eva2000 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 (edited) Just pulled off a nice 30,132 pcmark05 score with raid 0 SSDs but futuremark submission isn't going through - so emailed them to see what's what but wondering if it's okay for hwbot submission ? http://i4memory.com/f80/dfi-x58-t3eh8-pcmark05-30k-broken-13124/ System specs Intel Core i7 920 3836A756 Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme + LGA1366 Bolt Thru kit + 2x 120x38mm Scythe UltraKaze 2000rpm 87cfm fans in push/pull DFI LP UT X58-T3EH8 R.A51 - 12/31 bios HIS HD4870x2 CAT 8.11 Hotfix (Vista) 2x1GB Cellshock PC3-14400 (Micron D9GTR) + 1GB OCZ PC3-14400 Platinum (Micron D9GTR) Ram cooling: 3x 60x25mm Sunon 23.5cfm Maglev fans 750GB Samsung HD753LJ 4x32GB OCZ Core V1 SSD Raid 0 + Highpoint RR3520LF PCI-E Raid controller 256MB Cache Pioneer DVD-RW 1KW Corsair HX1000 psu Vista Ultimate SP2 Beta 64bit vLite'd Click image for FULL LARGE screenshot edit: in response to comments made in this thread i posted my reply at http://www.hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?p=27351&posted=1#post27351 copy and paste quoting Geez guys getting their knickers in a knot MFT reserves part of the usable target drive's (SSD or regular HDD) free space for it's work (~10% of SSD drive space). You should just allow software ram based benchies too and solve the problem. Software ram disks are accessible by everyone if they want it (sometimes at a price) which is no different to how liquid helium, dry ice and LN2 are available for folks who are willing to fork out dollars for pots, dewars and related expenses. You don't see folks complaining they don't have access due to price/costs to liquid helium, dry ice and LN2 and calling a ban to such usage - well okay there are some folks calling for separate categories to cooling so they can compete. Costs of ramdisks/ssd can't be a valid argument for not allowing them, as liquid helium, dry ice and LN2 costs for pots, dewars and related expenses can also be lumped into the argument for disallowing sub zero cooling. Honestly, have no idea why folks and futuremark are so strongly against allowing memory system be a factor in a benchmark that benchmarks the entire system and should reflect real world usage. Real world facts SSDs are in use for both os and non-os disk purposes Hardware raid controllers use memory caches to improve raid/read/write performance Hard drives have a memory cache to do the same Utilising system memory based caches exist to improve I/O performance is widespread in both consumer and corporate worlds. Operating systems utilise memory system for caching. Databases have query caching (MySQL) to reduce the load on database servers. There's also Memcached to basically move databases into ramdisk storage rather than on hard drive. PHP which is widespread and utilised by allot of applications can use PHP caches like xcache, Eaccelerator and APC to cache PHP to reduce cpu loads. [*]Benchers tune their system cache/memory performance to improve their pi and even 3dmark results Pcmark05/benching pcmark05 measures overall system performance and memory system is part of that so allowing such will open up competition to see who can tune their memory system and bandwidth the best - similar to super pi, everest bandwidth that folks like to see. It still takes into account the cpu and gpu so folks tweaking that + the drive system + mem system will still come out on top eventually we have folks running e-ram/ramdisk for when they bench super pi 32m we have folks clocking and tuning the memory system to get more memory bandwidth and faster memory latency to get better pi and even squeeze out a few more points in 3dmark Folks complaining, are you so stuck in the past that you can't see the future ? In the future, memory system tuning and benching will become even more important especially with both Intel and AMD parties moving to integrated memory controller. Every benchmark run will utilise the memory system and to differing extent improvements and gains in benchmark results will occur by tuning and tweaking that memory system - be it clocking memory higher, tightening main and subtimings etc. The future is here now! Edited January 27, 2009 by eva2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Nice Windows startup speed I wish PCM05 wasnt so badly affected by RAMDisks/SSD etc...gives a totally skewed score system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKarmakazi Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Awesome score eva... its def that XP startup throwing the orb off. iirc they put an auto rejection at 225 mb/s (or there abouts). I have a valid at 217 mb/s. I would certainly hope they approve your score, or just modify the rules altogether. Especially with the newer SSD's that should be coming out this year (500mb/s+). Very impressive whether they approve or not though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva2000 Posted January 5, 2009 Author Share Posted January 5, 2009 (edited) thanks guys... I tried submitting but hwbot automated verification keeps asking me for compare url hehe Submitted via forum bot update Edited January 5, 2009 by eva2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benito Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 over 220 mb/s (xp startup) FM does not return the verification link ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKarmakazi Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 over 220 mb/s (xp startup) FM does not return the verification link ... Thank you for clarifying that! Its a rule they will have to look at and reconsider. It was put in place to prevent software ramdisks from owning the orb. But now with SSD arrays and the like, its going to be invalidating alot of valid scores... Someone email FM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Congrats George on your WR bro , well done. Those SSds are flying thru . Keep pushing it. chispy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Congrats, but you're not the only one that's done unpublishable scores due to too high XP startup... (Like youngpro for example) The FM rule is pretty goofy, but if this score is to be accepted by hwbot, it's establishing a precedent, and everyone should be able to submit PCMark scores without verification. (Which I wouldn't be totally opposed to personally) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva2000 Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 Thanks guys... Well it ain't exactly un verified, as those 4 screenshots (click image for full version) show exactly what was run. Got a reply from FM and it seems there's a chance it will go through. Will do what they suggest later today with a rerun (might as well as above you can see the 2D windows test is quite low). Hello, Thank you for contacting Futuremark. This error may be due to outdated Futuremark systeminfo software. I suggest updating your software by running VirtualMark off of our website and accepting the download/install of more recent systeminfo software. http://service.futuremark.com/virtualmark/start.action This will most likely solve your problem. Regards, Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 The futuremark people don't even know what's going on, this was an attempt by one of them years ago to block ramdisk scores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva2000 Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 The futuremark people don't even know what's going on, this was an attempt by one of them years ago to block ramdisk scores. you referring to this attempt as the suggestion for me to run virtualmark ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Nahhh...the 220 cap for hdd startup. I actually remember trying to deal with them over it a couple of years ago and it was like talking to a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva2000 Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 I see. So tried run Virtualmark and install the prompted software first and got Virtualmark of 26,000 This time split my 4x32GB SSD Raid 0 into 2 partitions of equal size M and N drive and then did a Pcmark05 run and got much higher startup scores but 1/6th the speed in General HDD Unfortunately, still get systeminfo corrupted message on submission page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva2000 Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 Then ran Pcmark05 again but off 2nd SSD partition on N drive and got a nice boost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipro5 Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 I think that it's NOT FAIR for ALL OTHERS that have hited OVER 30000 to "put an hwbot score" in this bench.... ALL of them/us have benched hard to achive a score by "FM rules" AND "hwbot rules" as we did... We DIDN'T upload our 32000+ PCMarks and wait for FM to approve it you know......... We benched "by the rules"..... WHEN and IF FM approves such scores, THEN we could upload our scores to hwbot BUT NOT NOW........If you can understand what I mean.... Do you know HOW MANY have hited over 30k in the past WITHOUT "FM rules"?....MANY....BUT NONE have uploaded his score in FM or in hwbot to get points in a bench that it's NOT APPROVED YET... FAIRNESS for ALL....... IF FM approves it, THEN you can upload it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Congrats, but you're not the only one that's done unpublishable scores due to too high XP startup... (Like youngpro for example) The FM rule is pretty goofy, but if this score is to be accepted by hwbot, it's establishing a precedent, and everyone should be able to submit PCMark scores without verification. (Which I wouldn't be totally opposed to personally) I think that it's NOT FAIR for ALL OTHERS that have hited OVER 30000 to "put an hwbot score" in this bench.... ALL of them/us have benched hard to achive a score by "FM rules" AND "hwbot rules" as we did... We DIDN'T upload our 32000+ PCMarks and wait for FM to approve it you know......... We benched "by the rules"..... WHEN and IF FM approves such scores, THEN we could upload our scores to hwbot BUT NOT NOW........If you can understand what I mean.... Do you know HOW MANY have hited over 30k in the past WITHOUT "FM rules"?....MANY....BUT NONE have uploaded his score in FM or in hwbot to get points in a bench that it's NOT APPROVED YET... FAIRNESS for ALL....... IF FM approves it, THEN you can upload it...... Both remarks are 100% valid and although we have allowed WR's without FM links in the past (FM links were added to the score the next day or so), it's not our intention to 'hand-pick' the top scores at all; everyone plays be the same rules. This issue is being addressed within the crew as we speak, so I expect a fair solution by the end of the day. Of course I hope FM just approved the 30k score Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxi Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Nahhh...the 220 cap for hdd startup. I actually remember trying to deal with them over it a couple of years ago and it was like talking to a wall. They did eventually listen and implement the 220 cap allowing the use of i-Ram's while still preventing ram disks, that was a good thing. I'm more stunned tha someone actually got a reply from Futuremark at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 My questions were always answered in the past. I've contacted FM as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 i Think That It's Not Fair For All Others That Have Hited Over 30000 To "put An Hwbot Score" In This Bench.... All Of Them/us Have Benched Hard To Achive A Score By "fm Rules" And "hwbot Rules" As We Did... We Didn't Upload Our 32000+ Pcmarks And Wait For Fm To Approve It You Know......... We Benched "by The Rules"..... When And If Fm Approves Such Scores, Then We Could Upload Our Scores To Hwbot But Not Now........if You Can Understand What I Mean.... Do You Know How Many Have Hited Over 30k In The Past Without "fm Rules"?....many....but None Have Uploaded His Score In Fm Or In Hwbot To Get Points In A Bench That It's Not Approved Yet... Fairness For All....... If Fm Approves It, Then You Can Upload It...... Qft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) Hey eva2000 very nice run there ! Congratz ! I am looking at your HDD score and find that puzzling on how your score is so high. I am not sure but there might be a problem with PCMark05 and how it's getting that score. I have a 7x 32gb MTRON PRO SSD with ARC-1231ML controller all setup in Raid 0 atm. It will be 9x SSD's very soon, I had to RMA 2 drives and awaiting the return of them. When they come in I will restest with those added. I just ran a full PCMark05 run and recieved this http://img504.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pcmark05raid0runhh1.jpg The HDD score of 71,255 which is on par with the tests we ran with DVnation and on my bench for this Raid and SSD's when I purchased this setup. I get ~950mb/s bandwidth when I had it up and running with 8x SSD's. Does a HDD score of 500k+ seem out of place ? I know you are much more experiance at benching than I, so I do not question your HDD score, it just seems a bit high to me. Thanks so much and please forgive me if I am totally off base here edit: forgot to add my bench equipment removed bench equipment list and added it to my sig, sorry for the edit Edited January 6, 2009 by Buckeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxi Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 My questions were always answered in the past. I've contacted FM as well Sure if you have a contact. Going thru their support email (which it appears eva did) is a different story. Lot's of people reported unanswered email 6 or so mo ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKarmakazi Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Sure if you have a contact. Going thru their support email (which it appears eva did) is a different story. Lot's of people reported unanswered email 6 or so mo ago. I myself emailed them after I got a few irams and ran into te problem myself. Never got an answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 For those who're interested: FM has already replied and is looking if there's an easy solution or direct fix for the issue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Is the fix not just commenting out a couple lines of code at the server end? if (test 1>220) return fail else .................... (or along those lines) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKarmakazi Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Is the fix not just commenting out a couple lines of code at the server end? if (test 1>220) return fail else .................... (or along those lines) I assume they want to keep the protection against software ramdisks in place though. Removing the cap altogether would allow them again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts