June 30, 20178 yr Author Completely different. 20000+ is different than 30000+. I just lower the freq so the prog would be slower -> higher bandwith. (according to my tests.)
June 30, 20178 yr Year 2017 People still wondering about the validity of this benchmark ??? It's proven more than enough , in the past ... that you can manipulate the score of this benchmark.
June 30, 20178 yr Crew If we needed a last proof that maxmem is eol and should be made pointless, here we go - not your fault, I did chose it on purpose to see if new bugs turn up apart from the 1000 we know already - and yes, it did turn up
June 30, 20178 yr His previous score, same frequencies and 1 minutes diference : http://hwbot.org/submission/3588455_
July 1, 20178 yr @Niuulh not same frequencies as said, due to severeal test, lowering only cpu freq (by multiplier) and not ram freq, bandwidth increases; looking at DDR3 MaxxMem Read Bandwidth's ranking there are a lot of subs with lower cpu freq and high bandwidth
July 1, 20178 yr I like like you defend yourself, you double your score by downclocking and try to make it legit... Seriously.... You force a run bug and have no shame to sumbit it..... o/
July 1, 20178 yr Author Th problem with this bench is that even if we redo the bench how would we know that e.g the 17000 would be legit and it doesn't mean 15000? We will never know for sure. And as we all know the program has a lot bugs. Actually it isn't a bug run. By lowering the mhz you give it more time to "pass" mb/s. Edited July 1, 20178 yr by Demac
July 1, 20178 yr Oh gosh, this is the end of Overclocking now its downclocking time, run bug 10K diff and nobody kick that score ? And since when downclocking give more bandwith....
May 10, 20188 yr wow, still talking about this; why no one complain about hwboints are still alive on wellknownbugged benchs?
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.