737
This a E6400 ES, and these CPUs actually had a 4MB L2. And notice that the code name is reported as Conroe. This is logical, as cpuz relies on L2 size to report either Conroe or Allendale.
On this validation now :
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=128596
4MB L2 and Allendale. If the CPU was real, it would have said Conroe, and period. Of course the author of the validation could not have known that.
IMO cpuz was cheated and the L2 size was changed with a debugger.
Concerning the cachemem screen, it could have been made on a E6600/E6700 and pasted over a fake cpuz screen. It's not very complicated to do.
Btw, I don't play favorites. Even with James (youngpro) who I now have come to know very well and respect as one of the best benchers of our day, and the original starter of this thread. The first time I talked to him was regarding very strange bugged 01 scores of his that were beginning to draw some attention and caused him to come under some fire. I remember telling him then that questioning scores is necessary when something feels wrong and it's nothing personal. I would go after my closest friends as well if something seemed amiss to me.
-
I want to remind you guys that say it's always a certain bunch "singled out" or never the guys in the "elite club" that someone questions were raised over the scores of none other than Kinc in the past. First it was his 06 score a little over a year ago that most of us figured was bugged...he tried to replicate it himself, couldn't, and removed it promptly. (Even though that score was done live in front of many witnesses) Now there's this debacle over the 4870X2 scores. He was one of the first to have a "high" Crossfire score and many people thought it was bugged. He removed it, even AFTER making multiple videos showing that his game test scores were repeatable. I actually privately urged him to keep it published as we both felt that the score was fine (and it was a WR), but he said that he'd rather just remove it rather than have anyone even think for a second that he was doing something wrong. (Now of course we know that the score is perfectly reasonable and has since been passed)
Also perhaps a few VERY astute hwbot members might have noticed that about a month or so ago, Vince briefly submitted an apparently extremely fast 1M time somewhere in the 7.01 second range at little over 6500 flat on a Rampage Extreme BIOS 0206. I mentioned to him that it looked strangely fast for the clock. He had a feeling that it was way too fast as well, and suspected that it was a bug in SetFSB. He removed it on his own likely before anyone even noticed it.
To true legends, their reputation is worth more than any world record...
Strangely high 3DMark03 scores in Windows 7
in Submission & member moderation
Posted
fixed