Mr.Scott Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 WTG Frank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 2800 Windows/s Under Windows XP, how is that possible ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtech Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Awesome tweaking Your "File Decryption" is almost 2 times faster than youngpro`s WR with 990x: http://3dmark.com/pcm05/3067504 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.paco Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Thank you very much, and believe me it was not easy at all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hondacity Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 interesting very nice work mrpaco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoqolatl Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 WTF is this audio and video compression? impossible without cheating on the encoder... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted June 21, 2011 Author Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Would somebody care to explain this so called "bugged" run please? Standard encoder was used. Multiple runs were made, all resulting in scores between 15000-18000. This can be reproduced at any time. Bare in mind that Multiple I-rams were used. Paco can give details of the setup as needed. Instead of just bitching and calling him a cheat, why don't one of you hotshots actually try and help the guy out with diagnosis. Edited June 22, 2011 by Mr.Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.paco Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) I would really like to know why it would be a bugged run. If there is something wrong with it; What n Why. Edited June 22, 2011 by mr.paco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted June 22, 2011 Author Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Be a helpful community instead of a bunch of f'ing cut throats. I hate that most about this site. The guy only wants to learn. I can assure you there was no intentional cheat. Edited June 22, 2011 by Mr.Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShrimpBrime Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Nice run paco! Your i-ram kills!!! Look what it beat!! Awesome tweaking Your "File Decryption" is almost 2 times faster than youngpro`s WR with 990x:http://3dmark.com/pcm05/3067504 Now they cry! lol That's why your score is so high! 190+ mb sec xp start up?! Most awesome. And what happened to your points?? They took them because your i-ram is faster than 6 core cpu's? fascinating.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barton Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 It's not just the XP load times, look at the hard drive general usage score. It's almost identical to the XP load time. That in itself greatly raises the final PCMark 05 score. Mr. Paco is running on an array of many I-rams, he's got one of the fastest 460 video cards out there and he's overclocked the heck out of it. He's also got a nice overclock on the processor and reasonably tight timings with decent cooling. The results speak for themselves. It does not appear to be a bugged run. To the contrary it looks to be a darn good run by a relatively new member here. Mr. Paco wouldn't cheat. It's not in his character to do that. If there is something wrong here, Mods, please point it out. If not, please re-instate all of his points - including any Global or WR points if applicable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoqolatl Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Here's whats wrong: 1) Transparent windows is too high for that CPU under WinXP - such scores are achievable in Vista with GPU-accelerated GUI, in XP it means some kind of unknown "tweak" 2) Audio and video compression are unusually high - it looks like encoding settings were changed with powertoy or the encoder was replaced, which is forbidden. BUT those i-rams are cool, i wish i had such storage setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.paco Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 So if it was run under VISTA, there would have been no issue with my Transparent Windows? Thats interesting, I make all my PCMark runs on XP,VISTA & Win7 and keep my best run from the 3. I dont know what you mean by an unknown tweak, I just OC my GPU, CPU, Ram and go. As for the Audio & Video compression. I made no special adjustments. No changes were made, or replaced. I use Encoder9. And the only score limit I see in the rule is on WIN XP Start up of 220mb/s. And you got me on POWERTOY, I have no idea what that is (and please no one tell me to google it, I dont need to know what it is if its not allowed) The only thing I can say is I made a clean legit run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrGaKC Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Here's whats wrong:1) Transparent windows is too high for that CPU under WinXP - such scores are achievable in Vista with GPU-accelerated GUI, in XP it means some kind of unknown "tweak" 2) Audio and video compression are unusually high - it looks like encoding settings were changed with powertoy or the encoder was replaced, which is forbidden. BUT those i-rams are cool, i wish i had such storage setup. 1) If transparent windows are too high for XP, how about he posts a run from e.g. Win7? Just to prove it's not system specific... Also, even if it is an "unknown tweak", isn't that what ALL people here have - tweaks unknown to others so they can get better times? Why would any tweak be forbidden simply by being unknown to others? Will you then call out Massman or Turrican because you don't know all their tweaks? 2) Isn't ALL compression, along being CPU specific, also HDD specific? You compress something to a hard drive. So, faster hard drive = faster compression due to shorter write times. And wouldn't that then mean that by default you can get higher compression times from an array of i-Rams than you would with a plain SATA drive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) 1) If transparent windows are too high for XP, how about he posts a run from e.g. Win7? Just to prove it's not system specific... Also, even if it is an "unknown tweak", isn't that what ALL people here have - tweaks unknown to others so they can get better times? Why would any tweak be forbidden simply by being unknown to others? Will you then call out Massman or Turrican because you don't know all their tweaks? If he is ok to show hwbot staff how he managed to do such a score, then we will legit it 2) Isn't ALL compression, along being CPU specific, also HDD specific? You compress something to a hard drive. So, faster hard drive = faster compression due to shorter write times. And wouldn't that then mean that by default you can get higher compression times from an array of i-Rams than you would with a plain SATA drive? I am sure hard drive has nothing to do with this test Edited June 22, 2011 by Christian Ney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrGaKC Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 OK, but what would it then be if nothing is changed? If standard encoder is used without tweaks, what can make such a difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) if you take a look at other scores done with this cpu or a Pentium 4 5xx (prescott) series with ~same cpu frequency, the audio compression is around 1700 kb/s and MrPaco's score is 4400 kb/s. That's why it looks odd And the transparent windows score too seems a bit high Edited June 22, 2011 by Christian Ney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoqolatl Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Just to prove it's not system specific... Did you test Transparent Windows on different systems? If you did you'd see that Vista is the fastest by a huge margin, Win7 is close behind and XP is much slower than both of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zila1 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 There is nothing wrong with his run. He just used skill and experience to make a fast rig. He did not cheat, he is just damned good at what he does. He is inquisitive and asks the right questions and learns. Much of what he has learned he learned here from the best of you and back at our home from our best performers. You lesser overclockers always throw out the cheat word before knowing what you are talking about. I very rarely voice my opinions here but when someone as honest as Paco is being attacked and called cheat I must speak up. Put his points back up and stop insulting Paco. You should be proud to have him here as one of your own and he is due an apology for the way he has been treated. I can say that we at CP are very proud to call him one of our own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 This is interesting. At first sight, it seems indeed very easy to think there's something odd about the scores. But, then again 8x iRam is a pretty uncommon configuration. I'd assume it won't affect certain scores, but I'm not entirely sure. - Are you running the OS on the iRams? Or just using the iRams for the PCMark? - Can you test if there is any scaling in all those subtests? Will you then call out Massman I get called out all the time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) I-Ram, ACARD, SDD only affect XP Startup, HDD General Usage and HDD - Scan Disk Edited June 22, 2011 by Christian Ney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveRo Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Christian is generally correct - improved storage seems to only affect those three areas. Could encoding be improved by using ramdisk as the scratch area? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveRo Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Also, hats of to MRPaco for a great storage subsystem! Xtreme for sure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.paco Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Yes just to see what my run would look like under a different OS, I reran the same chip under WIN7 32bit with just about the same OC. From what I have learned here and @ home (CP) it would be a toss up when running PCM05 on a 64bit chip between WIN XP & VISTA with WIN7 giving the worst results for Transparent Windows & maybe some other subtests. I have included a screen shot of the new run on WIN7, pleas feel free to look it over & give your opinions. Like I said before; I made my run true, legit and honest to the best of my abilities with nothing forbidden. Its just one of those cases where you get just that right piece of hardware or have it set up just right where all the components just click together or the OCin Gods are with you, who knows, I just know I made an honest run. And I can rerun it again n again if you like. If he is ok to show hwbot staff how he managed to do such a score, then we will legit it I have no problem with that at all, but TELLING you & SHOWING you are two different things. Just tell me what would you need me to do. Did you test Transparent Windows on different systems? If you did you'd see that Vista is the fastest by a huge margin, Win7 is close behind and XP is much slower than both of them Yes I ALWAYS run my PCM05 on all 3 OS (XP, VISTA, WIN7) And you are wrong in one thing, WIN7 gives the WORST run of the 3 OSs for Transparent Windows. In fact WIN7 gives the worst scores period compared to XP & VISTA. For "ME" From "MY" tests. - Are you running the OS on the iRams? Or just using the iRams for the PCMark?- Can you test if there is any scaling in all those subtests? I use the I-Rams for the Bench HD tests. How would I test the scaling on the subtets? I'd be more than happy to if you could tell me how or what you mean. I am more than happy to give you any proof you request, Just let me know how to supply it to you and you got it. Also, hats of to MRPaco for a great storage subsystem! Xtreme for sure! Thank you Steve **And Thank you to everyone for your help n support in helping to clear this confusion up... I enjoy OCing/Benching, I gain nothing from trying to cheat. I will only end up cheating myself and hurting my team. Edited June 22, 2011 by mr.paco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Sweet Posted June 22, 2011 Crew Share Posted June 22, 2011 Hi MrPaco, please you run again this Pcmark'05 in XP ?, show this run, and sorry but this screenshot (Win 7) is too small, i dont see nothing You must understand that, no one has used so many i-rams, audio comp. is very high compared to others, but they have not used this configuration. Run again this '05 in XP, and show me this screen. Thanks so much 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.