Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Benchmate 0.9.3 is out, supporting Geekbench 5


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, l0ud_sil3nc3 said:

You still need a license to use any version of Geekbench whether you're on using it standalone or integrated through Benchmate, so saying that Benchmate is "taking steps towards subverting Geekbench's licensing code." seems like fake news.

True...ish. You won't get a score to submit under the BenchMate rankings without the latest version(0.9.3) AND/OR a paid version of GB though. Not sure how/if that applies to GB's "licensing code". It shouldn't. Also not sure what you mean by "need a license to use any version of Geekbench". So far as I know...the "tryout" versions are all "unlicensed". Using their own definition of "licensed" anyway(which would only apply to the paid versions). Since the "license"(their words) is what you're buying from them to use the "unlimited" version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

K gonna play Devils advocate for a brief moment: We used Geekbench at the G.Skill Booth for the live competition. Scores were competitive and with a maxmem restriction it was a fair scalable/twea

I'm glad you are here now, I really hope a solution can be found by all the parties working together. Even though I initially called to remove geekbench from hwbot, I would rather see it stay. I also

Sorry for the late reply, I was busy breaking my hand and visiting the hospital. 👌 @jfpoole I think it's great that you are reaching out to the community now and taking these problems seriou

Posted Images

On 9/7/2019 at 2:43 PM, MrGenius said:

True...ish. You won't get a score to submit under the BenchMate rankings without the latest version(0.9.3) AND/OR a paid version of GB though. Not sure how/if that applies to GB's "licensing code". It shouldn't. Also not sure what you mean by "need a license to use any version of Geekbench". So far as I know...the "tryout" versions are all "unlicensed". Using their own definition of "licensed" anyway(which would only apply to the paid versions). Since the "license"(their words) is what you're buying from them to use the "unlimited" version.

giphy.gif

If you don't have a license you can only bench in 32 bit only which is completely pointless if you're competitively benchmarking as you 100% need to run the benchmark in 64 bit to get a proper score. So when I say you need a license to use any version of the Geekbench, I mean with out a key you might as well not even bench it since the score will not be remotely competitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, l0ud_sil3nc3 said:

Does the save file validate without a license when doing this?

With GB Tryout there is no save file, the result gets uploaded directly to the GB Browser: http://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/8687747 note the version is Geekbench 3.4.2 Tryout for Windows x86 (64-bit)

This is the hwbot entry: 3950119_cbjaust_geekbench3___multi_core_phenom_ii_x6_1100t_be_12152_points/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...but we're talking about BenchMate. And no...you don't need a licensed version of GB to run the 64-bit benches...or to get a valid datafile. With BM v0.9.3 anyway. Jesus...pay attention people. It's not that complicated.

EDIT: Forgot to mention...GB5 also runs on 7. Despite them claiming it doesn't.

Edited by MrGenius
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MrGenius said:

Yeah...but we're talking about BenchMate. And no...you don't need a licensed version of GB to run the 64-bit benches...or to get a valid datafile. With BM v0.9.3 anyway. Jesus...pay attention people. It's not that complicated.

EDIT: Forgot to mention...GB5 also runs on 7. Despite them claiming it doesn't.

What are you talking about? Benchmate does NOT subvert the need for a license.

2019-09-10_1015.png

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Crew

Initial versions of BenchMate had some issues to generate a score when using a non licenced GB version, Matt had it fixed ( not sure anymore maybe in 0.8.1 )

So at least it generates a score for the  32bit suite. No idea how your BenchMate runs GB in 64bit mode without a licence code Mrgenius

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Every version of BenchMate before 0.9 could only handle a licensed Geekbench. That was a "bug", that actually led to some people buying the full license during the BenchMate testing competition. I have a licensed GB version myself and therefore did not anticipate the differences. BenchMate 0.9 fixed that and makes Tryout versions available as well.

I also think that BenchMate (in any version) does not in any way subvert any license requirements of Geekbench, neither by intent nor by mistake. All Tryout limitations are honored, BenchMate just fixes the timer issues by checking if the timer functions used are skewing in between the run time (not on every timestamp, just before and after the run). The capturing of results is done by tracking and parsing the standard output return value of the inner geekbench executable. You can do this yourself if you just call geekbench_x86_64.exe for example with the parameters "--cpu --backend". This results in a JSON after the run has finished. You can use programs like Process Monitor or API Monitor to get insights like this into applications. There is nothing devious about being curious about what is running on your system.

@jfpoole Any chance you have reconsidered your claim to pursue legal action for supporting Geekbench? I'm not talking about distribution, that's off the table. But if you give your official approval here for the support, I think we can bury the hatchet and leave things as they are.

If I can't get official approval, I will remove the Geekbench's from BenchMate in the upcoming version sometime in the next few days. Subsequently we should go forward with the community decision of letting Geekbench either stay or go. So the future is in your own hands. :)

About the future of BenchMate: I'm working on the integration of pifast right now. It will have its own command line interface wrapper, which is kind of cool.This will enable BenchMate to run all different kinds of command line benchmarks securely!

Having learnt from the past, I'm also in contact with the developer of pifast and he has given his preliminary approval for integration. I'm expecting final confirmation after I've sent him the first screens of the new wrapper.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jfpoole said:

Sorry, I'm still not comfortable with Benchmate integrating Geekbench.  If that means HWBot no longer uses Geekbench then so be it.

You are shooting yourself in the foot. You don't have to like bemchmate but if it is where benchmarks are heading then Geekbench might no longer have enough support to continue development. I wish something could have been worked out because I don't think you are being malicious and I think it is only going to end up hurting you in the long run. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Benchmate integration introduces a number of issues for us, both technical and legal.  On the technical side, Benchmate has introduced issues that have prevented Geekbench from working properly, or have prevented Geekbench from accurately measuring performance.  On the legal size, what if Benchmate's modifications to Geekbench cause Geekbench to delete data from a user's system and we get sued because of it?

We may be shooting ourselves in the foot here, but I fear this is very much a damned if we do, damned if we don't decision in which case I'd rather make the decision that gives us the most control over our destiny.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jfpoole said:

Benchmate integration introduces a number of issues for us, both technical and legal.  On the technical side, Benchmate has introduced issues that have prevented Geekbench from working properly, or have prevented Geekbench from accurately measuring performance.  On the legal size, what if Benchmate's modifications to Geekbench cause Geekbench to delete data from a user's system and we get sued because of it?

We may be shooting ourselves in the foot here, but I fear this is very much a damned if we do, damned if we don't decision in which case I'd rather make the decision that gives us the most control over our destiny.

I might have missed something but having just run gb in benchmate and standalone there doesn't seem to be an issue with score accuracy.  The likely hood of Benchmate deleting files is not high and the likelihood of it being blamed on you is even lower since gb code is not being modified. I also don't think that people using benchmate are concerned about the stability or integrity of their os I am pretty sure most of them have an nlited or an accronis image for their benching os. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasting your time man. A guy with the mindset that geek bench integrated into bench mate could cause someone to lose files then sue him is not someone we are interested involved here. I didn't know that NASA was running geekbench at mission control and may cause communication from the international space station to lose contact.

He secured your benchmark for free and broadened your market. Why don't you fire your "crack staff" and hire him instead. 

Maybe benchmate should just use the open source computing formulas to make their own. Edsger Wybe Dijkstra is rolling over in his grave right now.

 

 

Edited by Splave
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jfpoole said:

Benchmate integration introduces a number of issues for us, both technical and legal.  On the technical side, Benchmate has introduced issues that have prevented Geekbench from working properly, or have prevented Geekbench from accurately measuring performance.  On the legal size, what if Benchmate's modifications to Geekbench cause Geekbench to delete data from a user's system and we get sued because of it?

We may be shooting ourselves in the foot here, but I fear this is very much a damned if we do, damned if we don't decision in which case I'd rather make the decision that gives us the most control over our destiny.

It's your decision, sure. But your accusations are baseless. There was a small contention bug in the driver for 32 bit HPETs only because of your 14-million-timer-calls bug. That has been fixed on the first day of the release of Geekbench 5 and the BenchMate support!

Also I'd like to sum up what BenchMate has done for you and your benchmark, just to make this perfectly clear:

Because of my work you were made aware ...

  1. that you left some profiling setting on that called QPC for 14 million times in a subtest, which influenced the result depending on the QPC's configured timer.
  2. that neither Geekbench 3 or 4, neither your latest version 5 has ever mitigated the "LAPIC timer bug" on nearly all AMD platforms and Intel Pre-Skylake on Windows 8 and 10.

You have fixed the first bug thanks to my report. So basically I am resposible that Geekbench 5 is measuring performance more accurately in one of the subtests.

As for the second bug, if you give this a little thought, all scores in your database with systems affected by the "LAPIC timer bug" that were not done on Windows 7 are invalid.

So if you really want to blame someone for inaccurate scores, blame yourself, not BenchMate.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@_mat_

Technically your job was what you are... Brilliant!

BUT I'm a salesman... So I would have approached them and all the others, totally different...

"dear company x,

on hwbot... Blabla... Competitive benchmarking... I developed... Sustainable results... A must have for upcoming submissions...

are u interested in integrating your sw? If yes, here's my account number.

 

Thx an br

Mat"

 

I know it's a bit funny, but u did all the specific work, found General issues and now they want to sue you?

IMHO, that's even more funny tho

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback (and the flowers), @Dancop 

I've learned from all this troubles, that I am not going to add another benchmark without official approval. The Geekbench integration took many days to do it perfectly right, although not all is lost, these techniques can be used for other benchmarks now (child process protection and tracking for example).

Last week I've contacted the devs of pifast, wPrime and CINEBENCH. Only the pifast dev has answered, all others did not. I'm not surprised that Maxon (CINEBENCH) is not taking me seriously. There is no business in this, so I'm low priority at best.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jfpoole said:

Sorry, I'm still not comfortable with Benchmate integrating Geekbench.  If that means HWBot no longer uses Geekbench then so be it.

Your logic is flawed Mr Poole, writing above. Customers use softwares at their own risk anyway. No one is held accountable.

Purchase of your software I'm sure is largely due to HWbot & members benchmarking here. That's steered to your website.

Overclocking pushing your max system performance your not ... as you say below in bold.

 

Geekbench to delete data from a user's system and we get sued because of it?

 

^ This o.O just wow. Other needed files are not kept on that operating system if you risk data loss.  As above OS is redone

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

... all others did not. I'm not surprised that Maxon (CINEBENCH) is not taking me seriously. There is no business in this, so I'm low priority at best.

Try for some of the Beta Benches Mat. Sure they'll listen ... 

As for Geek ... is that dead to us now? No purchases No points on the bot 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@_mat_ Oh, if it isn't clear enough from our previous interactions already, you have my permission to integrate BenchMate with y-cruncher. Just keep me updated with what you have in mind.

I'm willing to make any minor changes that are needed if they would make the integration easier and/or more secure. I just won't have the time resources for anything significant. If it's useful, I can also give you access to the source code for the HWBOT submitter and verification algorithm for the stage 1 protection of the validation files. (which is all that's currently enforced for HWBOT anyway)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
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...