TheKarmakazi Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I guess I really dont see whats unfair when people are running rampant with $1600 worth of gfx cards. If someone has a nice storage array, they should get some credit :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jax7480 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 I would like to say also my opinion about the 220ΜΒ/s limit. First of all this rule IS NOWHERE written in the rules section of PCMark05 or am I blind and didn't see it? http://hwbot.org/benchmark.application.info.do?applicationId=9&tab=rules Second of all, what the heck? maybe you should make a rule for 3dmarks about not testing more 2 VGAs, or limit the Nature test of 3dmark2001 to 500FPS. This would be more competitive, for people that do not have proccessors that reach 7GHz benchable, or graphic cards cherry picked directly from the companies. I have 3 Intel X25-E in raid0 in my everyday system, which is also the system that I'm running my benches. I chose to pay for 3 SSD's in order to use them for my everyday tasks. Because though my drives are too fast for XP Startup I have to limit them? Where else exactly does HWBOT have a limit in a benchmark except this one? Others pay for Liquid Nitrogen, others pay for proccessors, other pay for graphic cards. Why can't we pay for hard drives that also make a difference in our daily tasks? It is a ridiculous limit that should be removed. I didn't see of course anyone to complain about the insane speeds in HDD general usage speed. Shouldn't you put a limit there also? say about 130MB/s??? this would make it even more fair.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Without this limitation, we'll be seeing 12000MB/s ramdisks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 I would like to say also my opinion about the 220ΜΒ/s limit.First of all this rule IS NOWHERE written in the rules section of PCMark05 or am I blind and didn't see it? http://hwbot.org/benchmark.application.info.do?applicationId=9&tab=rules Second of all, what the heck? maybe you should make a rule for 3dmarks about not testing more 2 VGAs, or limit the Nature test of 3dmark2001 to 500FPS. This would be more competitive, for people that do not have proccessors that reach 7GHz benchable, or graphic cards cherry picked directly from the companies. I have 3 Intel X25-E in raid0 in my everyday system, which is also the system that I'm running my benches. I chose to pay for 3 SSD's in order to use them for my everyday tasks. Because though my drives are too fast for XP Startup I have to limit them? Where else exactly does HWBOT have a limit in a benchmark except this one? Others pay for Liquid Nitrogen, others pay for proccessors, other pay for graphic cards. Why can't we pay for hard drives that also make a difference in our daily tasks? It is a ridiculous limit that should be removed. I didn't see of course anyone to complain about the insane speeds in HDD general usage speed. Shouldn't you put a limit there also? say about 130MB/s??? this would make it even more fair.... If PCMark05 didn't make the benchmark such that ramdisks would give an insane score boost, this wouldn't be much of a problem. PS: even FM themselves made a limit for their own ORB. Why should we remove it when they more or less admit there is a flaw? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jax7480 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Yes but they have a limit of 300MB/s not 220... 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.