Lod Or No Lod

[ncc-1709]

christ, you can edit that buy the bios on some boards.

[Massman]

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure Team Japan uses this setting also (maybe we should ask them ).

[SF3D]

Massman

You can use both /onecpu , /numproc=1

The best pi scores are done with only one core enabled Have to try this today.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2308976

[Massman]

I guess with the little difference between the max oc with one or two cores it pays off to disable one

 

By the way, have you already tested your E6700 with ln²?

[SF3D]

I just tested that core disabling, but for me, there was no change in overclock.

I managed to get 5.1GHz out of it, but superpi wouldn't run over 5GHz.

 

I should test this chip under LN2 soon. When that QX6800 G0 arrive, I don't think that I need this E6700 anymore

[1Day]

I wonder why it is acceptable to physically alter hardware to get better performance in a benchmark but not acceptable to alter the driver of that hardware. This is just a question that I have pondered for some time, I myself have done and will continue to mod my hardware to perform better while benching, and so to modify my drivers within the acceptable norm of the day, but this apparent duality specifically about driver modification for benchmarking intrigues me.

[BenchZowner]

then it will come all down to sample selection

 

Agreed, totally.

LoD is a tweak, that is used to give us better scores by lowering the Image Quality ( in general ), it's a cheat if you think of it like "the developers used a +1 LoD for this test, etc" but competition-wise...oh well...there would be no competition in 3D Mark2001SE if LoD is considered illegal.

It would come down to who has the best 'connections' in various manufacturers to get the very best cherrypicked CPU/RAM/VGAs.

 

What could be done for the guys not liking LoD would be a filter to provide results and charts with and without LoD ( having a "LoD Used" or "Not" field @ the submit results form )

[BenchZowner]

But it can not be used to create a "no LOD" ranking due to human nature;)

 

Sad, but true

[1Day]

It depends on how you look at benchmarking. Do you try to have the fastest hardware, of do you try to have the highest benchmark score?

 

Modding your hardware makes your hardware go faster, no doubt about that. Modding software just makes it easier for your hardware to run the benchmark application, but it doesn't make your hardware faster.

 

Personally I think overclocking as a sport would be better of if no software tweaking was allowed at all, but I'm sure at least half my crew would disagree.

 

I think your first point has really encapsulated the core issue here - namely that differentiation between fastest hardware and highest benchmark score. What these 3D benchmarks were originally designed to do and what they have come to mean are two distinct and separate things. Basically the meaning of the benchmark is derived. If you as a gamer purely want to test your system and see how it compares against other similar system then all is good. That was after all the original purpose of the Graphic benchmarks was it not? But 3D benchmarks and have evolved meaning into something different than the original intention. They [3D benchmarking] are now a competitive sport. (Let us not quibble about the meaning of the word sport I am using it in a generic sense.) And as such the same forces are at play as found in any sport. "Citius, Altius, Fortius" (faster, higher, stronger). Those sentiments apply to benching as well as to any athletic pursuit I would suspect. And what is the gauge that is used to measure your prowess in benching? Why synthetic benchmark scores of course.

 

Moving on to the second point you made, software. That is a difficult one to determine just where is the line drawn. Do we then insist that only a certain motherboard bios be used by all who bench with that motherboard? Do we take it even further and insist that a particular version of an OS be used. After all we want the playing field to be even and only test hardware...or do we? Just as a software package in a Formula 1 bike or car, can improve the efficiency of a hardware package so do software packages improve the performance of hardware in PC's. The notion that hardware is independent of the software in not completely accurate. They co-exist - in fact to use a trendy term their relationship is in fact symbiotic and the product a synthesis of all the parts. Differentiation between where hardware ends and where software begins is becoming (in the component design world anyhow) very difficult. I suggest to you that software does in fact positively on how the hardware is better able to do its work and as such has the same value as does hardware modification or tweaking. Legally of course.

.

 

Your last point has merit and at times I can fully agree with your view - but it is a particular position that you are taking namely what I call the hardware stance. (Apologies to Danial Dennett for messing with his intentional stance notion.) That hardware centric stance places more value on hardware and the results achieved with hardware. Software, bios or driver modifications and testing are just as valuable (in them selfs not only as a outcome produced) as those hardware adjustments and modifications. It is surly the synthesis of all the various elements that makes a great over-clocker and bencher. Access to hardware, the willingness to put in the hours of testing in (both hardware and software testing) and of course having the courage to actually attempt what no-one has done before - these are all needed to be a record breaker.

[ncc-1709]

^^^ Very well said.

 

i take it by the results of the poll, that LOD tweeks are generally acceptable still, but may change in the future?

if so, back to benching i go.