dhenzjhen Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 Just wondering why my 8 core XTU sub not getting points? http://hwbot.org/submission/2422247_dhenzjhen_xtu_xeon_e5_2687w_v2_1582 Thanks, DJ Quote
Massman Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 Global Points (UGP) 1st using 8 CPU - 11.0 Points Hardware Points (UHP) 1st using Xeon E5 2687W V2 - 2.0 Points Global Team Power Points (GTPP) 1st in team using 8 CPU - 50.4 Points Hardware Team Power Points (HTPP) 1st in team using Xeon E5 2687W V2 - 5.2 Points Seems fine here? Quote
dhenzjhen Posted September 8, 2013 Author Posted September 8, 2013 Hmmm that's odd because I saw while ago only UHP and HTTP Hardware Points (UHP) 1st using Xeon E5 2687W V2 - 2.0 Points Hardware Team Power Points (HTPP) 1st in team using Xeon E5 2687W V2 - 5.2 Points Quote
Movieman Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 That benchmark is flawed. I got the same score as you using the defaults and OC'd to 3871MHz..36x107.55BCLK Quote
GENiEBEN Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 ^ Don't run CINE more than 2 times in a single session, always restart as score starts dropping. BTW, if you're changing BCLK in Windows do it with Cine closed as it internally defines how long 1 second is using QPC. Quote
Movieman Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 ^ Don't run CINE more than 2 times in a single session, always restart as score starts dropping. BTW, if you're changing BCLK in Windows do it with Cine closed as it internally defines how long 1 second is using QPC. Hi, if you meant me all my changes are done in BIOS, no way to change in windows on these dual socket machines that I am aware of..I wish there was! Quote
TaPaKaH Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 BTW, if you're changing BCLK in Windows do it with Cine closed as it internally defines how long 1 second is using QPC.Isn't this a benchmark security leak? or it doesn't work the other way around? Quote
GENiEBEN Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 It's a problem with every application using CLOCKS_PER_SEC (which is calculated according to CPU MHz) instead of the actual number, 1000000. Quote
TaPaKaH Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 and yet it has both hardware and global points enabled? Quote
knopflerbruce Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 If we want 100% secure benchmarks only I think we can remove globals altogether. Even the wrappers are not safe (though safer than no wrapper at all!). I wonder if superpi/pifast are safe. My guess is that they're very easy to manipulate, especially pifast. Quote
TaPaKaH Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 I wonder if superpi/pifast are safe. My guess is that they're very easy to manipulate, especially pifast.May be I'm missing something, but to cheat SuperPi or PiFast by any margin, you would have to deliberately use "knowledge" which isn't normally used for overclocking/tweaking and hence deemed illegal ... whereas with CineBench you can be speedhacking on others without even knowing about it. Quote
Massman Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 That benchmark is flawed. I got the same score as you using the defaults and OC'd to 3871MHz..36x107.55BCLK Using v4.2.0.8 ? Quote
Movieman Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 Using v4.2.0.8 ? 4.1.0.12 Just downloaded it 2-3 days ago Quote
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.