Maxi Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Removing the cap was the wrong step for FM to take, it should have been raised - not removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeguava Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 From easyco install manual: From easyco install manual: Running MFT Performance Benchmarks You can run standard benchmarks against MFT and you will be astounded at some of the results you get. That said, some may overstate MFT’s performance because MFT’s performance is, in principal, dependent upon the degree of free space, and we increase free space by virtualizing sectors expressed as all zeros. Thus, some tests may indicate that we are performing IO at gigabytes per second when the same is physically impossible. MFT runs nice nevertheless - beats some of my software ramdrives. Allowing MFT and or SOftware ram will allow more peeps to competively bench PCMark05 - thsi at least would be a bonus. Just the idea of an overall system bench will get lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeguava Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) and why is that a problem ? I'm not one of those that 'heavily opposed' software ramdisks, I've always been for them even before pcmark04/05 existed as they're used widely in the REAL world in server/linux environments to improve storage based I/O performance why i'm so pro SSD + MFT ? answer is easy I use it to improve my SSD performance for STORAGE related usage in the REAL world = video encoding scratch disk 4x32GB OCZ SSD Raid 0 + MFT on Highpoint 3520LF PCI-E controller with 256MB cache vs 750GB Samsung SATAII Configurations for System Clocks: 4009Mhz @19x211Bclk with 8x mem multiplier 3x1GB HCF0 @844Mhz 9-9-9-24 i7 920 with HT no Video cache (SATA HDD source drive) = 4min 50s i7 920 with HT with Video cache (SATA HDD source drive) = 4min 10s i7 920 without HT no Video cache (SATA HDD source drive) = 4min 34s i7 920 without HT with Video cache (SATA HDD source drive) = 3min 53s i7 920 with HT no Video cache (SDD source drive) = 4min 05s i7 920 with HT with Video cache (SDD source drive) = 4min 06s i7 920 without HT no Video cache (SDD source drive) = 4min 04s i7 920 without HT with Video cache (SDD source drive) = 3min 55s Note: Video and Audio caches use system's tri-channel DDR3 memory bandwidth which is faster than both SATAII and SSD Raid 0 transfer bandwidth and as I tested early if you disable HT I notice that your get more clock for clock memory bandwidth in Memtest86+ v2.11 than when you have HT enabled. Guess ultimately it comes down to definition of storage usage. The fact is with SSD and even software ramdisks (which were out there way before pcmark04/05), the definition of storage has changed. Now the question is whether FM/hwbot accepts this evolution or not. Anyway, it's up to you guys to decide whether MFT assisted SSD is allowed or not. It's your house so it's your rules either way. edit: Also if the argument is pcmark05 is to test hdd performance not system memory performance which software ramdisks can effect, then the argument can be the same for 3dmark2001/2003/05/06 which all are effected by system memory bandwidth to various extents. Classic is 3dmark2001 which can get pretty big boosts when memory bandwidth is tweaked. Accordingly, since 3dmark benchmarks are meant to test GPU performance and not system memory bandwidth, we should ban 3dmark2001/2003/05/06 as well. So in this example it seems like that using the regular HDD with HT disabled is better then SSD+MFT ??? The problem I personally have is not the real world performance gains in applications, and again MFT is great for SSD and all other drives as well. But as you can the the real world speed improvements are minor and are not 20X the performance which we see in HDD tests in PCMark05. For the way PCMark05 calculates scores allowing softwares RAMdrives and MFT tweaks the total socres get completely messed up. The 220MB limit kept the score skewing somewhat under check - a fast quad core system will outscore a dual core system. With software ram scores the entire benchmark score system gets ruined and whoever runs the best memory will get the top scores. Isn't there SuperPI etc for that? I tried to make the point by submitting my untweaked AMD air benched score which kills a LN2 bench of mine with Core i7 @ 5GHZ. Allowing HDD based score to get that crazy kills PCMark05 in my point of view. I just ran my AMD system with an IDE drive - I got 12k, with MFT I get 35K - 23000points coming from HHD based points is just way too far off. Edited January 29, 2009 by mikeguava Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Any news on this benchmark , i need to know if the rules are the same and have not change before I go with a different set up and LN2 , i dont want to spent LN2 if the rules suddenly change. Update on this subject please chispy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 No desicion have been made , understood ,jmke Thanks for the update. chispy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeguava Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 back to 220 cap? Pretty please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I expect the newspost to be published this week . And yes, we have contacted FM, hope the response is positive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sno Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) I expect the newspost to be published this week . And yes, we have contacted FM, hope the response is positive Great to hear, looking forward to a definite decision :celebration: Edited February 2, 2009 by sno brain not working today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabski Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Great to hear, looking forward to a definite decision :celebration: yes will be nice to have this cleared up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF3D Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) I just got information about this issue. The old cap will be there again and the change will be online very soon. Good decision from FM! So, we will not approve any MFT scores in to our database. PCMark05 will need working FM orb link in top 20 and out of top 20, you will need to show test 1 in screenshot. Prepare for this, cause wrongly posted scores will be removed. Thank you! Edited February 3, 2009 by SF3D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabski Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 great news. Thanks for the update SF3D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Thanks for the update SF3D , i will remove my score using MFT as I respect the decision and I will always follow the rules. Ok guys lets have fun with this benchie again . chispy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF3D Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I will start to remove MFT scores manually later this week. Everyone who knows, that MFT was used, please take these scores out from your account and DB. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bustah Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Very good decision, and the right one im sure...very good news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Hmm could they raise the cap a little rather than leaving it the same? Maybe 300 or 400? 220 forces us to purposefully cripple our setups. A happy medium is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF3D Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I understand that point of view perfectly Gautum, but we have to set some limit. This test is so much biased to HDD/storage drive tests, that it is meaningless, if we don't set limits. I wouldn't mind if their policy wouldn't allow more than 15MB/s in the test 1. Rules are rules and we have to follow them. I really hope there will be PCmark09 or something similar to show us the real life SSD performance. PCmark Vantage was a really weird test, if you ask me. PCmark05 was good, but it is getting old and all this fuss is about that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Right now the rules themselves are in question. The 220 cap was placed arbitrarily because people complained, then removed for the same reason, and now being reinstated for the same reason. Whoever is dealing with them should ask them for a reasonable cap so that this fiasco won't repeat itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipro5 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I'm in with the "old gap" too.... When are the hwbot "invalid scores" are going to be deleted?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Whenever you get off that yorkfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipro5 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Whenever you get off that yorkfield. NOT yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Sweet Posted February 11, 2009 Crew Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) I just got information about this issue. The old cap will be there again and the change will be online very soon. Good decision from FM! So, we will not approve any MFT scores in to our database. PCMark05 will need working FM orb link in top 20 and out of top 20, you will need to show test 1 in screenshot. Prepare for this, cause wrongly posted scores will be removed. Thank you! I think this should be included in the standards or rules of Hwbot, to avoid confusion :ws: Like this and another http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=820735 Sw Edited February 11, 2009 by Sweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I totally agree with you Sweet , the rules need a facelift and be more clear to include MFT Usage. PCMark05 Rules - http://www.hwbot.org/benchmark.application.info.do?applicationId=9 No Change. chispy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) Futuremark have not placed the cap on the 220 start up , i am seeing PCMark05 Results with very high HD Start up and unusually high HD tests results ???? Whats going on ???? SF3D said - ""I just got information about this issue. The old cap will be there again and the change will be online very soon. Good decision from FM!"" ''So, we will not approve any MFT scores in to our database. PCMark05 will need working FM orb link in top 20 and out of top 20, you will need to show test 1 in screenshot. Prepare for this, cause wrongly posted scores will be removed. Thank you!'' By SF3D -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last edited by SF3D; 02-03-2009 at 02:21. Edited February 23, 2009 by chispy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 So silence its the way to deal with this problem ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) yup, silence does the trick! Great answer , very smart of your part and helpful to the community , that denotes how much you care about been helpful as a mod. Edited February 23, 2009 by chispy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts