Christian Ney Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I asked the boss (massman) he told me : ramcache != ramdisk, but the line is very thin. aka ramdisk : not allowed ramcaching: allowed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc.Brown Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 This benchmark really take a strange way i think,and if someone use a ramdisk instead of ramcache now how could you see it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Leeghoofd Posted January 7, 2012 Crew Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) the rules have changed again? ...this is not fair for others... Euh, have they changed again ? - No ramdisk or MFT software allowed (didn't say ram cache did it ) - XP startup can not exceed 220MB/s - Benchmark must run on default web browser (Internet Explorer, any version) and default audio/video codec *new* - Browser enhancement tweaks such as disabling/removing features, plugins, make-up etc are allowed *new* - Audio and video codec tweaks are allowed. Powertoy is, as GUI for the registry, allowed *new* The new * ones have been debated a long time ago and everyone agreed on them... Explain the main difference between an Acard/Iram/RAM disk and the ram cache used here ? With normal SSDs you can't reach the scores eg Steve of Christian has done... I find it very good that ram cache can be used : It's far cheaper and can even bring far better results then them uberly expensive Acards... We have tested some cache programs and the results are insane... at a mild cost... PCmark05 was for the storage freaks with loads of cash, now the tide turns... Tip : Get your gear out and start benching iso... Edited January 7, 2012 by Leeghoofd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelaras Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 From some quick tests i made , i found out that you still need Acards & Controller / fast SSD's in order to maximize general usage & virusscan . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveRo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Most of the new pcie direct connect drives have excellent "mft like" software and from what I can tell - the s/w is needed just to use the drive (bundled with the driver) - if we allow "ram caching" we will see hdd scores approaching 3k and virus approaching 10k. Do we really want to allow this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Gappo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Most of the new pcie direct connect drives have excellent "mft like" software and from what I can tell - the s/w is needed just to use the drive (bundled with the driver) - if we allow "ram caching" we will see hdd scores approaching 3k and virus approaching 10k. Do we really want to allow this? Not atall. All old scores already got made irrelevant when the encoding "tweaks" were allowed. Now again and even more so with ramdisks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZMBKLN Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I agree... No. If you allow RAM Cache, you might as well let Software RAM Disks into the mix also... And at that point, this benchmark has lost any usefullness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.nfraR.ed Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 It was useless for me from a long time ago. Throw a big amount of money for storage, spend some time for tweaks (allowed or not..you can't detect what's used) and when you have an expensive storage system you're ready to test it with all CPUs you have..and you get hardware points for the cpu, but that's not a CPU benchmark anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobnova Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I do not approve, personally. Not after years and years of "NO!" "NO!" "Go buy expensive stuff!", now it's "SURE! Nuke the entire rankings with a ramcache that gives ramdrive type performance but has a different name!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hondacity Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 opportunistic bastards... hwbot and its stupid changes... come on... grow some hairy balls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc.Brown Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I agree... No. If you allow RAM Cache, you might as well let Software RAM Disks into the mix also... And at that point, this benchmark has lost any usefullness. I'm agree,and also remove the Xp start up limitation too because only one ssd can do better now. I've got only one sata3 ssd to play with pcmark05 and the 220Mb/s limit is just non-sense IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PizzaMan Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 This is just silly..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONAKONA Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Why don't you guys remove that silly XP startup rule and just require a picture of the storage devices used? Picture evidence is acceptable for cooling, it seems like a better way to police pcmark then the antiquated XP startup, which everyone can circumvent anyway. This ramcache stuff is pretty silly too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZMBKLN Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .... So what does this mean then? A FORMAL Decision would sure be nice on this. Sooner rather than later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnzdrn Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 ramcache != ramdisk, but the line is very thin. http://www.hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=28559&page=3 post 26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[GF]Duke Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 This bench has caused so much controversy. There really isn't much else to do but drop it completly and all points accumulated by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphling Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 This bench is similar to Maxxmem2, but instead of ultra bugged, it's ultra self-rules-everytime-exchanged Bah, put it out of the cotations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eeky NoX Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 It's been a while I'm looking the "batlles" from outside... never ran PCM to make some points. It appears like a waste of time to me since the begining... (furthermore so much controversy again and again and again... blablabla...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.nfraR.ed Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Yeah, if it was up to me, I'd remove it completely or just get it to the PCMark04 level (HW points only). But I guess guys with expensive storage setups will complain about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Riots, I did the same with 3dmark99 and 3dmark00. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Riots, I did the same with 3dmark99 and 3dmark00 if you guys remember Edited January 7, 2012 by Christian Ney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Sweet Posted January 7, 2012 Crew Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) riots, I Did The Same With 3dmark99 And 3dmark00. Again !!!! PCM....many problems with this benchmark.... ramcache != ramdisk, but the line is very thin. Is the same software, i think (supers....) at the end is a software no hardware Edited January 7, 2012 by Sweet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eeky NoX Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Riots, I did the same with 3dmark99 and 3dmark00 if you guys remember Call him the "Benchmark Killer" now Well, well, well... some won't be happy for sure. Chris you're a trouble maker bro. (with all the respect I have for you, you know ofc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Sweet Posted January 8, 2012 Crew Share Posted January 8, 2012 ramcache != ramdisk, but the line is very thin. Somethimg else, ramcache and ramdisk software need, more ram perhaps. ramcache and ramdisk is not allowed. or i'm wrong ? pcamrk confuses me many times, many fixes, many tricks, and many discussions 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.