Massman

If he had the same efficiency as you have, which for me is still a to be proven valid object. Do you have an explanation why you have been able to hit that low efficiency? (I'm not asking for an explanation, I ask if you have one )

I'm excluding the possibility of the Rampage Extreme just being faster: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=805789, there's a huge difference between both runs. Don't know what bios he was on, though

Hm, and now?

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=795443 It's blocked

Intel .

I'm asking you to help me find out if the efficiency anomality has something to do with the bios, just like with the 45nm wolfdales, which are given a 0.1-0.125s boost by using older biosses. If it's indeed the bios which is giving you the anomality, there's no problem putting back your score. The bios updates are just for the 1M comparison: after you've got the results with the 0121 and 1003 bios, you can use 0301 again ;-). There's no other argument than "pls unblock my score" to extend my (subjective) scale. You are the only person who I've seen hitting an efficiency lower than 60k. It may be nothing, I'm fully aware of that, but I'd rather find out what exactly is causing you to have a greater efficiency . At the moment, the bios bug is my only hypothesis.

The 60.3-60.5k actually defines the scale: these are the outer values that I use to determine what data fits and what data doesn't fit the profile of plausible Celeron 4x0 efficiency. Note that within the group of plausible efficiencies, these are indeed the outliers. You could do that OR you could help me find out what's causing the anomality . Would it be possible to test the same frequency using an even older (0121) and the newest bios (1003)?

Because the 940 Extreme has the unfair advantage of having an unlocked mulitplier. It would be unfair to those who have a retail 940 when both locked an unlocked are placed in the same category

Not according to what I've seen in the past. Even with DDR3, the hardware bug leads to an efficiency of 60.5k, not 58.9k. And before this turns into a believer vs non-believer battle: I use the efficiency calculation as a method, not as proof.

No one calls you a cheater, no one is flawless. By the rule: "Seems off scale". If a score doesn't follow the general performance scaling, we have a reason to block it, regardless of it's validity. When we block it and turns out we're wrong, we unblock it . 18.937 - 3304 - 500 CL4 - 62567 18.562 - 3316 - 500 CL4 - 61551 18.219 - 3322 - 620 CL5 - 60523 17.500 - 3368 - 842 CL7 - 58940 Your first score is right on spot when comparing to other results; the efficiency is 62.5k, perfect on line with the other scores. Now, due to a hardware bug it's indeed possible to shave off time to an efficiency around 60.5k, which indeed fits your third best score. The last one is just way beyond the best efficiency I've ever seen on a Cel420/430 (fastest is around 60.3k), so I had my doubts, hence why I blocked it.

This is not a spam forum

MFT disabled: 55MB/s MFT enabled: 1350MB/s

SSD is the future, there's no doubt about that. We're discussing the usage of MFT here: an application that partially uses the system memory to increase HDD performance.

We're still having the discussion in the crew forums, nothing has been decided yet.

No a bug in the bot

And shaderless videocards for everyone!

Okay, I quickly read through the different links you provided me and as for now, I can see three issues with the MFT 'tweak': 1) The MFT drive is software dependant, meaning that you need to install an application before you can obtain the gain in performance (in the contrary to iRam, which is plug'n'play 2) The MFT-drive is non-bootable, which means that you need an OS installed before you can add MFT functionality (in the contrary to iRam, which is plug'n'play: installing OS is no problem) 3) The MFT setup actively addresses a part of the memory to read/write data, whereas harddisks (and iRam) are close to independant from memory size or frequency. Although this utility/software is actually very, very good for 24/7 usage, I don't really see it as a real harddisk drive (for which the HDD tests are designed). In the OCZ forums, they suggest a software ramdrive to increase performance as well, but although that can increase performance as well, it's not allowed by FM and HWBot. This opinion is my personal opinion and does NOT reflect the opinion of the entire HWBot crew. In addition, it is NOT the current HWBot policy regarding MFT

Can you link me up with information regarding the MFT technology so that I can understand what it does exactly? It's not a software ramdisk as we (used to) know it, but the artificial increase (as Praz mentioned) does raise questions. As mentioned by SF3D: PhysX also gives an artificial increase and also is 24/7 software, but both FM and HWbot don't allow PhysX scores to be submitted. Maybe time for us to ask FM's policy regarding this technology, again?

Hold on Andre, we're looking into it at the moment

So a software ram-drive? If so, MFT should not be allowed.

Mike, could you explain what MFT exactly does? Is it similar to the effects of a software based ramdisk? What is the difference between a normal SSD Raid0 system and one with MFT added?

Check his verification link "MFT+SOFTWARE RAM"

Fixed that one for ya!

Okay. Please don't ruin the game now, Mike, please don't submit another score with the software hdd. Thanks PCMark Vantage has already the limitation of benching on your OS drive? Then I certainly don't understand why FM do the same for PCM05!

You're right: if we don't balance out everything, a new system could end up being worse than the one we have now, hence the reason why we're not spending every spare second on developping a new one. http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2037&page=4 In this thread, you'll find some comments regarding the skill/money/points issue.