Moose83 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 @Moose, why Virus Scan is so high, in Intel ? with 10 Ssd thats is correct ?(2094.77 MB/s) You have 10 Ssd ? , I never use many ssd., only 3 plextor http://hwbot.org/submission/2323631_moose83_pcmark_2005_core_i7_extreme_975_53547_marksP So, my friend please, explain this score, thanks so much 6 SSDs for gen usage on areca and 4 with RST for Virus scan, 4kb stripe size +110 pcie and near to 5ghz uncore;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Turrican Posted October 26, 2012 Crew Share Posted October 26, 2012 i think pics of the used setup would fine for future submissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Rankings have really bunnyed up But still some Audio/TE and flash 2 Desktop scores on in global and hw rankings;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveRo Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) @Moose, why Virus Scan is so high, in Intel ? with 10 Ssd thats is correct ?(2094.77 MB/s) You have 10 Ssd ? , I never use many ssd., only 3 plextor http://hwbot.org/submission/2323631_moose83_pcmark_2005_core_i7_extreme_975_53547_marksP So, my friend please, explain this score, thanks so much Provided Master Moose used his areca 4gb + 10SSD for this - I believe 2000+MB/s virus might be achievable. Edited October 26, 2012 by SteveRo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveRo Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) 6 SSDs for gen usage on areca and 4 with RST for Virus scan, 4kb stripe size +110 pcie and near to 5ghz uncore;) Four 64GB SSDs using the old ich10r gets 2000+MB/s in virus? I have never done it but perhaps you have found a better sweet spot? Edited October 26, 2012 by SteveRo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) Yes but only in 1 of 20 runs. X58 is really fast in VS, cant go past 1600 on other platforms. Look at SAV, he do allways 2G VS with onboard:) I dont unterstand, why some guys still think Gluvocio E8400 is not real, of course it is;) TW its all about registry and the right theme, also his webPR is clear only really good tweaked;) Edited October 26, 2012 by Moose83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Sweet Posted October 26, 2012 Author Crew Share Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) Four 64GB SSDs using the old ich10r gets 2000+MB/s in virus?I have never done it but perhaps you have found a better sweet spot? I'm here without spot I dont unterstand, why some guys still think Gluvocio E8400 is not real, of course it isTW its all about registry and the right theme, also his webPR is clear only really good tweaked Beyond what any guy thinks, Pro has judged that the submission of Gluvocio not in line with PCMark05., Imho ( my opinion) if you look Hdd gen and virus scan is high in this sub., and noone ask the important question , what sotrage has been used ? But in this crucial time for the PCM. legality matters more than anything else. i think pics of the used setup would fine for future submissions. Good idea Karl. for all submission, in this benchmark ? all guys , or those in which we have doubts ? @Moose Please Moose, add picture of your rig in this submission,especially the storage used, thanks so much Opsss. and send me one Ssd Edited October 26, 2012 by Sweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 i'm sorry but this comment seems like a flagrant brush-off. if this understanding were in place and was accepted practice then there would be no purge underway. as you know, the value of pc05 has been mired over time and by the stella reaction of both admins and enthusiasts this mess is being cleaned up. to denigrate a fair comment in such a condescending manner does no-one a service. it's correct that the common practise was to ignore these rules. Perhaps it's our fault that we didn't investigate this earlier, but it's any bencher's responsibility to make sure that the tweaks he uses are allowed - accepted practise or not. If you find a tweak that gives a huge boost it's common sense to verify that you're still within the rules. Everyone who used them were free to share the tweaks in public, or tell us that they were not legit as pr RULES, but they chose not to. That part has nothing to do with HWBot itself, only those who chose to use those tweaks. That's the mess we're clearing up now, and I'm happy to see that people understand that what was accepted practise for a while was wrong and that we have to block a bunch of valuable scores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 okay guys, between the mods we have brought the WR back to acceptable levels, but we are still auditing scores as we go i am really disappointed that some people are still submitting and ignore what we have said about rule revisions, this isnt a game, keep violating the rules blatantly and you will receive more than blocked results Make a newspost. Then we can punish those who do not care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M.O.G. Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 There are no new rules. We go after those who replace files and in other ways change the calculations in inappropriate ways, or creating bugged results. this has been illegal since the very beginning New rules were wrong of me to say. New enforcement of old rules is probably more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanCutress Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 6 SSDs for gen usage on areca and 4 with RST for Virus scan, 4kb stripe size +110 pcie and near to 5ghz uncore;) Didn't we rule against RST? Yes but only in 1 of 20 runs. Isn't it technically a bugged run then? Something jumping in and disrupting the time calculation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveRo Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) I'm here without spot Beyond what any guy thinks, Pro has judged that the submission of Gluvocio not in line with PCMark05., Imho ( my opinion) if you look Hdd gen and virus scan is high in this sub., and noone ask the important question , what sotrage has been used ? But in this crucial time for the PCM. legality matters more than anything else. Good idea Karl. for all submission, in this benchmark ? all guys , or those in which we have doubts ? @Moose Please Moose, add picture of your rig in this submission,especially the storage used, thanks so much Opsss. and send me one Ssd Including pictures should probably be mandatory. Its a shame that we need to require it. Probably best to include pictures of both storage and cooling used. Edited October 26, 2012 by SteveRo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 New rules were wrong of me to say. New enforcement of old rules is probably more appropriate. Agree:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I'm here without spot Beyond what any guy thinks, Pro has judged that the submission of Gluvocio not in line with PCMark05., Imho ( my opinion) if you look Hdd gen and virus scan is high in this sub., and noone ask the important question , what sotrage has been used ? But in this crucial time for the PCM. legality matters more than anything else. Good idea Karl. for all submission, in this benchmark ? all guys , or those in which we have doubts ? @Moose Please Moose, add picture of your rig in this submission,especially the storage used, thanks so much Opsss. and send me one Ssd Ups, read it too late... For me its ok, but then put it in the new rules, that an picture now is requiered;) But then whant it from all, not only me:) Im now not at home, beeing the next 3 weeks. Im now on the way to Holiday to Chech When im turn back, you will get your Pics, ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) Didn't we rule against RST? Isn't it technically a bugged run then? Something jumping in and disrupting the time calculation RST is now an part of an normal OS, drivers are usually allowed;) Its no bug, same like Areca, not every run gets same score When it gets forbitten, then i will delete it, but the you have the Problem, that only Raid card buyers can bench PCMark, and thats not good. I didnt change Cluster Size, only stripe size, so no problem. And...if something looks strange for the staff in the subtest, just write PM, and not put it in an official threat. Maybee some subtest are not clear to each staff member, so let benchers explain the if needed;) Edited October 26, 2012 by Moose83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Sweet Posted October 26, 2012 Author Crew Share Posted October 26, 2012 Including pictures should probably be mandatory. Its a shame that we need to require it. Probably best to include pictures of both storage and cooling used. Tonight, this will be included in the first post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Sweet Posted October 26, 2012 Author Crew Share Posted October 26, 2012 Didn't we rule against RST? No decision yet. RaideXpert and rst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 If banned them, i will ban my scores based on it, be shure no problem;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 The problem about RST is that it uses some sort of ramcache, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Same like AMD Raid expert;) only Intel is not that hard like AMD, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveRo Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Regarding amd raidexpert and intel rst - they are not the problem, they do allow some amount of raid caching but its not huge. The real problem with amd raidexpert or with any controller/ssd that allows it is the changing to a non-standard HDD sector size. This is how I think it works - pcm05 assumes the SSD sector size to be 512 all the time (hard coded?), if you use 1k sector size, pcm05 reports 2x the actual datarate for virus scan 2k sector size, pcm05 reports 4x the actual datarate for virus 4k sector size, pcm05 reports 8x the actual datarate See below, I agree that we should NOT try to change who won what in previous competitions. However if you agree that we do not want to obviate storage then increasing disk sector size beyond the default 512 should not be allowed. Again, this trick requires only one SSD and a utility to increase the sector size from the default 512, this can be done on just about any motherboard with iodrive, probably several others. It could be - the true virus scan score for 4k sector score of 9500MB/s is simply – 9500MB/S * (512/4096) = 1187.5MB/s Again, I agree that we should NOT try to change who won what in previous competitions but I believe that tricking the benchmark in this way should not be allowed and points (including previous points) should not be awarded for using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Fully agree, Intel allow Driver based no change of Cluster Size and no Caching options. AMD Raid expert allowes both in Driver, so there is for me an huge difference. With RST you cant score 650 gen usage and 9G VS, on AMD you can change these settings to trick PCM to believe it runs faster... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 OK, so we should add 512k HDD sector size to the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveRo Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 OK, so we should add 512k HDD sector size to the rules? I strongly concur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) Fully agree, Cluster size leave at Windows standart of 512kb That would be fair against intel. Completly forbit these Softwares isnt an good idea, beginners want to creat there raid with onboard so these softwares should be legit;) Only disallow Cluster Size change would an great deal Finally hopefully there will be an good decission about this Tool, nice You know, i started twice writing about that, and each time i was stopped... Edited October 26, 2012 by Moose83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts