dafridgie Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 2 questions for the moderators Has there been any further discussion about matching the cap for PCmark05 with the orb ? As i understand it, 300mb/sec windows startup limit on orb and 220mb/sec on hwbot. Also, for the HWBOT submission limit, I've just mamaged to get a 220.582 xp startup on an overall score of 28482. I've only orb submitted and didn't submit to the bot as i don't want post an illegal score. so the question i have is , is the exact limit 220.00[/b]mb/sec or 221.00mb/sec ? if I did post this score on the bot, would it be pulled ? any info appreciated dafridgie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anvil Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 I didn't know that Hwbot had a limit in hard drive benchs of PCmark05... I certainly have missed one news. What's the reason? And how hwbot users can perfectly fit this limit? Hard drives are not like GPU ou CPU (increment of 10 MHz really easy to make). What is the solution? Removing one hard drive from your RAID array? Or I'm also missing softwares allowing a limitation in hard drives bandwith ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabski Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 2 questions for the moderatorsHas there been any further discussion about matching the cap for PCmark05 with the orb ? As i understand it, 300mb/sec windows startup limit on orb and 220mb/sec on hwbot. Also, for the HWBOT submission limit, I've just mamaged to get a 220.582 xp startup on an overall score of 28482. I've only orb submitted and didn't submit to the bot as i don't want post an illegal score. so the question i have is , is the exact limit 220.00[/b]mb/sec or 221.00mb/sec ? if I did post this score on the bot, would it be pulled ? any info appreciated dafridgie Hi bro The limit is 220.00 So i am afraid your score of 220.582 is invalid, so yes it would be removed. Hope this helps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafridgie Posted June 27, 2009 Author Share Posted June 27, 2009 Cheers Jabski for the clarification, futuremark only for this result then do you think there will be any alignment between orb and the bot on the hdd startup limit at some point? Dafridgie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacha35 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 It seems kind of crazy that futuremark has a limit of 300mb's but here the limit is 220mb's on the start up, I do understand limiting the start-up but I would have thought Hwbot would have followed the rules of the ORB ? Perhaps there needs to be another poll, as we now have all this new technology with SSD's and Ram drives that have to be manipulated to reduce the speed of start-up in this benchmark and do not show the true speed of a system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 There was a discussion (I think that was after the introduction of SSD's), and the result is the current set of rules:) Personally I'd say it's a good idea to stick to the old limit. Or remove it completely. Raising it won't do much good, then you will compare scores with many different sets of rules. 220mb/s, 300mb/s and later limits... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacha35 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 I understand what you are saying to a point knopflerbruce, but now we have the new SSD's and Ram drives surly this would make an impact on the whole of the benchmark results not only the start-up of the HDD test, so taking this into account how can a normal SATA or even older IDE drive be compared to the technology we have today. If there has to be a limit imposed because of new technology then all the old benchmarks we run now are all worthless because we cannot possible compare them to today's hardware. I thought the whole point was to try and make the system run as fast and efficiently as we can with the hardware we have, it is like comparing a single card GPU to a duel card GPU, the duel card will always win in most of the benchmarks, but we still run all of them and the guys with the old single GPU's lost out in a big way because it was decided that the new technology would take president over the old stuff we used. anyway I don't mean any harm in what I am saying but this is my thoughts, what does everyone else think. should we have to limit the speed of our hardware to run some benchmarks or should we try and make the hardware we have run as fast and efficiently as we possible can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 The problem is, if I got it right, that the HDD scores are too heavy on the final result, so whoever has the most drives wins (more or less). If there is no limit, ofc. I think that 220mb/s is too low as a limit, too, but unlimited will be too high because of the HDD scores. And something inbetween is unfair to all those who try to get HW and Global points by staying just below the 220mb/s limit:rolleyes: There is no perfect solution to this problem, unfortunately:( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabski Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 the limit is good. Also it is a challenege to keep the xp start up below 220mbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anvil Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 The problem is, if I got it right, that the HDD scores are too heavy on the final result, so whoever has the most drives wins (more or less). If there is no limit, ofc. I think that 220mb/s is too low as a limit, too, but unlimited will be too high because of the HDD scores. And something inbetween is unfair to all those who try to get HW and Global points by staying just below the 220mb/s limit:rolleyes: There is no perfect solution to this problem, unfortunately:( This is exactly my point since several months now. HDD score in PCmark05 is now "over represented". But only now. In 2005 nobody would have think about SSDs, so at this time the HDD score was not too heavy, but it turns out that now it is. This is exactly the same issue with some 3DMarks and the CPU score. But no limitation exists for the CPU score in 3DMark. In my opinion the worst thing is that HDD score is limited in PCMark even though this benchmark is supposed to test the overall performance of the computer and the CPU score in 3DMark is not limited in this benchmark supposed to test the GPU performance... Do you see my point ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nassuz Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 The PCmark 05 is nowdays become something of a joke i think, u dont need to even run youre cpu or gfx under cold to get a greate score, just add a bunch of SSD in raid......and you are go. Overall performance...nah, its all about the HDD`s used... Think maybe a split up between different HDD system might wanna make the PCmark05 moore fair...dunno.. Dont think this will happend... but, the world moove on, and we have to follow, like it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oanvoanc Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 everybody is talking about a 220mb limit... where is this rule mentioned? cant find anything here: http://hwbot.org/benchmark.application.info.do?applicationId=9&name=PCMark%202005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzen Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I got 740 MB/s in win xp startup, but i can not use it Pcmark Vantage FTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evocarlos Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 so what about if it were 220.157mbs or has it got to be 220.000 bang cock shot on have only been runing05 6hours getting fed up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Antinomy Posted October 22, 2009 Crew Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) so what about if it were 220.157mbs or has it got to be 220.000 The rule is "220 is the limit". This means - if you get 220, you are very lucky. Otherwise you should look for not exceeding this value which means - below 220. Can't get exact - get it lower. Otherwise we will always argue on how much can "not much" be As for me, I know that this difference is much lower than even 1 PCMark point, so it doesn't make sense. But dura lex sed lex. P.S. I think that the limit issue should be written on the benchmark page. In the rules section. As a rule - all rules should be mentioned on the appropriate pages, making it easier for everyone. Edited October 22, 2009 by Antinomy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRG Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 I understand the problem with HDD's in arrays having too much impact on the final score. But my feeling tells me that it is not as bad as limiting the hardware for this kind of test. Every benchmark has its sweet spot for good results, and at the moment a SSD array will do the trick for PCMARK. In a few years other solutions will do the trick, or maybe some new GPU parallel architecture will pull off the same effect. In other words: it's unpredictable. But nobody would accept something like: you can overclock your CPU only untill 8 GHz, higher than that is not fair because only few other people will achieve that... HWBOT is about xtreme hardware COMBINED with good OC skills! People investing lots of money will always have an advantage, but the expensive character is also one of the (difficult to achieve) charms of overclocking. People can think that it is easy to buy for 3000 euros of SSD's, but you must also be mad and extreme to hook that 3000 euro array up to a unstable overclocked system with tons of voltmods Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRG Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 I didn't take a ramdisk into account, and I agree that the speeds are huge. Maybe PCMARK could help in displaying the HDD adapter through a patch, I guess that HWBOT is surely providing them with increased license sales for PCMARK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtech Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 I think "XP Startup 220Mb/s" rule is not very good. This is a first subtest and it's quite easy to slow down it. Maybe limits for "HDD General Usage" and/or "Virus Scan" will be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miahallen Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) I think "XP Startup 220Mb/s" rule is not very good.This is a first subtest and it's quite easy to slow down it. Maybe limits for "HDD General Usage" and/or "Virus Scan" will be better. I've never benched PCMark before...but I just got ahold of a couple Intel SSDs...only to find out that my result is no good because my XP Startup is at about 270MB/s...how do I "slow it down" to meet the requirement? BTW - my personal feeling on this is to not set a MB/s limit, but to set a HW limit, as in: "Only magnetic HDDs allowed, maximum of 2 drives in the array" This would get the benchmark back on track with OCing being the focus, instead of all this crazyness about building the biggest fastest (and most expensive) storage sub-system. The whole reason I never really benched PCMark before was because I didn't feel competative due to a lack of funds. If I could take my cheap magnetic HDDs and overclock them to be competative, I would've done it a long time ago...isn't this all supposed to be about overclocking? Edited December 2, 2009 by miahallen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Copy a file while running the XP startup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miahallen Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Humm....sounds pretty stupid I'll see what I can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Humm....sounds pretty stupid I'll see what I can do. It's fairly easy. When the copying process has reached 30 seconds, you click start benchmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miahallen Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 how will you provide proof that your 3000mb/s XP startup is done with SSD array, and not a ramdisk? You guys require all sorts of things in screenshots...why not the require the device manager showing all HDDs installed. It shouldn't be too hard to differentiate the performance between two magnetic HDDs in a RAID0 and a SW RAM-drive It's fairly easy. When the copying process has reached 30 seconds, you click start benchmark I didn't say it sounds hard, I said it sounds stupid...as in ridiculous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Then ... yeah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miahallen Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Lol 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.