Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums
avalanche

Tweak book for cheats

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, websmile said:

Why should hwbot make an allowance for AA? The fun fact is that all results before I think 2017 which had AA changed were valid with Futuremark if I remember correctly, so it was clear this was allowed. Suddenly FM changed this for hall of fame, implemented a check on this and excludes new results from ranking. If you look at programs like nvinspector there are 100+ driver settings you can change, so each time fm is bored and changes rules we delete all old scores and start at zero? I am not sure this makes sense, but agree that this might need clarification especially for new members like you?^^

haha not that new - joined the year before you did..., just a long time lurker. I just want surety of the playing field so it's fair and the scores in the hwbot database are an accurate reflection of reality. I presumed the lack of mention of changing AA was a sign that it was against the rules. When Futuremark/UL updated the detection scheme then flagged changed to AA away from the default perhaps there should have been a corresponding review to the rules to allow it or not.

As time goes on we get faster processors so benching the same benchmarks with the same graphics cards would conceivably produce better results which could surpass older scores and still be "Valid" - with LOD, Tessellation and driver version errors allowed as stated in the current rules, but AA disallowed, even when the older scores were produced in contravention to the current ruleset.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot change LOD without changing AA, as far as I know this was the reason FM made the change to flagging anti aliasing settings changed

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is I reported a dodgy 03 with proof of what they were doing and it was removed. See something say something applies as always. Mods do a great job with flagged scores. 

If u kill geek3 you need to kill geek4 also as it's the same bench just longer and requires new key$$$. 

As far as submitting a known bugged run. I would suggest harsher punishment. Maybe something that effects the team you are on as well? Bugged run can give your team - 1k team penalty points. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, marco.is.not.80 said:

Sir Webs,

>>snip<<

I guess it would help to at least to be familiar with the specific entry that was brought up. Anyone have a link? I see his last two submissions have the LOD/AA issues tagged to his submissions but nothing about timer issues. Maybe I'm reading too much into all of this and Avalanche's mention in the thread opener wasn't meant to be interpreted the way I am understanding it but it seemed like he was upset about cheating and then went on to associate a submission by Slinky as being an example of that despite the fact the rules allowed for them? Did I understand things correctly? If not I guess I'm asking questions about something nobody else is discussing. LOL!

chispy referenced it here, it was with an RTX Titan but the entry is no longer on the bot... but it's still on UL at this time https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32904864:

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zeropluszero said:

No one has any fucking idea what you're talking about. 

Plug your monitor back in so you can see clearly xD

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cant see it because your loser team captain made some 6950x subs that he cheated the timer on, then went on to make a forum post about how he did it, somehow got away with only having the scores and I'm assuming the thread removed.
I think Splave did the same thing with Cinebench and that was fine too though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zeropluszero said:

You cant see it because your loser team captain made some 6950x subs that he cheated the timer on, then went on to make a forum post about how he did it, somehow got away with only having the scores and I'm assuming the thread removed.
I think Splave did the same thing with Cinebench and that was fine too though. 

Most irresponsible overclocker if you have some fantasy to enlighten me take it to a pm.

10 ply xD f'n hilarious that comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, zeropluszero said:

You cant see it because your loser team captain made some 6950x subs that he cheated the timer on, then went on to make a forum post about how he did it, somehow got away with only having the scores and I'm assuming the thread removed.
I think Splave did the same thing with Cinebench and that was fine too though. 

I'm still not fluent in Australian. I think this is a compliment. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck I feel like I'm getting left out that I dont have Chris liking every single fucking comment I make. Is he a bot? 
 

56 minutes ago, avalanche said:

Most irresponsible overclocker if you have some fantasy to enlighten me take it to a pm.

10 ply xD f'n hilarious that comment.

Pipe down Shane, I was replying to Marco.

 

48 minutes ago, Splave said:

I'm still not fluent in Australian. I think this is a compliment. 

I'm generally all for things Allen posts, but that Cinebench thing was a bit rich. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many cookies you guys bet that the magical 6950x will be back with the same tweaks (  yeah right ) later on , add infinitum ... slap in the wrist and thats all !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, zeropluszero said:

I'm generally all for things Allen posts, but that Cinebench thing was a bit rich. 

 

Unless I missed something, all Allen did was expose the weakness in the benchmark and how to detect it? Not exactly sure what's rich about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, zeropluszero said:

Fuck I feel like I'm getting left out that I dont have Chris liking every single fucking comment I make. Is he a bot? 

Maybe he don't like you or your dodgy monitor :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ObscureParadox said:

Unless I missed something, all Allen did was expose the weakness in the benchmark and how to detect it? Not exactly sure what's rich about that.

Can't see anything wrong with it as well. If you find a way to cheat, publish a score and disclose the details in the thread. Mods will have to pick it up from there to make it work, no other way around it. Forcing the bot's hand, so to speak.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, zeropluszero said:

Pipe down Shane, I was replying to Marco.

Vague? Where has Marco commented in thread. I suspect your like a naughty kid deflecting blame of your misbehavior.

6 hours ago, marco.is.not.80 said:

I don't know what to respond with. I'm disappointed to say the least. Guess that's all I can say.

Pulled a rabbit out of hat or his ass to fool & delight us O.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats a cheat and whats a valid tweak, optimization? Seems we should actually publish a whole book about what has been tested over the years.

Supepi Waza - never used it did not even understand the freaking thing. Meanwhile keep stopping services, optimizing priority and lowering screen resolution, turn of explorer, turn off cores, hyperthreading. increasing clocks, bclk and tweak ram.

Catzilla - yes start 3D11 then it gets better.  a bloatware solution that improves, why not.

using 3DMArk stuff with wrong drivers is in some cases a necessary evil as the drivers are not always available and why not use an old driver that has less bloatware stuff? part of the game. but yes "inconsistent timing" is definitely an issue. (my 5960 is partially gone so will always give that these days dont even us it anymore) Lod/aa Never cared for doing such meanwhile yes nvidia inspector and using a optimized profile why not, turning of the auto slowdown of clocks on GPU why not. soldering the hardware why not.

using GPU tweak to clean up memory, closing services and turning of Windows bloatfancy screen icons sure why not.

Hwbot Prime. Used to love running it with Java 6u45 or 6u17 as it gave better scores tried others but always got lower scores. Now thats out the window with the new modified 1.0.1 version. not sure which java is best anymore but it has to be what 8 series? hmm meanwhile maybe i should load a mini linux install and run it on the machine.

Running CPUz and saving the validation as the submit validation crashes full time why not. Doing ASUS hardware down clock to be able to save the scores which otherwise would have crashed when trying to load a picture grabber seems to me suspect....but sure why not. (does that mean cpuz z still report high clocks?)

Running 3d01se sub benchers manually and in different order with 5 hours in between each to make sure the computer is cool again, sure why not if you can be bothered. 

I have more issues with someone comparing and submitting AMD graphic cards as internal when infact the cpu is a hybrid on the die. so its impossible to compete when in same category... The competition organizers need to be more careful how such is defined in the rules. when is discrete really discrete?

The biggest cheats otherwise is to me engineering samples or binned 2000 USD CPUs that no one ever reasonably can get access to as there might be 5 in the world. let the CPU lottery be just that a lottery. I dont mind that they are ranked somewhere but not in the normal leagues but to me defeats the purpose of OC-ing being a sport so should be put aside as a curiosity.

Changing bios, firmware perfectly fine to me. However i believe that if someone can modify the same and do super special mods to the same then it should be mandatory that they are published so that its not a team of 2-5 in the world only using the same.

Down grading bios to use old microcode, why not. if it then is insecure for regular users?... no worries.

Doing hardware mods to MB's to run CPU's on older never versions/ 1151 types and gain advantage that way why not? Cudos to the guys who actually dare do so as the risks are high on cpu failure and is an extreme technical competency that should be encouraged.

But no, modifying software to cheat on scores and subsets that are not declared actively deceiving the community, such should get 3 warnings and then a ban... permanently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, _mat_ said:

Can't see anything wrong with it as well. If you find a way to cheat, publish a score and disclose the details in the thread. Mods will have to pick it up from there to make it work, no other way around it. Forcing the bot's hand, so to speak.

Publicly revealing a cheat without a solution doesn't really help things in my opinion, unless your aim is to simply have the benchmark removed.

In which case if the people cheating are the 0.0001% I think it's a bad idea, if the number is far higher then it's more reasonable.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, marco.is.not.80 said:

Part 1

Regarding LN2 vs H20's submission - please realize I just learned about this as I read this thread - but maybe I'm missing some key information posted somewhere else and I couldn't find any comments on his recent results from anyone so excuse my ignorance - but the timing issue - what exactly is the problem?  Every so often after running a 3dmark benchmark I'd get an error message in my submission where it complained about timing inconsistencies. I forget the exact wording but I treated it the same way I treated the error about not having an approved driver. Since I wasn't manipulating the timer (and until Matt's recent informative XTU research was published I wouldn't even have had an idea on how to do that) I chalked it up to being an anomaly of pushing my system components too hard. If the score was better than my previous best score I would submit it. I tried to find one in my Futuremark saved history of results but couldn't but I know I have one or two somewhere. Is this the same thing that you are all talking about in regards to H20 vs LN2?

Part 2

Anyways, on a positive note - love the new changes to the site, love the new rules with the new seasonal ranking (haven't been this excited since my first few Rookie Rumbles! Feel like the Bot is new again!) and think richbastard and the other left over mods that are still keeping the ship afloat deserve some sort of trophy (that includes websmile and the other guys who may not be official any longer but still contribute on threads like these.

1. Your whole post was very good :) timing inconsistencies but you submitted as a better score. Unstable settings & the run is borked.

12 hours ago, Leeghoofd said:

my comment was full of sarcasm lads...  there's no way to win as somebody will discover a workaround to glitch the detection system... thing is we need to be able to simplify things, sadly over and over again I'm repeating myself, things evolved this badly thanks to them "skills" of a few...

If you see a dodgy score report it!!!!

Loop hole wizards 9_9 Still want to know who was the drunk kent tripped over the monitor cords & called it a tweak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Publicly revealing a cheat without a solution doesn't really help things in my opinion, unless your aim is to simply have the benchmark removed.

In which case if the people cheating are the 0.0001% I think it's a bad idea, if the number is far higher then it's more reasonable.

Very true, that's why I haven't disclosed anything meaningful to cheat with. I merely showed that it's possible to point out that there are problems that can not be neglected. So no tools and no instructions from my side, if that's what you meant. ;)
Ok, let's make XTU the exception. And I only disclosed after it has lost its global points and it's far more than a cheat manual (I hope).

In Allen's case we are talking about fooling CB R15, right? It went exactly the way it should have been. Cheat discovered and rules changed for the better. If some results with this cheat slip through, it's because of the submission system, not because of Allen.

Speaking of CB R15, this week I have successfully wrapped R11.5 and R15 with BenchMate; a project that I will make public later this year. If you are interested, follow me on FB and Twitter. Every now and then I am posting status updates about the project. That would be solution to a lot of the existing problems in the overclocking community.

Edited by _mat_
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The principle dividing tweak from cheat is clearly stated on most benchmark rule pages:

" Any software or human interaction altering the perceived speed of the benchmark program, tricking it to believe it ran faster."

Leaving HPET off when it's needed, resetting OS clock or shifting Bclk in Win8/10 on Braswell  are obviously cheats by this principle.  No benchmark rules allow modifying files.

Tweaks like WAZA in XP,  opening 3dm11 when running Catzilla, cherrypicking drivers and Java runtime and streamlining the OS are examples of tweaks that make benchmarks actually run faster.

Driver tweaks for LOD and the necessary AA adjustment are slightly grayed because, while the benchmark actually runs faster, it does so because the VGA is doing less work.  Does this fall into the same category as modifying benchmark files?  In the past, LOD has been an allowed tweak because finding a sweet spot short of MIPMAP has been considered a tweak requiring skill and time.  We are left with a history of legally tweaked submissions.  People who know how much work and trouble would be involved are reluctant to try to delete that history.  Accordingly, the rules need to continue on a level playing field with LOD and the needed AA tweaks allowed for those benchmarks where they have been allowed. Eliminating LOD tweaking on Time Spy and newer benchmarks is acceptable to me because it is possible to do without destroying a history of submissions.

I am opposed to limiting drivers to FM/UL "approved" versions.  FM is often late with new versions or omits approving beta versions.  Omega drivers have been explicitly allowed for AMD VGAs, but not approved by FM.  Wanna try benching a GTX 580?  The current crop of "approved" drivers don't play well with Fermi.  Wanna bench a Quatro or FirePro?  The pro drivers are rarely approved by FM.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jab383's third statement brings up a question GB 3&4 both will give timer issue warning and no score if software was used to increase CPU freq. Have had this happen on Bclk & FSB setups (W7), is there an explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aleslammer said:

jab383's third statement brings up a question GB 3&4 both will give timer issue warning and no score if software was used to increase CPU freq. Have had this happen on Bclk & FSB setups (W7), is there an explanation?

Apply the same fix as GPU-PI with the timer.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...