zeneffect

you guys realize that i posted how to do it right? v1.01 btw... though i doubt the version number will change the effect of the exploit. i see alot of missing geometry in 2nd game tests (car + forest) as well as missing geometry in combined score. i will see if this effects nvidia as well tonight. *edit* looks like physics test got a boost too... i ran ultra noob xmp profile @ 2400 with kingston predator 2666 kit.

need wrapper for 3dm11 now it seems too... http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/4727491 look @ combined score (its mine btw... just playing around with 7970 seeing whats what) 1200 core 1375 mem 4.4ghz 3770k flip queue size 0 wonder if i can break 13k if i dig deeper...

trading tweaks is half the fun of this bench, either to do or to watch the progression of scores and trying to figure out who has what tweak.

i think this stems to how pcmark is played. everybody keeps the tweaks close to home and does not really want to share unless they gain something in return. this (i think) adds another dimension to benching which is pretty cool. i never had any problems with impartiality personally as every tweak i use has been well documented and is used by countless others. pcmark... COMPLETELY different animal. Pro as the moderator for pcm05 is an excellent choice as he is retired from PCM05 and thus an impartial judge, as well as having direct pcm05 experience with the integrity and respect behind him to back up his ruling/decisions. now that THAT has been clarified.... how are you going to moderate previous scores when it is well known that "there is more than one way to skin a cat" (not sure why anybody skins cats...) a perfect example is TW. Moose knows what im talking about.... flash windows isnt the only way to do it hell you dont even need to resize the anything to get the same boosted score. oddly enough, Pro already knows the other tweak im referring to as well as I told him before I told my own team... months and months ago. (yes ive figured out the TE and WPR replacement method a long time ago but passed on it as it is an invalid exploit in my opinion. Id rather not distribute information like this as misuse could do the team more harm than good.) rabblerabblerabble

i have batch 3224 in my 6.8 chip. it scales with volts, but not past 1.92

when the 3rd party has nothing to gain from the disclosed tweak, then the level of trust goes up. Reliance on a wrapper and the determination of if the tweak is legal or not by active benchers still does not resolve the doubt that confidentiality between hwbot and the end user is maintained as there IS an incentive to use XXX tweak after it has been disclosed privately to the staff. there is no way anybody can claim that they are a disinterested party if they are actively benching for points in the same arena as those who are being questioned. its easier for most all other benchmarks with the exception of PCM05 as the trend is to develop a tweak and use it to one's own advantage. once disclosed to staff, the advantage is lost as they also bench (based upon the assumption that a new legal tweak is found.) /end run-on sentences

being a volunteer does not make one impartial though. you yourself said you actively bench. without an impartial judge or referee, how can there be any trust relationship between an end user and hwbot? sure, one could make it public so that staff would not have a clear advantage, but how fair is that? why should staff have a distinct and clear advantage if they are supposed to be competing at the same level with the same rules? I understand that staff has to be notified of tweaks that seem suspicious, but the current state of how it is moderated leaves no possibility for the protection of one's intellectual property other than relying on a person's integrity. mabye full, open ended disclosure would also act as a viable solution? it would certainly level the playing field, but would make benching more dependent on pure hardware rather than a skilled bencher who knows how to push the hardware as well as tweak the system for maximum efficiency.

ah... thanks for the clarification. the wording was a little confusing... still does not deter from the fact that this example actually occurred (as stated by Moose.) Which subtest it does not matter, the simple fact that confidential information between the end user and hwbot was exploited (once again as stated from Moose. I dont even bench pcm05)

this has already been touched upon in this thread. Moose shares tweak... moderator says its "ok" then uses the tweak themselves. Regardless, if CN got it from you after Gluv leaked it to you, he is then in violation of hwbot's ethical policy as he has now used intellectual property that was discussed in private for a ruling on legality. THIS is the problem, we can not have active benchers also play judge. Knopflerbruce makes a valid point... it will be next to impossible to find a "voulenteer" that is trustworthy to not disseminate trusted information.

explaining the tweak to a disinterested staff member that does not participate for points would be ideal as they are not "competition." oddly enough I can see where Moose is coming from though. He has explained a tweak in private to a staff member, and that member used it for their own personal gain. The trust relationship between HWbot and the end user has been broken by the staff. If this had happened to me, I would be very reluctant to continue to explain a tweak. The point is that we ALL understand that the staff has to moderate the scores somehow and that sometimes it involves revealing a tweak for judgement. That is fine, unavoidable, and expected in ANY type of competition. what is not right is that the staff participates for points, leaving no real 3rd party to truly moderate the scores while protecting the intellectual property of the end user. give me a million, i will pull all 30 points i have and moderate all this biach... I dont think we need a dedicated PCM05 moderator that doesn't participate in points. We need a dedicated moderator for ALL benchmarks that does not participate for points. By the current policy, the critical flaw still exists where any new legitimate tweak is not protected as it still has to revealed to staff members who participate in points and can use it for their own benefit... which has happened... and has not been addressed (as far as we know.)

latency boundry = auto? this has to be a quick and dirty...

^ a very true and just statement. http://www.3dmark.com/pcm05/3171364 last but not least.... wasnt pcm05 part of team cup? wont rankings for stage 6 have to be re-evaluate?

there is another way to do TE though... LEGALLY. if a staff member is shown, how is that fair that they can bench for points after forcing a member to reveal their tweak? it would be much more "fair" if there were a dedicated moderator that does not bench for points or silverware to act as judge if suspicion arises. rabblerabblerabble on a side note... why are you knuckleheads (general public) still submitting pcm05 right now? i see two on the front page.

please elaborate further about a tweak shown or demonstrated in private via pm or livestream to a staff member there can be 100% certainty that that staff member will either A.) not share it or B.) not use it themselves. sure it would be "ethically wrong" for a staff member to abuse their privileges this way, however we have already seen it happen. (to be clear, we know a staff member has used the text edit tweak which we all agree to be an exploit... i.e. replace test files with a blank file) the problem is that there is no disinterested 3rd party. if everybody is a player, without the existance of "proper" referees, its not a sport. *edit* i re-read my previous post and id like to clarify a few things it makes being hwbot staff an over-privileged position when viewed from a competitive benchmarking standpoint as a user may have to be forced to "show all their cards." when i mean "over-priviged" i mean it literally... as in having a clear advantage over the competition (everybody NOT on the same team) when able or are forced to see a suspected tweak in private due to their duty obligations. "show all their cards" - public or private it does not matter, the fact is if done privately, it is now between the staff member and the user. there is no real resolution to the person who developed the tweak as now not only 1 person has the tweak but 2. for example... say party A knows 1 tweak and party B knows another. 1 party each knows their own tweak which gives both of them leverage to either learn their opponents tweak or another tweak for another benchmark, or a 32m OS, etc.. by "trading" information. however when having to get a ruling on what is a legal tweak a (any) staff member now has information which in the event is deemed "legal" can now use that information for his own benefit without giving anything in return. there is no real guarentee or transparency that this will not happen. (http://www.3dmark.com/pcm05/3171364) "word of mouth" was a general statement, not ment towards staff memebers only, but to everybody... its true, people talk and "things" get around. none of us can be trusted to become a disinterested 3rd party "referee." PCM05 has been a perfect example of these arguments... i vote knopflerbruce to become the disinterested 3rd party, pull his points, and never bench again. Do it for the team... do it for HWBot... do it for PCM05! not flaming here or trolling (well a little trolling) but I think these are valid points that have been touched upon in this thread but never discussed.

if this is the case, then how is it fair to have to bench against moderators if the tweaks are not public? (if found to be legit) what is in place to protect the user's hard work from being exploited by the staff? it makes being hwbot staff an over-privileged position when viewed from a competitive benchmarking standpoint as a user may have to be forced to "show all their cards." mabye the staff shouldnt be awarded points? this would make them referees instead of opponents.... or mabye a dedicated staff member that does not participate in points (also another potential problem as "word of mouth" seems to be fairly common around here) *my popcorn got stale*

there is another problem with the staff. As they are pretty much all active benchers, why would anybody want to give them the tweaks? if found valid, then they ride on the coat tails of those who developed or found the tweak for themselves. simple case in point, te and wpr are being used by staff members apparently.

I guess a bottle of beer would be good to wash down some fried chicken.

fried chicken? i can get that kfc all day long... and you guys dont even know about the church's, popeye's or bojangles.

send me one why you are at it... i will pay shipping... and include a bag of candy! see? EVEN BETTER DEAL

yes... but you have the problem of being able to tell the difference between illegal tweaks and legal tweaks... previous points would have to be moderated which would be a near impossibility. both legal and illegal result in an absurd score for the subtest that is tweaked. we could disclose tweaks, and decide what is allowed and not allowed and make a strict guideline, but you fall into the inability to tell how the previous scores were run. its all catch 22 no matter how you look at it. resetting back to 0 would suck for alot of people, but what are the other realistic alternatives while keeping the benchmark around for points? going back to choice A. yes you get crazy results... but seriously... whats the difference between what is going on today? it seems the only real requirement for this bench is a merit badge in the boy scouts and an orb validation as it stands now. to throw more fuel into the fire... why are you guys even listening to me? i dont think i even have a single pcmark05 submission....

so.... the reality of the matter comes down to 2 possibilities? a.) anything goes so long as orb validates and rape the shit out of the benchmark (in which case I will start playing pcm05.) b.) benchmark no longer has points... or everybody gets reset to 0 after a strong wrapper is made. I don't see how you guys can moderate the previous submissions unless EVERYBODY is honest about their score and moderates themselves... *tired of watching commercials, back to the fishing channel...*

then i guess this brings us back to problem #1... hwbot needs to publish the damn rules!

im talking about temp files which falls under the same rules as the audio files. the test itself is modified by changing/replacing files. I would like clarification and or rationale as to why this is acceptable. Please dont think that Im attacking you or anything like that as its far from the truth. I know everybody is searching for this "tweak" but nobody wants to actually talk about it or its validity. This amongst other things should be discussed openly so we as a community can come to a conclusion as to its legality.

please explain the text edit tweak and how replacing the test files with a blank rtf is not replacing the test files with a blank rtf?