knopflerbruce Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 It's possible to have limits for the subtests that "kill" the benchmark. It's better than no benchmark, at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabski Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 but thats why we have the limit of 220 on xp start up. Doesnt matter if your using SSD's or what ever. If its over 220 xp start up then the score doesnt count on HWBOT. I think its best to leave the limit in place and just carry on as we are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bustah Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 but thats why we have the limit of 220 on xp start up. Doesnt matter if your using SSD's or what ever. If its over 220 xp start up then the score doesnt count on HWBOT.I think its best to leave the limit in place and just carry on as we are  I agree after all i-ram can be bought for quite cheap now, I found one on ebay for £45. I only have one so my xp start up is only in the region of 113mb and im not complaining. If the limit is set at 220 as it is, then that not out of reach of your average bencher [financially like me]  so if that limits stays, its within reach of most people, if the limit is raised then that will make it more difficult for the general hwbot user.  I say keep the bench and keep the limit as it is otherwise maybe hwbot needs to consider some kind of super league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1ch Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 And please, explain how 3DMark01 and Aquamark is connected to this issue, what PCMark05 have? I can't see any similarities.  Lets look at the justification you've used...  Not 4 years old tests suite, which wasn't designed to hold this kind of storage power. We have better hardware nowadays, but it doesn't change the fact that this benchmark wasn't designed for new hardware.  Aquamark, 3DMark01 and 3DMark03 are all older and none are designed to run on 2/4/8 core CPU and 2/3/4 GPU setups.  Now PCMark05 can't give any reliable results with those monster SSD setups. 9000MB/s virus scan is not the value FM had in mind, when they designed this benchmark. It is their error in design, not ours.  To repeat someone else, 388,000 is not the value Aquamark had in mind.  The results ARE reliable. They're consistent with the hardware they're run on and the tweaks used. The hardware has got better, just like CPU's and GPU's.  If you want to spend thousands on Skulltrail, i7 and 4870X2's and and not concentrate on PCMark05, that's fair enough and it's your choice not to buy an i-RAM or an ACARD. Don't spoil it for those who value filesystem performance enough to spend a few hundred quid on a fast operating system 'drive'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF3D Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Aquamark, 3DMark01 and 3DMark03 are all older and none are designed to run on 2/4/8 core CPU and 2/3/4 GPU setups. To repeat someone else, 388,000 is not the value Aquamark had in mind.  Aquamark and 01/03 are all using only one core. These are single threaded benchmarks and adding cores have no impact. Maybe there is very little gain, but benchmark results are still valid. 03 scales perfectly with multi GPU setups and it is still best benchmark to show the power of CF or SLI. 01 cant use SLI/CF properly. Only Nature test have some noticeable gains. Aquamark does not get too much gain from multi GPU.  So all those benchmarks are giving results which are valid, no matter how you look them.  The examples I have given earlier might not be the best ones, but again I have to repeat myself. It is all about weighting a different parts of benchmark. I have tested PCMark05 for years and I didn't like the situation when I-ram got in to picture, but now I have one of those too. I-ram was already giving huge gains to final score. This benchmark gains too much from HDD tests. That is the point. I will not repeat this again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabski Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 but the cap of 220 means the benchmark cant gain too much form Hdd tests Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Let me attempt to simplify this debate a little bit. I don't really mind the HDD bias myself much, IF that were what the problem were. Â If the hardware were legitimately capable of 9000+ MB/sec bandwidth then sure...but let's just step back to reality here? Do you any of you really believe that ANY RAID array is capable of that? You could string up a million SSD's for all I care and RAID 0 them, but that still won't take away the inexorable fact that your controller isn't going to capable of delivering much more than maybe a tenth of the bandwidth that the virus scan is claiming. (At best) Â RAMDAC's own HD tune benches show 773 MB/sec peak, and consequently we're supposed to just believe that the 9100 MB/sec PCMark is showing is accurate?? Â The point is not just that the "scores are too high" it's just that the benchmark is obviously not even testing the hardware. Even though MFT is off in this case, somehow it's caching something for that test for sure. It's just common sense... Â Let me reiterate this in case it's still not clear. The problem is not that the hardware is "too new" or "too good"; it's that PCMark isn't testing it accurately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 I would like to know if hwbot its even considering replacing PCMark05 with the more reliable and newer PCMark Vantage ? It would be a viable solution in my opinion and a good option to have another bench to play with. Â chispy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKarmakazi Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The examples I have given earlier might not be the best ones, but again I have to repeat myself. It is all about weighting a different parts of benchmark. I have tested PCMark05 for years and I didn't like the situation when I-ram got in to picture, but now I have one of those too. I-ram was already giving huge gains to final score. This benchmark gains too much from HDD tests. That is the point. I will not repeat this again.  And I am not going to repeat all of mine and other people's valid points FOR the benchmark...  Many people have come to the defense of pcm05 and only 2 people you and gautam seem against it. If you dont like the way the bench is weighted, then dont play it  I may not like the fact that team finland has an AMD employee who can get unlimited free and ES cpus but hey... life aint fair. So if you dont want to spend the cash on a nice SSD array or some hardware ram disks & a controller card thats not anyone problem but your own.  Many people obviously like this bench and it should not be dumped becuz 2 people dont.  There are not many options for a full PC test suite out there that runs with XP. So what exactly do you propose replaces it? I have asked this question many times and everyone is skirting the answer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Many people have come to the defense of pcm05 and only 2 people you and gautam seem against it. Â Oh that's easy to address, I'm right and everyone else is wrong. It happens often enough to me, LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF3D Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 And I am not going to repeat all of mine and other people's valid points FOR the benchmark... Many people have come to the defense of pcm05 and only 2 people you and gautam seem against it. If you dont like the way the bench is weighted, then dont play it  I may not like the fact that team finland has an AMD employee who can get unlimited free and ES cpus but hey... life aint fair. So if you dont want to spend the cash on a nice SSD array or some hardware ram disks & a controller card thats not anyone problem but your own.  Millionth time I will say, that do not take these issues to personal level!  I have nothing against this benchmark itself.  I should not even write this, but I will. I do have plans to make some 4x SSD RAID 0 array for my 24/7 + gaming PC. I have nothing against SSD's or the speed gains what they are bringing. I feel good, cause this is the part which have been lagging behind in normal use. I do own I-ram and at the moment my web browser is launched from it. Fastest internet browsing I have seen ever  So, these issues are not personal. They are PCMark05 problems and we are still finding a good way to solve this mess.  Futuremark raised the cap to 300MB/s, if someone didn't know that already. So you can get to hall of fame now with the scores we have seen here. We are not ready to say, which will be our decision, but we might go with 300MB/s cap too. Then everything will be like before, but cap is just raised. If we start to see a lot of bugged HDD scores, PCMark05 will be under discussion again.  Stay tuned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 Great to hear they raise it to 300mb , thanks for the info SF3D,so it is confirmed. I think thats good for the new hardware point of view , now that we know the cap limit lets have some benching fun again . Happy benching to everyone. Â chispy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1ch Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 03 scales perfectly with multi GPU setups and it is still best benchmark to show the power of CF or SLI. Â Bingo! Exactly my point. PCMark05 scales perfectly with the drive technology you use. This is a justification AGAINST your argument. Â To address Gautham, yes, the 9000mbps test was obviously using some sort of caching. So what's the problem? It's identifyable, define some limits and let people enjoy the benchmark. ...just like what has happened with the 220mbps limit, and now the 300 mbps limit. Â It's funny how people didn't talk about dropping everyone's points for 3DMark03 when AMD GPU's started producing bugged runs. Â I'm gonna step out of this thread now as I've said my bit and just want to get on with benching, including PCMark05. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabski Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 there is nothing wrong with the 220 limit. As i said before if a raid setup beats it and say gets a score of 235. Then its a challenge to get it under 220. The person should accept that challenge and find a way to get with in the rules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Bingo! Exactly my point. PCMark05 scales perfectly with the drive technology you use. This is a justification AGAINST your argument. Â To address Gautham, yes, the 9000mbps test was obviously using some sort of caching. So what's the problem? It's identifyable, define some limits and let people enjoy the benchmark. ...just like what has happened with the 220mbps limit, and now the 300 mbps limit. Â It's funny how people didn't talk about dropping everyone's points for 3DMark03 when AMD GPU's started producing bugged runs. Â I'm gonna step out of this thread now as I've said my bit and just want to get on with benching, including PCMark05. Â If it's using caching then it's NOT scaling perfectly with drive technology... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monstru Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I don' have time to answer most of the point you are making, cause they are not worth it now. We all know that you are good bencher. We all know you can tweak systems well, but there is no need to always bring these same issues up. Someone is always better than you, no matter what is the matter. THIS IS NOT the case here. It is all about the PCMark05 benchmark itself. Â Bro, I really do not see any difference between my point and what any of the other guys posting here except you and Gautam. It's not about me, I really don't like PCM05 so much (you have to have "best appearance" set, and Windows Media Player or converter or whatever installed and so on...bleah!!! that is not a bench OS ) and I really do not care about PCM2005 so much....in fact...I pretty much dislike it, just like I really don't like Aquamark. But there are guys that do and I think that there should be a more relaxed dialogue between HWB Crew and those guys. HWB is first of all a community made of benchers, so when you want to make that kind of decisions you should also take into account the opinion of the community. It's not about what you want or about what you think, heck...if I would be HWB Crew I would probably take out Aquamark instantly, but probably that would not be fair to those who like it. Be more relaxed, see their point of view, and find a solution together. That is all that I am saying. Â And yes, you guys have a strong argument with 9000MB/s, we all know that that is not real. But neither are those those >1000 fps that we see in Nature or Mother Nature. Sure, you can have that ammount of FPS in an old game using new hardware, but besides the fact that most of the games have a cap, anything over a constant, solid minimum of 60-75 fps really does not matter. So the situation is kindda similar. Benching is one thing, real life is another thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Bro, I really do not see any difference between my point and what any of the other guys posting here except you and Gautam. It's not about me, I really don't like PCM05 so much (you have to have "best appearance" set, and Windows Media Player or converter or whatever installed and so on...bleah!!! that is not a bench OS ) and I really do not care about PCM2005 so much....in fact...I pretty much dislike it, just like I really don't like Aquamark. But there are guys that do and I think that there should be a more relaxed dialogue between HWB Crew and those guys. HWB is first of all a community made of benchers, so when you want to make that kind of decisions you should also take into account the opinion of the community. It's not about what you want or about what you think, heck...if I would be HWB Crew I would probably take out Aquamark instantly, but probably that would not be fair to those who like it. Be more relaxed, see their point of view, and find a solution together. That is all that I am saying. Â And yes, you guys have a strong argument with 9000MB/s, we all know that that is not real. But neither are those those >1000 fps that we see in Nature or Mother Nature. Sure, you can have that ammount of FPS in an old game using new hardware, but besides the fact that most of the games have a cap, anything over a constant, solid minimum of 60-75 fps really does not matter. So the situation is kindda similar. Benching is one thing, real life is another thing No, those high FPS are what the GPU is actually rendering. It's real FPS. Â The closest analogy here is using GPU PhysX for the CPU tests in Vantage. It's not an accurate gauge of CPU power there, but of the GPU. Â PCMark doesn't test the hard drive when it gives such crazy results; it's just testing a cache in memory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monstru Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Ok, I now I understand what you are saying. Crazy PCM2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 ...PCMark05 gives correct results for some kind of HDD's, right? If so, perhaps a solution is to not allow HW that creates unreal scores in these subtests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 a cache of the HARD DRIVES most likely which is now 16~32Mb easily  Then why doesn't it do this on any standard hard drives?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 P.S. Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq5csKvXCT4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKarmakazi Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 p.s. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq5cskvxct4  Lmfao!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelaras Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Any update ??? I have a run with 225Mb xp startup posted a few hours ago . I thought that hwbow addopted the new cap also . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabski Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 the hwbot limit is 220mb/s. If you have submitted a score to hwbot at 225 xp start up then you should delete it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelaras Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 OK . I'll do it . Today i saw one other score with 220.X mb/sec submitted . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.