trodas Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 K404 - It's been a LONG time since I used that software, but if the command had went through, shouldn't it be in the history? Good point. It is NOT in the history. In fact, nothing even get it into the history part of window. Dunno why. Perhaps because the software does not work? What time did you start the bench? One minute before I set the Affinity. Does Task manager confirm that it worked? How could it confirm that? In Czech version of Windows XP SP3, there is no Affinity mentioned anywhere. I can only force program to some of the core(s), that it is. Nothing else. Mr.Scott - You will also get no score if you fail any of the other tests. Try at stock speeds to see if maybe your OC is too unstable. All test and benches are working fine at my stable settings. If SuperPi 32M test or wPrime 1024M tests works fine - why should not few minutes of PCmark04? I can, of course, test at stock. But I can guarantee you, that there will be NO difference. It again fail to produce the cursed damned score. K404 - I just had a really really quick try on my daily machine (Sandy i3...2C/4T) So, do you get the score? That is the only one thing I care about right now. QuickFast - I don't see internet explorer do you have it installed? Internet Exploder uninstalled Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 K404 - Good point. It is NOT in the history. In fact, nothing even get it into the history part of window. Dunno why. Perhaps because the software does not work? If History does not update, you are doing something wrong. How could it confirm that? In Czech version of Windows XP SP3, there is no Affinity mentioned anywhere. I can only force program to some of the core(s), that it is. Nothing else. Task Manager will show you how many cores are being used, as a % of full CPU utilisation. Mr.Scott - All test and benches are working fine at my stable settings. If SuperPi 32M test or wPrime 1024M tests works fine - why should not few minutes of PCmark04? I can, of course, test at stock. But I can guarantee you, that there will be NO difference. It again fail to produce the cursed damned score. That is a non-sequitur. They are completely different tests, using completely different instructions. - Internet Exploder uninstalled There's one problem right away. PCM04 explicitly uses Internet Explorer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuickFast Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) Don't know whats allowed but one thought tiny xp install windows media player and windows decoder 9 then you should be good Edited May 30, 2015 by QuickFast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 K404 - nothing even get it into the history part of window. Dunno why. Perhaps because the software does not work? If History does not update, you are doing something wrong. Well, what could I have done wrong? The software is pretty straight-forward. I set the app, then set the time and what operation should happend and that it is. As you can check from these two screens: As you can see, in 9:45:00 nothing happend... Could this software work on basic (Win32) XP SP3 after all? Or a 64bit WinXP are need? Task Manager will show you how many cores are being used, as a % of full CPU utilisation. Both cores are used to the max, IIRC. I can, of course, test at stock. But I can guarantee you, that there will be NO difference. It again fail to produce the cursed damned score. That is a non-sequitur. They are completely different tests, using completely different instructions. True. However I can even overclock UP into unsafe zone and ALL tests (except Gramar and Web page render) are passed: So it is NOT the overclocking In fact, I can pass other benches at higher, unstable, settings: http://hwbot.org/submission/2878614_trodas_3dmark_99_max_radeon_9600_xt_28951_marks http://hwbot.org/submission/2878610_trodas_3dmark2000_radeon_9600_xt_21768_marks So this is out of the possibility. Look, I know what I doing and I know what parts of CPU will fail soonest when overclocked. Not the core functions, but ram bus controll functions, as they are physically located on the corner of the chip, so Prime 95 memory stress test is best way to check for stability. Internet Exploder uninstalled There's one problem right away. PCM04 explicitly uses Internet Explorer. Damn! Yes, that is the test that failed... So, there is no way to convince PCmark14 to use default browser instead, right? Then I cannot produce the score (if not reinstalled Win) and we can only concentrate on the Affinity not working QuickFast - Don't know whats allowed but one thought tiny xp install windows media player and windows decoder 9 then you should be good Except the Affinity you are right. I installed the WMEncoder9 and WMPlayer9 to get things running. I failed on the Affinity and on the Internet Explorer thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 If you made it use default browser, that would be a cheat. I have no idea what's going wrong. My guess is something in OS. Grammar Check does stop working properly with threads and MHz. Getting that right will be the challenge.... and when it does work, it might be fluke. So.... your problem might, technically, be the overclocking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Well, I don't exactly see why, because Firefox is usually slower the IE in the pure rendering speed... but whatever. Different versions of IE could also give different speed results, but that it outside of the scope of this thread, because that would require modificatons to the PCMark04, witch is something that require a great deal of knowledge and hacking skill - eg. nothing I could do. Back to your idea about default speed. Ok, speed in bios set to auto, as CPU-Z prove to me: As you can see, it again did not work at all. Before 9:01h I set the affinity to the PCMark04 will run at time 9:01h on single core, then from 9:03h back on dual core(s). Nothing happend. I hope you now recognize that I was right and overclocking withing stable limits does NOT cause the affinity is not working. Right? ... Aside this, rather personal question, take a good look at the Winblows CPU info. Yes, that is kinda... missing out there, right? There is not much bellow the memory information. I checked on my Win XP SP3, what it does tell about my P4 650, and again there is no CPU type, but at least it says that the PA mode (extension of physicall address) is ON: No idea, if that could be some key to understand why the affinity does not work, but I just reporting that, what I find. Also - could not some BIOS settings caused that? See: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=134923 The "Intel Virtualization Technology" is now completely ghosted and I remember that on P4 it was possible activate it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) Oh... CPU speed doesn't (as far as I know) affect the stability of CPU Affinity software. It sounds like a "problem" between OS and software. CPU Affinity DOES need certain OS services running before it will work, but I can't remember which ones. As to FF being slower than IE... HWB made a blanket rule to "no changes" so it is clear and easier to understand and no-one can say "ah....but..." I will try and make a quick video to show the software working for me I am not sure what use that will be, but I guarantee that the software is nor completely broken EDIT: video uploading. The test didn't show what I wanted/expected, but it does show the software working. Please excuse my annoying-as-bunnyextraction voice Edited June 7, 2015 by K404 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 The IE vs FF discussion is mute - no one I know have the ability to patch PCMark04 exe that way, it can use another browser, not to mention (since we all know, how M$ is upholding standards) that it might not be even possible, after all. What calls are used for IE, might not even work for FF, Opera, Safari or whatever browser will render fastest the page(s) during the test. So let's drop that discussion, unless there is patch like that somewhere... In theory, the CPU overclock *might* affect some settings and some instructions, but since it is not my first, nor my second, not my 50th overclocked CPU, then I'm fairly certain, that when I say that ATM a 286x11 settings are stable for my ASRock 775i65G, then they are. Proven once again... Now the services that are need for the affinity settings - that could be productive discussion that might lead somewhere. But the video - that is even BETTER idea. And I have another idea... 1) I made a video, witch show the PCMark04 in action, eg. how grammar test fail with the affinity set (hopefully well?) by task manager. I only forget to show the CPU-Z screen to prove that the CPU is NOT OVERCLOCKED at the time of the test... There you go: Do I done it right? 2) Now the video only lack a CPU-Z proving that the CPU is *NOT* overclocked at the time of the video... 3) ...but it also lack - and that is what idea I got now - showing the task manager window with the cores load to determine, if the PCMark04 grammar test works on one core only! In fact, I think that we can see proof that affinity does work - or not. The load from the Bandicam (m-jpeg, 15fps) could / should be (hopefully) possible to differenciate from the PCMark04 test and if the PCMark04 does not exceed 50% of CPU load, then affinity works well, because it was not able to use more that ONE core...! ... And is there some point I trying to made? YES, there it goes: maybe the grammar test fail because the CPU have 4MB cache also, not only the 2 cores is the problem...! So maybe this error is unrecoverable... Time to make another vid... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) In theory, the CPU overclock *might* affect some settings and some instructions, but since it is not my first, nor my second, not my 50th overclocked CPU, then I'm fairly certain, that when I say that ATM a 286x11 settings are stable for my ASRock 775i65G, then they are. Proven once again... No. No. No. You are missing the point. Stability is a function of MHz Vs voltage Vs a specific piece of software. You have been overclocking long enough to know this. If MHz run fine for 9/10 pieces of software, but not "the other one," obviously there is a problem with "the other one," but it "doesn't matter." The problem has to be solved with respect and context of the software it is not working with. It cannot be assumed that because things are fine "with everything else," that it will be fine with something different. I will watch the video when mine has uploaded. My internet connection does not set the world alight EDIT: Edited June 7, 2015 by K404 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) Well, if there IS a piece of software, no matter how insane it is, that fail with overclock and NOT fail w/o overclock, then I would never call that overclock stable. Might be benchable, but it is not stable. ... And there is MUCH better video to watch for you: PCMark04 fail with grammer test on BOTH cores, as expected: Watch the load on the cores. Now there is the original video with director cut edition - I added the missing info and it will show you, that affinity does work for me, when done by task manager: Hopefully processing to the HD will be done quickly by YT. IMHO the core(s) load prove, that the PCMark04 does run only on Core 0, therefore the affinity setting in the task manager works for me. (especially compared to the 2 cores run it become IMHO obvious) But I await your opinion on that matter... ... So now I have another question - is there are ever a PCMark04 score on Core 2 Extreme X6800? Or any other CPU with 4MB+ cache? You probably see already, where I pointing ... Edited June 7, 2015 by trodas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) I don't think it comes down to CPU cache- look at the number of scores submitted that go against that theory Edited June 7, 2015 by K404 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) Well, good luck with proving that argument invalid: show me a CPU, with 4MB+ L2 cache, what scored on PCMark04! I looked there: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/pcmark_2004/ And it is all Semprons and P4 there in the one CPU: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/pcmark_2004/rankings?cores=1#start=0#interval=20 For the dual CPU's, there are: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/pcmark_2004/rankings?cores=2#start=0#interval=20 ...some more interesting CPU's, but all they have is 256k of L2 and 3MB of L3 in best case scenario: http://hwbot.org/submission/2610863_wolfnyght___kew_team_pcmark_2004_pentium_g3258_21128_marks Nowhere near 4MB of L2. Only the AMD Phenoms having 512kBy L2 and 6MB of L3 are getting over the 4MB, but not L2. Therefore there is no CPU that come close with the L2 size... but there is an better argument against the sheer size of L2: Core 2 Extreme X6800 http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_x6800_293ghz/ ...and yes! There are PCMark04 scores: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/pcmark_2004/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_875&cores=2#start=0#interval=50 Whole 16 of them! ... And since the demise of Futuremark online scores for PCMark04, vast majority of them is not possible to verify. Let me state it clear - from the 16 scores, the wast majority - whole 11 scores - cannot be verified by any way to be real. None of the 11 have also any picture of the machine that was benched, witch is IMHO against the rules for the first places (and yes, there are 1st, 3, 4, 5 and 6th places amongs them, not counting the rest...). So we have 5 scores only left, with at least screenshot of the test in them: 2nd place: http://hwbot.org/submission/582356_mayk_pcmark_2004_core_2_x6800_%282.93ghz%29_13547_marks (no images of the machine, no CPU-Z verify link, no info about mainboard...) 7th place: http://hwbot.org/submission/590099_gianlu_pcmark_2004_core_2_x6800_%282.93ghz%29_12553_marks 9th place: http://hwbot.org/submission/2351569_evil_pcmark_2004_core_2_x6800_%282.93ghz%29_12198_marks 10th place: http://hwbot.org/submission/589864_ivan992_pcmark_2004_core_2_x6800_%282.93ghz%29_12193_marks (TRAS 1?! WTF!) 15th place: http://hwbot.org/submission/590463_joe_cool_pcmark_2004_core_2_x6800_%282.93ghz%29_10191_marks (image thumbnail is not showing for some reason) ... NONE of these scores show the rig, or give and info that could be verified now. Maybe they using older version of the PCMark04 that works? I did not say that all these results are cheats, but once again - if you want to verify them, then you come up short. There is (with the Futuremark demise of the PCMark04 support) simply no way... I trying at least insert even for Aquamarks the CPU-Z link into comments, but there is nothing. And I mean NOTHING. Edited June 7, 2015 by trodas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) E6600 & E6700, Wolfdale family.....there are easily 200 PCM04 scores with 4MB & 6MB of L2 cache. Now, in the big picture, that is not a big number, but.... PCM04 was having problems 8 years ago, before HWBot really got going. The VAST majority of CPU classes have PCM04 as a 2-point gold. That means that most people will not try very hard to solve a problem (and the people who still put the time in to problem-solving for 2-point golds always get my respect.) Edited June 7, 2015 by K404 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 None of the 11 have also any picture of the machine that was benched, witch is IMHO against the rules for the first places (and yes, there are 1st, 3, 4, 5 and 6th places amongs them, not counting the rest...). There is no picture rule. I'll bench some 775's on PCM04 if you like. I guaranty there is no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObscureParadox_3XS Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I have a 775 rig set up at the moment so I suppose I could give it a try also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Well, that would be interesting test to try For me it just fail ... but maybe I somehow helped it to happen? Dunno. K404 - PCM04 was having problems 8 years ago, before HWBot really got going Just to know, how to help it Mr.Scott - None of the 11 have also any picture of the machine that was benched, witch is IMHO against the rules for the first places I believe it is. It says right there: Warning! You need to attach at least one picture of your system if you want to receive points in the enthusiast league, as the crew needs to be able to verify you are not using extreme cooling. ...and I would very much like to see some of the rigs ObscureParadox - 775 rig set up at the moment so I suppose I could give it a try also Thank you. I just scratching my head about what I did wrong... nevermind. Let's hope for K404 vid to see, how the affinity is supposed to work. I was setting PCMark04 to run on just single core and still no go Cursed grammar test Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Oh... the video is up, I edited an earlier post A rig picture is only needed for enthusiast/rookie leagues, in order to get points... and that rule is only a year or two old. Results posted before then are exempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 A rig picture is only needed for enthusiast/rookie leagues, in order to get points... and that rule is only a year or two old. Results posted before then are exempt. http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=107678&highlight=picture+rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Whoa! I'm an entire year behind! Sorry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 K404 - oh, thanks for the vid, I missed it for the first time! Nice one! Working as expected (mainly the commands are getting executed and are into the history, unlike on mine PC). Yes, the second core did not drop that much in load, but as demonstration it is fine. Thank you. However that was a Win Vista or Win7 system, right? (I should probably reinstall my WinXP and try that again on unmodified system... or better yet, fire a Filemon and look, what dll's or stuff are need and not found...) All this is not that hot for me, because the major problem is, that when I set affinity using task manager, then it still does not help PCMark04 grammar test to pass. And when it does, then I need still reinstall for the IE, lol And as for the picture rule - same goes for Mr.Scott - well, I did not screaming that all these scores should be purged, do I? I did not posting in the OC crime that these scores should be gone for good either. I not meant that, I was just raising my objections, that given the Futuremark "stab in the back", these scores are now hard to verify. Of course when they are added with the link, then it is likely that they are verified by someone and they are genuine. Even that the link is gone now... I was just basically looking at way(s), how to make PCMark04 work for me, so I hoped that maybe I can catch some know-how But sadly there is very few informations I manage to gather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I used a 7-64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 That could be the difference between working and not working Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObscureParadox_3XS Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Windows 7 was better for PCMark 05 and it might be better for PCMark 04 too. Are you using a cut down windows 7 or a full one because that will make a difference too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I use a self stripped version of XP. Smaller than TinyXP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 ObscureParadox - Windows 7 was better for PCMark 05 and it might be better for PCMark 04 too. That is doubtfull on 2G of ram. But I might give this a try. Certainly I did not managed PCMark work on WinXP SP3 ATM. So no Win7, just WinXP. Mr.Scot - self stripped version of XP. Smaller than TinyXP Share link in PM, perhaps? Is PCMark04 working on these tiny tiny XP? And what about the Affinity in time program? 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.