_mat_ Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 Thank you, @Mysticial. Your input on the integration is also very much appreciated, which is why I want to spend more time on y-cruncher, working on this together! I think there is a lot of unused potential in your benchmark and frankly it's one of the best, most optimized benchmark code out there. It's time to get your benchmark points. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzie Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 i cant beleive this, here we have mat and others trying to and indeed endeavouring to make BOT a safer and better place to bench in with calculated changes for the better for ALL and we then have the other that come up with all the excuses under the sun as to the negativities of it all with no basis or facts of their ridiculous baseless statements do you people walk around in life all day with your heads up your arses , or were you just born that way ?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfpoole Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 @Mythical tech I am being paranoid here but at the same time we've had legal threats for weirder things in the past so maybe the paranoia is justified! @_mat_ FWIW removing the profiling code (which wasn't controlled via a setting) didn't change Rigid Body Physics performance on any of our ~150 test systems. I don't expect this issue will affect the majority of our users. It's trivial for us to filter out results that are potentially affected by the LAPIC timer bug -- we can exclude results gathered from Windows 10, or from systems that have a non-standard BCLK, or any one of the number of system metrics we collect. What we can't do is filter out Benchmate results because there's no way for us to identify those results! Again, I'll reiterate and say I understand that the community here is upset but I'm not comfortable with the Benchmate integration. If that means Geekbench is removed from HWBot that's disappointing but it's most certainly not my call to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keeph8n Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 Why not get all the “heads of state” involved and conference call this and see what can be done. Hash it out real time. Mat, Mr Poole, someone from HWBOT, and maybe a few of the top benchers. Conference call this shit and get it all out in the open. All the fears, questions, concerns, etc. i enjoy benching Geekbench. Clearly I spent some of the morning yesterday snagging the score I did. I enjoy using BenchMate as it secures different benches so that I don’t have to worry about issues. Cleary i I would love to see Primate Labs and Mat work together to get the integration hashed out and working together. It’s best for the community going forward imo. Just some ramblings from a random nobody bencher. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 (edited) It's pretty clear to me that this is all done. Time to move on people. Edited September 10, 2019 by Mr.Scott 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_mat_ Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 30 minutes ago, jfpoole said: FWIW removing the profiling code (which wasn't controlled via a setting) didn't change Rigid Body Physics performance on any of our ~150 test systems. Try HPET enabled for the OS (useplatformclock) on Kaby Lake X, Skylake X and above as well as Ryzen and Threadripper. It will have a huge impact. 34 minutes ago, jfpoole said: It's trivial for us to filter out results that are potentially affected by the LAPIC timer bug -- we can exclude results gathered from Windows 10, or from systems that have a non-standard BCLK, or any one of the number of system metrics we collect This can be a marker for some scores, but in the end it's undetectable. Also what's a non-standard bclock? It can vary by itself due to fluctuations by mainboards and on several generations even some XMP settings can alter it. So you would get false negatives and false positives. Please don't downplay the issue, this is also about the sanctity of your result database and the trust in your (Windows) results. 40 minutes ago, jfpoole said: What we can't do is filter out Benchmate results because there's no way for us to identify those results! That can be easily arranged. But it needs cooperation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysticial Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 21 minutes ago, keeph8n said: Why not get all the “heads of state” involved and conference call this and see what can be done. Hash it out real time. Mat, Mr Poole, someone from HWBOT, and maybe a few of the top benchers. Conference call this shit and get it all out in the open. All the fears, questions, concerns, etc. i enjoy benching Geekbench. Clearly I spent some of the morning yesterday snagging the score I did. I enjoy using BenchMate as it secures different benches so that I don’t have to worry about issues. Cleary i I would love to see Primate Labs and Mat work together to get the integration hashed out and working together. It’s best for the community going forward imo. Just some ramblings from a random nobody bencher. My guess is that it's unlikely to happen unless someone sponsors it. There's no clear way to make a ton of money catering to HWBOT. As there is no benefit, it makes zero sense from a business perspective to take on any risks no matter how far-fetched they are. Without a source of money to drive things, the only real support will be from benchmarks made by non-profit enthusiasts who don't care about the money. (Technically, y-cruncher isn't completely non-profit as I do require commercial licensing for the more extreme usecases which HWBOT currently does not fall under.) But the idea still stands. I wrote y-cruncher because it's a hobby, not because I'm trying to make money. I have a day job for that. That said, generally speaking, these "non-profit" benchmarks aren't going to look or feel as professional as the for-profit stuff. For example, PiFast and y-cruncher lack GUIs. After all, these are single-person projects by someone who doesn't know or doesn't care enough about GUI. (Personally, I'm a backend programmer, not a GUI programmer.) ----- As someone who loves mischievous thought experiments, an alternate (but childish) approach is to compromise all the big name benchmarks. For example, publicly release a hack application that DLL-injects the timers to compromise these big-name benchmarks. (IOW, make it very easy to cheat them.) Then have many people (botnet?) massively submit cheated benchmarks into the respective databases. Make them indistinguishable from real results. This will force a hand, but it obviously won't make you too many friends. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_mat_ Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, Mysticial said: As someone who loves mischievous thought experiments, an alternate (but childish) approach is to compromise all the big name benchmarks. For example, publicly release a hack application that DLL-injects the timers to compromise these big-name benchmarks. (IOW, make it very easy to cheat them.) Then have many people (botnet?) massively submit cheated benchmarks into the respective databases. Make them indistinguishable from real results. This will force a hand, but it obviously won't make you too many friends. Have at it! You can already do this with Cheat Engine, but to crack 3DMark for example you need my TimerBench (menu -> Measure Process...). I have reported this to Intel and UL/Futuremark 2 years ago and it changed nothing. That's where BenchMate actually started. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysticial Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 11 minutes ago, _mat_ said: Have at it! You can already do this with Cheat Engine, but to crack 3DMark for example you need my TimerBench (menu -> Measure Process...). I have reported this to Intel and UL/Futuremark 2 years ago and it changed nothing. That's where BenchMate actually started. Great! Part 1 done. Now we just need to advertise it and get everyone in the world to submit fraudulent scores! 4 minutes ago, avalanche said: mysticialmat@benchmark.com Yeah if you could add gui ... that makes the benchmark more interesting for eye candy or run realtime as x265 does. While I have a vision for what such a GUI would look like, it's unlikely that I'm personally gonna ever do it. I have neither the expertise, time, nor interest to do it. But there is a partially completed API layer that would allow 3rd parties to integrate with y-cruncher and become the GUI themselves. But realistically speaking, unless there's someone willing and able to volunteer that kind of time, it's not going to happen. Quote Start small make your own benches & gain popularity = dollars sponsorship. Benchmate it's starting small steps ... but when it gets going, other big time software companies come to you to bundle theirs. Yeah, been there done that in multiple ways (specifically with y-cruncher). It's not that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bones Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 (edited) To me I don't see this going any further. I've noted more than once Mr. Poole has expressed concern/worry about getting sued and since he's running a business that's understandable, yet at the same time a solution could be worked out IF all parties involved were willing to. That much I'm certain of. However Mr. Poole has made is clear he has no desire to do such and doesn't matter whether it could be potentially good for the bench as in increasing exposure and interest in the bench..... Which would in turn mean more licenses for it sold. Clearly his mind is made up and I see that from what's been said along the way with the back and forth banter in the thread between himself and Mat along with other comments. In short: With all this, worrying about it is pointless - Drop it and move on, there will always be other benchies to take it's place later. Edited September 11, 2019 by Bones 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splave Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 14 hours ago, Mysticial said: @_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) Sounds like we have found light at the end of the tunnel 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGenius Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 (edited) So…let's just run it like we run 3 & 4. Like I said...it runs just fine on 7. What's the problem with that? Other than the obvious problems. Like not being able to submit scores without a datafile(that can only be had via BM). And having the compute scores going under the processor used...instead of the graphics card. Simply....get over all your pissing and moaning, make a rules page, fix those things so we can submit scores properly...and let's play ball. Oh...and do you want to know 1 good reason why GB should NOT be run with BM? Because that precludes all the 32-bit systems that can't run BM, but can run GB 3 & 4 just fine. Like systems running EVERY 32-bit processor ever made(maybe not all...but a HUGE number of them CAN run GB 3 & 4 but CANNOT run BM). And that's a stupid thing to do. Artificially limiting things so only modern hardware can be used that is. Which is exactly the case with BM and GB 3 & 4 anyway. I know it's a little off topic(since GB 5 is strictly 64-bit). But I feel it needs mentioned here. Edited September 12, 2019 by MrGenius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAGG Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 I know this might be really unpopular and slightly unrelated, but i liked Hwbprime and for sure would welcome a well integrated and safe version made/integrated by _mat_ Just a random suggestion since we're looking for new benches 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_mat_ Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 (edited) 44 minutes ago, MrGenius said: Oh...and do you want to know 1 good reason why GB should NOT be run with BM? Because that precludes all the 32-bit systems that can't run BM, but can run GB 3 & 4 just fine. Like systems running EVERY 32-bit processor ever made(maybe not all...but a HUGE number of them CAN run GB 3 & 4 but CANNOT run BM). And that's a stupid thing to do. Artificially limiting things so only modern hardware can be used that is. Which is exactly the case with BM and GB 3 & 4 anyway. I know it's a little off topic(since GB 5 is strictly 64-bit). But I feel it needs mentioned here. No, Benchmate runs fine on 32 bit as well and Windows 7. I've tried a Core 2 Duo when testing 0.9 and it worked fine too. Oh, I just noticed that I have no clue what you are talking about. Edited September 12, 2019 by _mat_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_mat_ Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 (edited) 53 minutes ago, TAGG said: I know this might be really unpopular and slightly unrelated, but i liked Hwbprime and for sure would welcome a well integrated and safe version made/integrated by _mat_ Just a random suggestion since we're looking for new benches Impossible with the current state of the HWBOT submission API. It took less than 5 minutes to get the encryption key and 5 more to roll my own data files. Java is also an unwise choice to make benchmarks with. Edited September 12, 2019 by _mat_ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysticial Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 31 minutes ago, _mat_ said: Impossible with the current state of the HWBOT submission API. I took less than 5 minutes to get the encryption key and 5 more to roll my own data files. Java is also an unwise choice to make benchmarks with. Is the key an unobfuscated plain text string or something? (not saying mine is much better...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_mat_ Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mysticial said: Is the key an unobfuscated plain text string or something? (not saying mine is much better...) Yes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGenius Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, _mat_ said: No, Benchmate runs fine on 32 bit as well and Windows 7. I've tried a Core 2 Duo when testing 0.9 and it worked fine too. Oh, I just noticed that I have no clue what you are talking about. I've been unable to get any version of BM to run on W7 Ultimate 32 and any s478 P4/M. So that's where I'm coming from. I suppose I'll send you a bug report or 2(pretty sure I already did). Maybe you can fix it... And yeah...it's the coherent English I speak. Nobody understands that these days... Edited September 12, 2019 by MrGenius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_mat_ Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 HWiNFO supports Pentium 4 as far as I know. That's about the minimum requirement that BenchMate needs. Nevertheless, consider BenchMate to be more directed to modern platforms. I will fix bugs on old platforms if I can of course, but will focus more on heavily used hardware. A bug report is always welcome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGenius Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 Bug report sent. Pentium 4 1.8GHz Willamette 256 ASUS P4P800-VM Tried... bcdedit /set debug off bcdedit /set testsigning on Still won't run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_mat_ Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Was the system rebooted afterwards? If yes, please post the output of bcdedit /enum here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGenius Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Yes, rebooted afterwards. Here's that... Windows Boot Manager -------------------- identifier {bootmgr} device partition=D: description Windows Boot Manager locale en-US inherit {globalsettings} default {current} resumeobject {65541ec8-d19b-11e9-bd1b-d40162ba09a9} displayorder {ntldr} {current} toolsdisplayorder {memdiag} timeout 5 Windows Legacy OS Loader ------------------------ identifier {ntldr} device partition=D: path \ntldr description Windows XP Professional Windows Boot Loader ------------------- identifier {current} device partition=C: path \Windows\system32\winload.exe description Windows 7 Ultimate locale en-US inherit {bootloadersettings} recoverysequence {65541eca-d19b-11e9-bd1b-d40162ba09a9} recoveryenabled Yes testsigning Yes osdevice partition=C: systemroot \Windows resumeobject {65541ec8-d19b-11e9-bd1b-d40162ba09a9} nx OptIn debug No 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_mat_ Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 On 9/13/2019 at 1:33 AM, MrGenius said: Bug report sent. Pentium 4 1.8GHz Willamette 256 ASUS P4P800-VM Tried... bcdedit /set debug off bcdedit /set testsigning on Still won't run. I had a gook look at this and BenchMate 0.10 will work correctly on Windows 7 with 32 bit. It doesn't support kernel code integrity checks and there were other minor bugs that needed to be addressed. It should work with the next release and I hope you will have the time to take another look. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPII Posted December 29, 2020 Share Posted December 29, 2020 @_mat_ if I may ask, I've done like two fresh new windows 10 installs.... I usually used Windows 7 for my benchmarks but seen that no support for Ampere I actually cannot use it anymore. However, I've gotten the latest benchmate as in 0.10.5 but for some reason it does not except Geekbench being incorporated. Is this to do with the issue regarding the Geekbench developers wanting to go to court, if so, then what a pitty. I've submitted many Geekbench results using Benchmate without an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keeph8n Posted December 29, 2020 Share Posted December 29, 2020 2 hours ago, VPII said: @_mat_ if I may ask, I've done like two fresh new windows 10 installs.... I usually used Windows 7 for my benchmarks but seen that no support for Ampere I actually cannot use it anymore. However, I've gotten the latest benchmate as in 0.10.5 but for some reason it does not except Geekbench being incorporated. Is this to do with the issue regarding the Geekbench developers wanting to go to court, if so, then what a pitty. I've submitted many Geekbench results using Benchmate without an issue. BM 0.9.3 supports GB3/4/5 out of the box, but is no longer being supported for updates. 30XX series cards have drivers available for Windows 7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.