Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Matsglobetrotter

Members
  • Posts

    355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Matsglobetrotter

  1. some discrepancies in rules.the 3dMark stage shows no hwinfo which is ok to me as sysinfo would overrule (on cpu speed) but then aquamark shows ul sysinfo as requirement but cant be correct
  2. the changes on benchmark list no worries. The changes planned on Benchmark ranking overview I dont agree at all with. That is for me the most useful way to get an overview of what 2D benchmarks to run with what CPU's. (if we look at our own submissions tab then we cant see how well they rank thus the benchmark ranking overview is critical. By having the global, country and team rankings there i can also see if its even relevant to even try go for scores as well as help prepare for the challenges. Meanwhile i think it would be ok to show core 1 - 8 (or 2-10 cores) on a first page to limit the search load. Then a click button to extend to the rest of the core amounts. Meanwhile having been involved with web portals as well as organisational search engine development (not programatic but project level) I consider HwBot far ahead most portals in how data is presented and how it allow the user to look at data in the way that makes sense for the users thus different entry points and views of the same data, rather than just how a programmer think searches are to be done by a user (which is not user intuitive). I would prefer not to loose such ? I use the bot as a best practice example of how to do ?
  3. hehe i love those 4k scores. is this the U.2 version?
  4. meanwhile I think any AS SSD submission that has 4K -64thrd higher than the sequential speed on either read or write must be buggered. It can be close to sequential but never above without something else being at play as in cache. Interestingly the above score also have a latency of 0.006ms. There is no SSD that has such a latency thus it indicates cache in memory.
  5. hmmm actually i retract my statement above on as ssd hehe. I have run it many times last month. However just tested a new thing. put priority to high then it fails to give correct results randomly. The score on the left is what normally should be seen. the score on the right is not possible on the read 4K-64Thrd. plain vanilla Win10 enterprize with no cache active.
  6. I am not convinced the AS SSD is buggered but who knows. Meanwhile i know the SSD drives in general are buggered. Seems that most SSDs are so hot they are always on the limit so always swap down the speed unless properly cooled. If i however run a properly cooled SSD like the optane drives i have, the scores are pretty consistant as they seem to manage to keep up the transfer throughput speeds over longer time than an ordinary Samsung drive for example. This is same behaviour i see on an ordinary file transfer in windows. a normal ssd start out great and then usually takes forever anyway once it heats up a bit. In any case i do like the idea of having an SSD bencher in the bot with scores. Especially when we can mix in raid configurations. meanwhile windows really takes a toll with all its crapware on the drive throughput so a bit of crap removal really do help ?
  7. I like seeing new benchmarks being developed however i also realize that software seems to be a commodity that have short expiry date. The code is propriety and linked to a specific developer. The moment the developer get tired of the project the software somehow dies off. I liked Hwprime, Catzilla (when it worked) , XTU. I also like CPUZ as its the one single longest lasting benchmark/measurement tools that seems to surpass all the generations of CPU's and motherboards. i guess because its the so far most robust tool for the same (despite some flaws). I wonder what the lifespan has been for anything else in relation to that. What is great about CPUz is that it has its own score board also thus has its own ecosystem irrespective of the bot. Meanwhile I only validate to put it here on the bot. Fundamentally i think it would be dangerous for the longevity of the bot if it was dependent on inhouse developed benchers/tools for everything. CPUz is used by all communities not just hwbot. Its also the standard for most reviews in most magazines globally. Meanwhile scores Mhz, Ghz wont mean anything if we suddenly change validation to lighter loads. Meanwhile not even HWinfo, Ohm, Sysinfo, none of them seems to be able to confirm cpu core speeds relevantly across all platforms. This was proven in some of the challenges lately where CPUz was showing one value, HW info another sampling every xx milliseconds and then futuremark made some scores disqualified as sysinfo showed spikes 500 mhz beyond what we could even get any single core to do in reality. I am non believer in creating yet a new solution if there is an issue in a software. Try fix the software first ? especially if its a very active one. Meanwhile ofcourse CPUz is also the golden standard all hwbot submissions is demanding for frequency validations same as GPUz for gpuz.
  8. it makes sense to measure max frequency and so far CPUz has done the best job of doing so since eons ago. Though i sometimes hate the crashes in validation ? To simply say that we would not be turning off cores though does not make sense since most world records are based on adjusting the same which is a simple change in the bios. probably there since the first dual core was introduced.. I am quite sure some of the 3D benches would not have the records they have without some cores being turned off also, afterall some of them are not multithreaded. Since now intel and i guess AMD also allow to turn off selected Cores and maybe some specific hyper threads on any core why would we not allow people to play around with it to max it out. Meanwhile if it is possible to confirm that all cores are on ( i thought CPUZ was better at such confirmation but maybe not i do consider we need two categories. Am just now playing with my 3930K and it seems most CPUZ validations and Superpi subs are with 2 cores and even 1 core at times. why would I then limit myself to 6 ?? and 300 Mhz slower CPU? and non competitive results on CPUz, Superpi, Pifast?
  9. bullet proof hehe. we are working on the edge of all hardware so no wonder the software gets.. flaky hehe
  10. Just my 2 cents or maybe 4 as the post is longer. not evaluating what has been and what will be but more looking at the hardware aspects as i also commented on a great video made by Buildzoid in the same line of thought. I completely agree with the aspect of simply measuring cpuz and get it validated for a single core. Binned or not it shows a great complexity to be able to overclock up to 7 - 9 Ghz range on any CPU. Congratulations to those who managed and hold the records. I also congratulate the manufacturers of both CPU and Motherboards and memory who made it possible. Having eons ago worked in the Cable TV industry designing parts of line amplifiers I know how difficult it is to ensure that a 5Mhz analog TV channel is actually ending up on the screen with its sync-pulses across that 5 Mhz channel containing a wide amount of information when you introduce lousy coax cables and filters to have other communication going back towards the main central. Getting the signal through was one thing. Ensuring that the group time delay within the channel and its data bits was not twisted was a real challenge. Leading to a good picture or no picture or anything in between. Not to mention when I had to work on amplifiers for Sat TV at 10Ghz. Relating that back the discussion of one core or many cores for CPUz. I actually consider both should be getting ranking. getting a CPU and MB matched to run one core 7-9 Ghz is amazing. But what I find even more amazing is motherboard manufacturers that make sure high speed can happen across all cores on a CPU. Considering a wavelength of the signal at 5Ghz is 5.99cm and at 7 Ghz its 4.2 cm is a huge difference. If I used an antenna for a transmitter it would be difference between having functional communication or having all the signal coming back to the transmitter due to a mismatched antenna. you can test it out, try use you 2Ghz wifi antenna exchanged for a 5Ghz antenna and see the result. Being able to match all the external components and leads to a CPU so that it still works with all the critical timings for a single core is difficult. To do the same across all cores with all external components is astonishing. No wonder there is need for multi layer PCB's closeness to the CPU of memory and other components to reduce noise and signal delays. I am sure you have seen the nice pattern some of the leads to the memory on your computer has as it surely is not straight lines as that would not work except at max 800Mhz?. Its made on purpose to hopefully ensure fast speed. are all the manufacturers focusing on this the same way.. not necessarily. but with a bit of competition here on HWbot there will be ? So why not have two CPUZ core rankings. 1. any amount of cores disabled 2. Fixed by CPU amount of declared physical cores. I would propose to do a similar category on Memory to make it more interesting. single channel dual channel and maybe quad channel. Getting 4-5 Ghz on a dual memory setup is definitely more difficult than on a single ram. Good expensive ram or not a lot comes down to if the design of the MB is equally good or not.
  11. does that mean old records will be scratched. as otherwise its simply impossible to reach the point levels set anyway.
  12. no way haha :-) dont know what kind of juice you poured into that setup. Great Score!! Congratulations :-)
  13. you need to add in the verification link or it is not valid for the competition
  14. I would like to congratulate Obijuan83 on finally reaching the number one spot in the apprentice league Career ranking. For several years now we have seen poparamiro sitting in the top slot with no movement. Its definitely an achievement gaining over 2700 points with the cooling systems at hand. A few months ago I even saw Obi trying to sell of his stuff but was encouraged to not do so and keep pushing ?
  15. From UL/Futuremark site SystemInfo is a component used in many of our benchmarks to identify the hardware in your system. It does not collect any personally identifiable information. SystemInfo updates do not affect benchmark scores but you may need the latest version in order to obtain a valid score. The most recent versions of our currently supported benchmarks will prompt you to install new SystemInfo updates. Alternatively, you can update SystemInfo yourself from this page. Note that Windows XP, 3DMark06, and PCMark05 are no longer supported. SystemInfo functionality on Windows XP is provided as-is without guarantees. From version 4.29 onwards, SystemInfo requires Windows XP Service Pack 3. If you wish to run 3DMark06 and PCMark05 on Windows XP SP2 or older, you should use SystemInfo 4.28. All UL benchmarks on Windows 10 require SystemInfo 4.40 or later.
  16. benchmate 0.10.7 is reporting one too many cores in WPRIME thus 9 instead of 8 for a 7700k
  17. so bench more and suddenly a bunch of points will come reorganizing the leaderboard :-)
  18. thanks. Overall seems it runs better and with higher scores on AMD platform. I have only two old CPUs hehe will need to get more on AMD
  19. Just tested it out FUGGER and yes that works perfectly. No error messages at all. Which effectively mean that ULs instructions that Windows 7 SP1 works is not true. It has to be Windows 7 SP1 plus all the KB files until the OS was deprecated... What is interesting is that PCM10Express even with error messages will run the error Libre office sections after the error messages are closed. As per info I saw on Steam effectively PCM will then run the spreadsheet parts without OpenCL at an estimated loss of 15-20% of the score while still give a valid score and validation link.
  20. excellent now its working on the 8350k. just uploaded another better score. for win7 there are still issues in relation to Open CL stuff. thus i keep re-installing OpenCL as it crashes. I will test out the full KB packager FUGGER showed a link to and update in the PCMark10 thread.
  21. sorry here you go https://hwbot.org/submission/4668320_matsglobetrotter_pcmark10_express_core_i3_8350k_7010_marks
  22. Just submitted a score for the 8350K on PCMark10 Express and for some reason the bot is categorizing it under a 6 core processor. 8350K is 4 core 4 threads processor. please fix.
  23. It seems PCMark softwares keep sticking to the same old story of being a nightmare to get working on various platforms. I am trying to use Windows 7 as it clearly states it being compatible on their own homepage for the Express version. The Video conf part wont start unless (according to UL input) the native Intel driver is installed somehow in parallel with the external GPU. Preferable both active in multi gpu mode. I somehow got that fixed with running my 8700K Internal GPU so it activates standard driver as no Intel driver exists for that particular GPU in win7. UL seems to blame Nvidia for this but I have tested with both Nvidia and Radeon and see same issue. I use latest drivers on both. Now the error instead show up in the app start and/or when it runs the Open Libre sheets. Seemingly there is further errors in the OpenCL and/or ATi driver with Appcrash . soffice.bin and atidxx32.dll. Im using the Win7 SP1 vanilla with all missing KBs fixed as to what it complain about at first with installation of drivers. (Kb4474419, KB4490628) So is there anyone who has a hint about what more can be done?
×
×
  • Create New...