Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Giant 3D elephant in the room no one wants to talk about...(why is it always me bringing this stuff to light?)


Splave
 Share

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Noxinite said:

I don't understand what all the fuss is.

All people have to do it select one setting when they start benchmarking, reboot, bench, change setting back if finished benching, reboot...

There are plenty of other benches where you need to jump through more hoops to get a good score (or even a score).

So?

100% agree, would be really great if we could convince GPU-Z to add ECC check box near where the CUDA etc check boxes are. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question then before I run some more 3D:

 

Front page says:

 

Quote

Due to the inflated and bugged scores we have seen lately pop up at the UL Hall of Fame and at HWBOT it would be recommended to enable the ECC Memory setting in the nVIDIA Control Panel. This is a request for testing to see if this is a solid fix by UL.


However just enforing this in a screenshot would not be sufficient. Therefore UL Benchmarks has implementend ECC detection in their latest Systeminfo release 5.55

 

 - Therefore only use systeminfo 5.55 or newer to be used from the 23 November 2022.

Am I reading this correctly? Any subs after 11/23 with older systeminfo *or* ECC showing "disabled" in 3DMark verification links will be invalid for hwbot? 

Please confirm or correct me. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Leeghoofd said:

Correct , we need to analyze things

just wait for benching on LN2 till this is sorted

So all current scores that don't have ecc on but "feel" correct can enjoy being permanently 2-3% better performance? 

If we require it for some we must require it for all. Time to press delete on all 4090 subs without ecc if this is the path we are taking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Splave said:

So all current scores that don't have ecc on but "feel" correct can enjoy being permanently 2-3% better performance? 

If we require it for some we must require it for all. Time to press delete on all 4090 subs without ecc if this is the path we are taking.

Same as for the scores with superposition release candidate version :)

there are some unbeatable hw points because they were done when rules did not explicitly say beta or rc versions were not allowed.

Fyi, I don't agree with this line of thinking, but removing all old scores is also a bit drastic. And checks can only be done for 3dmark anyway, not superposition so not sure how much we gain by this. For sure there will be huge moderation work still because I guess most users won't read the rules that carefully.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Crew
1 hour ago, Splave said:

So all current scores that don't have ecc on but "feel" correct can enjoy being permanently 2-3% better performance? 

If we require it for some we must require it for all. Time to press delete on all 4090 subs without ecc if this is the path we are taking.

I'm not even sure forcing ECC will solve it:

 - UL so far still validates with ECC on or off.

 - Some cards can't enable ECC 
 

It's not entirely up to HWBOT to take a stand here. If the scores are out of bounce with or without ECC, UL should get something working that invalidates the score right after the benchmark... being it via an algorithm or whatever.

We can still do manual moderation but it's a bit weird that the scores get validated on the Benchmark's site, but gets removed here...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rauf said:

Same as for the scores with superposition release candidate version :)

there are some unbeatable hw points because they were done when rules did not explicitly say beta or rc versions were not allowed.

Fyi, I don't agree with this line of thinking, but removing all old scores is also a bit drastic. And checks can only be done for 3dmark anyway, not superposition so not sure how much we gain by this. For sure there will be huge moderation work still because I guess most users won't read the rules that carefully.

Always welcome to flag scores that are out of line. In fact we need more intelligent people like you that know what to look for to do so. Perhaps if reporting scores was anonymous less people would be afraid of repercussions by making reports.

Superposition has the fps graph that is easy to see what's wrong or off about a run. UL should do the same or force ecc for everyone. Instead of requiring new scores to run the race with one leg and compete with other people's two leg scores.

Requiring higher standards than UL shouldn't be an issue. I've never even looked at the hall of fame there. Hwbot is supposed to be the best most secure WR database. They have an entire staff. One guy fixed 2D benching security in his spare time and still takes shit for it on a daily basis. No wonder 3D will never be fixed. Have fun I don't care anymore. Sub whatever you want.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This shows how volatile competitive 3d benchmarking is. There is no common standard for results, so a common issue with a new GPU generation, a vulnerability, tweak or cheat brings unavoidable chaos.

And for each common issue there will always be the same questions: Will all benchmark dev companies fix? How? Are overclockers even part of their target audience/business strategy? Making benchmarks XOC-capable is a lot of work and each company will decide if it's worth the trouble.

It's flawed by design and HWBOT is left to pick up the pieces to somehow make it work. I am not talking about a specific company/benchmark, just the general concept of competitive 3d benchmarking. In the end the quality of results goes down, people get unhappy because they no longer believe in each others work being done fair and square.

PS: Is Superposition even guarded against bus clock timer skew?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Splave said:

Always welcome to flag scores that are out of line. In fact we need more intelligent people like you that know what to look for to do so. Perhaps if reporting scores was anonymous less people would be afraid of repercussions by making reports.

Superposition has the fps graph that is easy to see what's wrong or off about a run. UL should do the same or force ecc for everyone. Instead of requiring new scores to run the race with one leg and compete with other people's two leg scores.

Requiring higher standards than UL shouldn't be an issue. I've never even looked at the hall of fame there. Hwbot is supposed to be the best most secure WR database. They have an entire staff. One guy fixed 2D benching security in his spare time and still takes shit for it on a daily basis. No wonder 3D will never be fixed. Have fun I don't care anymore. Sub whatever you want.

 

 

You care.

You're just angry at the ignorance, and rightly so.

You simply cannot trust everybody to do the right thing.

It's not HWB's fault, it's the community's fault.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does seem weird that you can go out and buy a very expensive card and without any overclocking knowledge can get 100 points or more by just plugging it in and some basic settings.

I have run a 4090 , I know how easy it is.

Sort of takes away the time and effort we put into this hobby.

Saying someone who is having more fun running a 295x2 on legacy.

That is real fun 🙂

Edited by spit051261
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/20/2022 at 4:54 AM, Nizzen said:

Did a scaling test in PR:
Same ~3045 core on every run
27584p +0 mem
27989p +500mem
28353p +1000mem
28639p +1500mem
28790p +1700mem

Might want to try the with ECC enabled because those scores are no where even remotely close. Unless us peasants do not have the secret hand shake back room benching tips needed to make those scores happen?

 

Edit: Nevermind. Stupid user error! I forgot one is using the Resizeable-Bar

Edited by Johnksss
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2022 at 1:27 PM, Mr. Fox said:

It seems so.

I am not sure what that means.

Futuremark's products were better before UL got involved and messed things up. But, we see that scenario play out with lots of things. Big company buys little company, then turn their gold into garbage... then eventually get rid of it because it wasn't their baby and became too much of a burden to support it. 

He means Catzilla I suspect....

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...