chispy Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I know the majority of top benchers will feel bad about new technology and the way its implemented in benchmarks , im sorry if it make you guys feel that way , i did not meant to start all this fuss and problems , reality check technology its catching up with old benchmarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabski Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I would more than happy give up PCM05 points if the hardware points limit is upped from 300 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1ch Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I thought the problem with PCM05 and SSD is that its now harder to tell if someone is using a software RAMdisk or not, because of the similarities in scores? More current hardware isnt the problem, although the score skew (IMHO) is.... I think you're contradicting yourself Kenny... Because the hardware is now good enough to give scores similar to software based tweaks, the aim *should* be to find a way of differentiating. Removing points would not be a "solution" to the problem, it would just hide it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praz Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Although MFT does artificially inflate hard drive benchmarks there are also tangible real-life performance increases also. That is it's sole purpose of existence besides it's excellent wear-leveling capabilities. Seems what needs to be determined is if the increased scores of PCMark because of MFT is a reflection of real-world results or artificially inflated like drive benchmarks are. My comments are not because of unfamiliarity with the program. I have used it off and on since the first beta for Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Okay, I quickly read through the different links you provided me and as for now, I can see three issues with the MFT 'tweak': 1) The MFT drive is software dependant, meaning that you need to install an application before you can obtain the gain in performance (in the contrary to iRam, which is plug'n'play 2) The MFT-drive is non-bootable, which means that you need an OS installed before you can add MFT functionality (in the contrary to iRam, which is plug'n'play: installing OS is no problem) 3) The MFT setup actively addresses a part of the memory to read/write data, whereas harddisks (and iRam) are close to independant from memory size or frequency. Although this utility/software is actually very, very good for 24/7 usage, I don't really see it as a real harddisk drive (for which the HDD tests are designed). In the OCZ forums, they suggest a software ramdrive to increase performance as well, but although that can increase performance as well, it's not allowed by FM and HWBot. This opinion is my personal opinion and does NOT reflect the opinion of the entire HWBot crew. In addition, it is NOT the current HWBot policy regarding MFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 My point of view and opinion , if you ban the use of SSds and MFT wich is the software that was made with SSds technolgy in mind solely, you will have to ban the use of i-Rams and hardware Ramdisk too as it will give you an inflated score on this benchmark '' Like in 3DMark vantage using PhysicsX as was mentioned before '' i-Rams inflate the score on the HD tests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Okay, I quickly read through the different links you provided me and as for now, I can see three issues with the MFT 'tweak': 1) The MFT drive is software dependant, meaning that you need to install an application before you can obtain the gain in performance (in the contrary to iRam, which is plug'n'play 2) The MFT-drive is non-bootable, which means that you need an OS installed before you can add MFT functionality (in the contrary to iRam, which is plug'n'play: installing OS is no problem) 3) The MFT setup actively addresses a part of the memory to read/write data, whereas harddisks (and iRam) are close to independant from memory size or frequency. Although this utility/software is actually very, very good for 24/7 usage, I don't really see it as a real harddisk drive (for which the HDD tests are designed). In the OCZ forums, they suggest a software ramdrive to increase performance as well, but although that can increase performance as well, it's not allowed by FM and HWBot. This opinion is my personal opinion and does NOT reflect the opinion of the entire HWBot crew. In addition, it is NOT the current HWBot policy regarding MFT Thank you for taking your time to read and understand this new technology Massman , in future release i they will release a version that will support bootable drive from MFT as i have contact them already. Please make a fair decision and update your PCMark05 rules in regard to the use of i-Rams , the HD test in PCMark05 was meant to be run on normal HD NOT i-Rams , Hardware Ramdisks or SSds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKarmakazi Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Chispy I think you are missing the point of what he is saying. Massman is not saying SSD's are not allowed. He is just questioning the MFT application's use. I read through the above mentioned links and saw the same things massman did. MFT caches data in your ram to speed up the SSD/alleviate the stuttering issues. This sounds similar to ramdisk although different in its application. An Iram/ramdrive shouldnt be disallowed since you can (as previously stated) install OS to it, it doesnt need outside software to work (detectable right from bios as a harddisk), its actual physical hardware, etc. I could use MFT on an Iram to get ridiculous results also since it is just a program that affects the way data is cached to harddrisk/ssd/ramdrive/etc. I think the issue here is not whether to allow SSD's or not, but whether to allow MFT software tweaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 All I care about is competition. Let's make a decision and have it stick for everyone. If we're gonna allow MFT, then get ready for some 40K+ scores; I know Andre is. P.S. I don't believe Mike used a software ram...I believe he just used MFT to prove a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKarmakazi Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 All I care about is competition. Let's make a decision and have it stick for everyone. 100% agree with this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 All I care about is competition. Let's make a decision and have it stick for everyone. I totally agree with you on this one Gautam , let the fun begin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF3D Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Good points guys! But, I see some emotional answers. Emotions are bad, when deciding these things. I don't have them Decision which we will make in crew will be good for me, what ever it is. If someone think, that I don't have access to new technology and my opinion comes from that... phhhh -HDD's are good -SSD's are good -I-ram / Acard is good * software ramdisks are bad * SSD + MFT is bad (we have to investigate this more) Thank you! We will continue inside crew section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKarmakazi Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 We will continue inside crew section. Well since we have no input in crew section, please dont take points away because of MFT. If MFT is such a problem, please just ban MFT. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 TBH PCMark is showing its age and its goofiness more than ever before. I wouldn't be totally opposed to removing points to it myself but then again it is an interesting bench to run. It was just poorly designed with little foresight of some repercussions. (Just like the "CPU" test in 3DMarkVantage) FM can't be trusted to deal with issues such as these, so it's up to the community to decide what's fair and what isn't and to establish guidelines for ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF3D Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Well said Gautum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeguava Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 The reason I enjoy PCMark the most is that your ENTIRE system gets benched and not just part of it. Obviously there are some problems with it e.g. 3D part does not credit multi gpu etc. but still the PCMarks are great tools to give credit to your entire system. Again in respect to MFT - I think what MFT does is to setup a software ram drive to store the data temporarly and afterwards to dump it to the HDDs ( whether IRAM , SSD etc. ) During the PCMark bench the data that is on the software ram drive only gets benched which gives us these artificially high scores. Not sure where I claimed to have run software ram in my bench, but not that I care to have it removed - MFT and Software rams is the same to me and all should be not be allowed Kingpin posted a nice run a couple of days ago still maintaining the old 220mb limit - NICE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeguava Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) I second the notion that if 05 is removed I think vantage should get points. I really enjoy the pcmark benching. Its not as popular, but there is alot of tweaking involved. Vantage has an advantage also being that the drive you install the OS to is heavily weighted in the score (even if you set a different target drive). So that rules out software based ram drives altogether. I think now that 3dmark vantage has been approved for points there should be no arguing about pcmark vantage. I.E. the Vista only argument, having to purchase it, etc. The argument that it takes too long to complete is also moot, since people didn't complain when 32M was taking 10+ minutes. let's just ADD PCMark Vantage and keep PCMark05 :-) MFT caches software writes operations and send them sequentially to the hardware; it's the software required for the bargain SSD out there to work optimally; in short: it's a ram-like drive indeed http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47183 nicely put!!! Edited January 26, 2009 by mikeguava Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKarmakazi Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 let's just ADD PCMark Vantage and keep PCMark05 :-)! That would be ideal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 The reason I enjoy PCMark the most is that your ENTIRE system gets benched and not just part of it. Obviously there are some problems with it e.g. 3D part does not credit multi gpu etc. but still the PCMarks are great tools to give credit to your entire system. Again in respect to MFT - I think what MFT does is to setup a software ram drive to store the data temporarly and afterwards to dump it to the HDDs ( whether IRAM , SSD etc. ) During the PCMark bench the data that is on the software ram drive only gets benched which gives us these artificially high scores. Not sure where I claimed to have run software ram in my bench, but not that I care to have it removed - MFT and Software rams is the same to me and all should be not be allowed Kingpin posted a nice run a couple of days ago still maintaining the old 220mb limit - NICE! Yeah it seems like MFT is a FIFO queue...you write to this software queue first, then it writes to the actual array in a linear fashion. So it's very much a software buffer explaining why it performs like a software ramdrive. Well...if MFT is to be allowed then your score should be as well. : If not then neither should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeguava Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Yeah it seems like MFT is a FIFO queue...you write to this software queue first, then it writes to the actual array in a linear fashion. So it's very much a software buffer explaining why it performs like a software ramdrive. Well...if MFT is to be allowed then your score should be as well. : If not then neither should be. I don't want my score to be allowed - that was sooo slow ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaiwanAndre Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I don't want my score to be allowed - that was sooo slow ... hmm...... Let me enjoy stupid MFT "New technolgy" today. I know some guys will be mad very soon. 40K is too slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 To me this sounds like a question with only 2 reasonable answers: 1: Allow all kinds of "HDDs", as long as there is a performance increase and not just an increase in points. 2: Only allow normal HDDs on a raid controller (no iRam etc etc). I don't know what makes the most sense here. But what doesn't make ANY sense is to say that some kinds of "weird" HDD setups are not allowed because they give too high speeds, but others that are just as strange (like iRam) are allowed. Perhaps the easiest would be to only allow HDD's in RAID 0, and no SSD, iRam etc... that would make the benchmark more accessible to other users as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 platter-based HDDs only? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 And shaderless videocards for everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 To me this sounds like a question with only 2 reasonable answers: 1: Allow all kinds of "HDDs", as long as there is a performance increase and not just an increase in points. 2: Only allow normal HDDs on a raid controller (no iRam etc etc). I don't know what makes the most sense here. But what doesn't make ANY sense is to say that some kinds of "weird" HDD setups are not allowed because they give too high speeds, but others that are just as strange (like iRam) are allowed. Perhaps the easiest would be to only allow HDD's in RAID 0, and no SSD, iRam etc... that would make the benchmark more accessible to other users as well. Im 100% with you here , those 2 options seems reasonable to me , either Remove the usage of i-Rams , SSds , hardware Ramdrives and any other drive but Normal HDD. let the benchmark run only on normal HD like it was meant to be. or Let all kind of HDD set ups in. I Promise this is not the last time that something like this would happenned again , technology will always bring something new to the table. SSds are new technology and will need the use of new Firmware and software to get the most out of it , alignment to run propperly as well as software for the Raid Controller. without software the SSds will not run propperly. This new technology will not work as it should without the use of software. IF you guys are going to ban MFT Tweak to assist SSds in write / reads , then you have to ban the use of i-Rams as it uses memory for this benchmark and not normal HDD platters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts