eva2000 Posted January 7, 2009 Author Share Posted January 7, 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! Awesome news Yes i went through FM's online support contact form to contact them, waiting on their reply to my last email after i tried their suggested virtualmark workaround and it didn't work. As I told FM and in my original linked post in first post, I used OCZ support forum's stickies for Vista tweaks/registry and MFT to improve OCZ SSD performance particularly for improving random writes on OCZ SSD - total performance can be improved 10-20x fold depending on benchmarks It's my first time using Vista SP2 beta as I usually SP1 so not sure if SP2 played a factor it the speeds but I also vLite with latest hotfixed and integrated update install cds http://i4memory.com/f78/vista-ultimate-sp1-64bit-vlite-build-5582/ and http://i4memory.com/f78/list-vista-post-sp1-32bit-64bit-update-hotfixes-etc-9492/ which also improve SSD performance as since day 1 I owned my OCZ SSDs, I have never experienced any stuttering/freezes or issues with my OCZ Core SSD like other folks have experienced on either onboard ICH10R or on Highpoint RR3520LF PCI-E controller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeguava Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 looks like this communication resulted in a sad development - we are back to the software ram based results! Let's see who's ramdrive software is best... #1 spot on ORB is already ownd by a software ram... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Ugh, you can't be serious. :-/ Optimally we'd need the limit lifted and constant vigilance from the community. (On hwbot this doesn't tend to be an issue) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeguava Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) Ugh, you can't be serious. :-/ Optimally we'd need the limit lifted and constant vigilance from the community. (On hwbot this doesn't tend to be an issue) problem is - very very hard to distinguish between hardware and software in some cases. I can beat many software ramdrives with hardware - but not all. One way would be to limit PCMark05 only to be benchable/publishable on the OS install drive. This would prevent most software ramdrive based scores... Would be a simple update to PCMark05, but doubt that Futuremark has the brains to implement such a fix. Edited January 19, 2009 by mikeguava Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipro5 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Bad news indeed..... Now we have no "action" to bench PCMark..... A friend could - some years ago - do ~3500 marks in XP start up with software ramdrive.... Bad news... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeguava Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Bad news indeed..... Now we have no "action" to bench PCMark..... A friend could - some years ago - do ~3500 marks in XP start up with software ramdrive.... Bad news... ...yep bad news... would have enjoyed some "action" from you in PCMark05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipro5 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 ...yep bad news... would have enjoyed some "action" from you in PCMark05 I propably won't bench it again under these conditions M8....aint' worth it any more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Let's not overreact . First of all, even if FM would be allowing software based ramdisks (or just provide verification links for it), HWBot will not accept software ramdisk scores, even WITH verification link. I reckon it's important to request yet another fix (solution of Mike seems to be the easiest) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelaras Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Are you saying that you're gonna make a new rule with a "cap" or "limit" in xp startup let's say ??? What value do you think is appropriate ? Something like 3 i-ram raid0 ? 4 i-ram ??? 2 ssd raid 0??? Give us a value cause i want to run pcmark in the next few days :D:D:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeguava Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) Let's not overreact . First of all, even if FM would be allowing software based ramdisks (or just provide verification links for it), HWBot will not accept software ramdisk scores, even WITH verification link. I reckon it's important to request yet another fix (solution of Mike seems to be the easiest) the problem will be to distinguish between software ramdrives and creative RAID array solutions etc. For example I can configure a single Iram to hit over 800mb/s at XP startup - pretty much the same 800mb/s I can get with one of the popular free software ramdrives. Now how can we tell if a certain score is an Advanced Hardware Based Drive or a slow software ramdrive? I personally got into PCMark a long time ago, for the reason of finding the max possible overall systemspeed - which always entailed insane drive arrays. It always is fun for me to find a new way to speed up the transfers, startup etc. I would greatly miss this part of PCMark. Only way I can see to prevent this as mentioned before - would be only allowing the OS partition to be benchable. But even for this solution, there "might" be workarounds - depending on how good the "update - fix" would be coded. I assume that such an update might require a bit of work from Futuremark's coders - not sure if they have the budget for such a thing at the moment...considering the fact that they haven't been doing anything lately to fix?/upgrade the ORB.... Edited January 21, 2009 by mikeguava Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Are you saying that you're gonna make a new rule with a "cap" or "limit" in xp startup let's say ???What value do you think is appropriate ? Something like 3 i-ram raid0 ? 4 i-ram ??? 2 ssd raid 0??? Give us a value cause i want to run pcmark in the next few days :D:D:D There are no plans to cap any subtest at HWBot . the problem will be to distinguish between software ramdrives and creative RAID array solutions etc. For example I can configure a single Iram to hit over 800mb/s at XP startup - pretty much the same 800mb/s I can get with one of the popular free software ramdrives. Now how can we tell if a certain score is an Advanced Hardware Based Drive or a slow software ramdrive? Is the difference noticeable in other harddisk subtests? Haven't been able to test iRam versus software ramdisk. Only way I can see to prevent this as mentioned before - would be only allowing the OS partition to be benchable. But even for this solution, there "might" be workarounds - depending on how good the "update - fix" would be coded. I assume that such an update might require a bit of work from Futuremark's coders - not sure if they have the budget for such a thing at the moment...considering the fact that they haven't been doing anything lately to fix?/upgrade the ORB.... At first sight, this certainly seems to be the most elegant solution, but it'll give problems for those who, for instance, want to run Vista using 1 iRam. Plus, like you said, there might be a workaround for this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelaras Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 So , as long it's not software ramdrive , will you approve a score that was made even with 8 SSD Raid0 ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 So , as long it's not software ramdrive , will you approve a score that was made even with 8 SSD Raid0 ??? Correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelaras Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 OK then . Thanks !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Correct good news indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeguava Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Is the difference noticeable in other harddisk subtests? Haven't been able to test iRam versus software ramdisk. You can not tell between software ram and MFT or similar configed drives. But then running MFT on cache drive is not much different from running software ram - data gets dumped without getting written as fast as your system memory can... At first sight, this certainly seems to be the most elegant solution, but it'll give problems for those who, for instance, want to run Vista using 1 iRam. Plus, like you said, there might be a workaround for this as well. Works fine in PCMark Vantage to limit ORB benching on OS drive. Vista on 1 Iram??? Been doing that for quiet a while...vlite is our friend in need... who needs a Vista that is bigger than 2gb??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 You can not tell between software ram and MFT or similar configed drives. But then running MFT on cache drive is not much different from running software ram - data gets dumped without getting written as fast as your system memory can... Okay. Please don't ruin the game now, Mike, please don't submit another score with the software hdd. Thanks Works fine in PCMark Vantage to limit ORB benching on OS drive.Vista on 1 Iram??? Been doing that for quiet a while...vlite is our friend in need... who needs a Vista that is bigger than 2gb??? PCMark Vantage has already the limitation of benching on your OS drive? Then I certainly don't understand why FM do the same for PCM05! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) Guys , a good dedicated Raid card with 4 or more SSds its legit as far as i know ,even using OS tweaks , Its NOT A SOFTWARE RAMDISK. People needs to understand we cannot be using i-rams forever , SSds its new technology and we have to get used to the steps forward in technology not get stuck in time with i-rams only. Thats my opinion , but a valid one. My run was done using 4x 30GB SSds in Raid0 with a good Raid card Adaptec Raid 2405 controller + vista 64 tweaks , I spent 3 days tweaking the OS and learning how to get the most out of the SSds set up (expensive set up yes , but so the i-Rams too). I worked very hard to get my cpu system stable on SS above 4.6Ghz with HT enable as it gets very hot as you guys know and my SS cannot handle a big load with a lot of volts , it was a lot of work and time consuming to get a decent score so i expect the same from other members when submit their score (work hard for it), lets be fair for a minute ok. Good day guys. chispy. Edited January 25, 2009 by chispy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 How's Mike's 34k score different from chispy's? And I'm asking honestly, this pcmark stuff is beginning to confuse the hell of out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 He used Software Based Ramdisk , I used 4x 30GB OCZ Core Series V2 SSds in Raid0 on Adaptec Raid 2405 Raid Controller card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 And how can you tell he did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 And how can you tell he did? Massman - '' Okay. Please don't ruin the game now, Mike, please don't submit another score with the software hdd. Thanks '' Mike - on his submission from xtreme systems forum - http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=122100&page=2 '' MikeGuava -34455 - AMD Phenom II 940 X4 @ 3.8GHZ - HD4870 512MB phase cooled - g@y HDD tweaks '' _______________ _______________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 No, I mean in an objective manner. Where's the giveaway in the scores that we need to look out for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 hwbot will have to figure that out Gautam i dont have any ideas other than verification and proff of HD or SSd used, in my opinion the best way to show if you are really using software ramdrive or SSds is to post a scrennie with the hardware used like i did on mine that shows Adaptec SCSI array device , i think for future proff it needs to be requirement to show in a screenie this type of information with the type of array used and SSd type and info. Theres got to be a way to figure this out guys. chispy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 So then it seems that Mike's score was removed because you guys thought it's on a software ram disk. It doesn't seem like he said that anywhere explicitly. In fact...it seems like the "g@y" HDD tweak he's referring to is the usage of MFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts