3DMark11 added to HWBOT?

[xxbassplayerxx]

sandy bridge score is better than GT at same frequency

 

Nice!

 

I'll be buying one for sure then

[Manu_182]

I think 3dMark 11 should be added, because there's only one or two DX11 benchmarks, and we all know that 3dMark is a very reliable software.. why don't you add it, and make mandatory the screenshot with a few CPU-Z's tabs open? let's say CPU, Mainboard and Memory, so you guys can see if the submission is valid or if some random guy is trying to get easy points, always basing in the information shown by CPU-Z.... that's my idea let me know what you guys think about it, see ya!

[Manu_182]

I think 3dMark 11 should be added, because there's only one or two DX11 benchmarks, and we all know that 3dMark is a very reliable software.. why don't you add it, and make mandatory the screenshot with a few CPU-Z's tabs open? let's say CPU, Mainboard and Memory, so you guys can see if the submission is valid or if some random guy is trying to get easy points, always basing in the information shown by CPU-Z.... that's my idea let me know what you guys think about it, see ya!

[Massman]

I think 3dMark 11 should be added, because there's only one or two DX11 benchmarks, and we all know that 3dMark is a very reliable software.. why don't you add it, and make mandatory the screenshot with a few CPU-Z's tabs open? let's say CPU, Mainboard and Memory, so you guys can see if the submission is valid or if some random guy is trying to get easy points, always basing in the information shown by CPU-Z.... that's my idea let me know what you guys think about it, see ya!

 

The key element in 3DMark score validation has always been the subtest scores. Experienced overclockers can spot a bugged run based on a small subtest deviation. Fewer data (= score only) means it's a lot more difficult to find bugged scores.

 

Bugged ... or cheated scores.

[M.Beier]

So, what do you guys think?

 

To summarize:

 

+ New DX11 benchmark

 

- Subtest details not visible offline

- Basic version = no offline score

- Not possible to submit score from non-DX11 system

 

To overcome the lack of subtest details, we could make a verification link mandatory. This, however, goes against the HWBOT principle of keeping participating as low-cost as possible. Forcing people who recently started overclocking to invest in a benchmark just to be able to submit a score goes against this principle. Screenshots without the subtest details are not worth much as the subtest details helps users to compare easily and moderators to quickly catch bugged scores.

 

- Subtest details not visible offline

Sucks, and should be fixed by FM...

- Basic version = no offline score

So what? How about '06 when you dont have a payment version?

- Not possible to submit score from non-DX11 system

Evolution, welcome....

 

I say; add it... This is much less severe then the 3Dmark-craptage

[Manu_182]

The key element in 3DMark score validation has always been the subtest scores. Experienced overclockers can spot a bugged run based on a small subtest deviation. Fewer data (= score only) means it's a lot more difficult to find bugged scores.

 

Bugged ... or cheated scores.

 

 

Oh, now I see... thanks for the info ^^ i'm kinda newbie here lol

[Massman]

I say; add it... This is much less severe then the 3Dmark-craptage

 

This was what made Vantage a problem: http://www.hwbot.org/hwbot.post.do?postId=858

 

- hwbot rules states a benchmark application should be free (can be ignored by community vote)

- it requires MS Vista, many of us still see no reason to upgrade from WinXP.

- initially it was not possible in the 20$ version to view or save your score offline. This has been fixed.

[M.Beier]

Be that as it may, I dont think the no offline score for free version should be a valid arguement, when its been accepted twice already.

[Massman]

Perhaps it's time for the OC community to put their foot down ...

[M.Beier]

IMHO;

No, then it should have been done in the past.

 

I honor the argument of no subtest scores though... That is kind of fail when they have announced not so long ago in the PR-interview of FM by OCTV, that they are proud that the community is self aware, watching over the results, checking if they are valid - and then after decide to block us out....

That, I find highly manipulative....

[xxbassplayerxx]

Perhaps it's time for the OC community to put their foot down ...

 

I'm all for it. 3DMark 11 is cool... but there are definitely some things that should be fixed.

 

Which begs the question, why is it so hard for Futuremark System Info to get clocks? I'm not sure I've ever seen correct clocks through that. It's not like GPU-Z or CPU-Z have any trouble...

[Massman]

IMHO;

No, then it should have been done in the past.

 

That logic is circular: we shouldn't do something new because it hasn't been done in the past.

[Hollywood]

Think it should not be added untill FM gives a subtestwindow.

Also it should be possible to save a file and submit from any other rig you want.

SS alone is worthless.

[OldMan]

If someone wrote a small utility app that could open up the saved score file and show subtest scores, wouldnt that help ?

[xxbassplayerxx]

That logic is circular: we shouldn't do something new because it hasn't been done in the past.

 

lol indeed.

 

Think it should not be added untill FM gives a subtestwindow.

Also it should be possible to save a file and submit from any other rig you want.

SS alone is worthless.

 

Agreed!

[Massman]

If someone wrote a small utility app that could open up the saved score file and show subtest scores, wouldnt that help ?

 

In theory yes, in practice it's not so cheat-proof.

 

Ideally it would be possible to batch-run through command line with the free version. Then we'd be able to make our own wrapper to launch the benchmark, grab all the info and put it in a secured .hwbot file (~ Unigine). Sadly enough, batch runs are only available for the professional licence.

 

Alternatively, we could ask users to send their validation file along with the screenshot. Then we could open the validation file and check for the subtest details ourselves. Sadly enough, we probably don't have the legal authorisations to do this ... also, we don't have any idea how the checksums are calculated so we can't verify if the subtest details are correct.

[ME4ME]

my vote is definitly: YES, add it to hwbot.

 

why: we shouldnt expect anything to be free. Besides, 20 dollar isnt that much compared to other expenses you've got to pay for even getting an interesting score.. People have been paying 06/vantage licenses too ... why not pay those couple of $ for this benchmark...

 

"- Subtest details not visible offline

- Basic version = no offline score

- Not possible to submit score from non-DX11 system"

 

..if everyone would get their license, the first 2 issues would not exist

3rd issue is a bit annoying though, FM should fix that....

 

and while being at it, as for my personal opinion: i rather have Heaven and 3dmark11 as point-awarding benchmarks here at Hwbot, then the outdated Aquamark and 3dmark2001. New hardware should be benched with reasanable new software ... especially with the somewhat poor validation for the really old ones..

[knopflerbruce]

No subtests = no boints. Period. That's my opinion.

[M.Beier]

my vote is definitly: YES, add it to hwbot.

 

why: we shouldnt expect anything to be free. Besides, 20 dollar isnt that much compared to other expenses you've got to pay for even getting an interesting score.. People have been paying 06/vantage licenses too ... why not pay those couple of $ for this benchmark...

 

"- Subtest details not visible offline

- Basic version = no offline score

- Not possible to submit score from non-DX11 system"

 

..if everyone would get their license, the first 2 issues would not exist

3rd issue is a bit annoying though, FM should fix that....

 

and while being at it, as for my personal opinion: i rather have Heaven and 3dmark11 as point-awarding benchmarks here at Hwbot, then the outdated Aquamark and 3dmark2001. New hardware should be benched with reasanable new software ... especially with the somewhat poor validation for the really old ones..

How exactly is the first one fixed with license?

[Gunslinger]

I vote yes, $20 for a benchmark is a drop in the bucket compared to what is spent on hardware and cooling.

 

I personally have no problem with it being DX11 only either.

[K404]

From what I have seen of the new ORB, details about bench runs are... short in supply.

 

Even if we save a validation file, submit it to The ORB when we have a net connection back and use an orb link to verify a score, would it confirm the run was cheat-free? No D-PP, No MIP etc

[zoro]

I was looiking forward to submit my first 3D11 score and now i saw this topic

you are late, you should have add it yesterday

[TaPaKaH]

I don't bench 3D so I don't care ... but since lots of people are happy with paying money for benchmarking software, I will forward this info to Franck so that we can have $50 CPU-Z "advanced" licences with subfrequencies (bclk/qpi/uncore) visible

[Antinomy]

Hey, get you hands from Franck Delattre you nasty bastard!

[dinos22]

When the community asks for it.

 

It's a major drawback that there are no subtest details visible in any screenshot. Those subtest details are vital in result moderation of, for instance, bugged runs.

 

I agree. If they change this if would be ok

 

i would also urge them to change the fact you cannot submit from non-DX11 system