Splave Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Yeah I know he's on XP, but does it really make that much of a difference? I'll definitely try then ok ok ok XP64 -Set Background Process Priority and dont thank me anyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiVizMan Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 ok ok ok XP64 -Set Background Process Priority and dont thank me anyone er, thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George_o/c Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 ok ok ok XP64 -Set Background Process Priority and dont thank me anyone Thanks man However I still think that rules have to be clarified first, and I'm glad that as seen in your other thread, hwbot staff is on it. I'll wait for a bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENiEBEN Posted May 3, 2014 Author Share Posted May 3, 2014 (edited) If you're reading this post than you probably had a blocked UCBench score. What we once considered "luck" turned out to be a design flaw of the benchmark, documented by a fellow member of the HWBOT community (credits pending) and personally tested for veracity. TL;DR: The Passwords Checked column must be in ascending order (A<B<C etc) How to make sure you're not going to get a bugged score: Make sure that thread selected divided to total available threads (cpu threads) is not an odd number. Let's take an example: -cpus=24,53,60 ; with a physical CPU that has 4 threads (4c/4t, 2c/4t). Benchmark only cares about every other second thread (24,53,60 -- A,B,C,D,E,). This example will be bugged since 53 divided by 4 will result into an odd number (13) AND is also second in line. If we were to rearrange our original choice, we could return a valid result using: 24,60,53. Notice that since second number divided by 4 is now an even number, the result won't be affected. We will refer to this rule as "A<B<C", in case you're wondering what mambo-jumbo were talking. Speaking of which, scores that resemble "A>B~C" are technically bugged but they will be at moderator's choice, with the chance of staying in the rankings. =================================================== UPDATE 16 May 2014: TL;DR UPDATE 22 June 2014: Typo in A<B<C Edited June 22, 2014 by GENiEBEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Strunkenbold Posted May 4, 2014 Crew Share Posted May 4, 2014 Whats the exact case for single cores? There are obviously bugged scores as well using just 1 and 64 threads. And 64 would be even. Or are these results ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 This example make no sence! Just make wrapper, or disallow this threat stuff completly You also get bugged runs with even numbers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.paco Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 So I could maybe get a better understanding of that explanation, could you let me know if this run is good or bad. And if it is bad; Why? Thank you for your time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabby Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 That is bad mr.paco and here is why: 2/2=1 and 6/2=3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.paco Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 That is bad mr.paco and here is why: 2/2=1 and 6/2=3. I have no idea what that means I am in no way trying to be a pain, but could you possibly explain that in layman's terms please ? Appreciate it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabby Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 #threads 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 64. Every other number counts, so in this case its 2,4,6 and 8. These are the ones you divide by the amount of cpu threads you ran with. 2 divided by 2 is 1. One is an even number and so a bugged run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 #threads 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 64. Every other number counts, so in this case its 2,4,6 and 8. These are the ones you divide by the amount of cpu threads you ran with. 2 divided by 2 is 1. One is an even number and so a bugged run. One is odd. I knew what you meant though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.paco Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Thank you Crabby. I appreciate the explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObscureParadox_3XS Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 (edited) Let's take an example: -cpus=24,52,60 ; with a physical CPU that has 4 threads (4c/4t, 2c/4t).Benchmark only cares about every other second thread (24,52,60 -- A,B,C,D,E,). This example will be bugged since 52 divided by 4 will result into an odd number (13) AND is also second in line. If we were to rearrange our original choice, we could return a valid result using: 24,60,52. Notice that since second number divided by 4 is now an even number, the result won't be affected. Unless I'm being dumb, your example would also be invalid because 60/4 = 15 i.e. an odd number What's the deal with numbers that don't divide exactly into each other then, I assume they are also invalid? Edited May 4, 2014 by ObscureParadox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 So....in theory then, a totally default run on a X3 Heka for example will always be a bugged run? Bullsh1t. I don't buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENiEBEN Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 So I could maybe get a better understanding of that explanation, could you let me know if this run is good or bad.And if it is bad; Why? Thank you for your time... What Crabby said. Unless I'm being dumb, your example would also be invalid because 60/4 = 15 i.e. an odd number What's the deal with numbers that don't divide exactly into each other then, I assume they are also invalid? Thanks for pointing it out, you are correct, those numbers were for the dual-core cpus, should have picked new ones for 4c/4t. So....in theory then, a totally default run on a X3 Heka for example will always be a bugged run? Bullsh1t. I don't buy it. The cpu can actually complete those even threads without carrying over to next thread selection. X3 with 3,15,60 = good X3 with 4,16,64 = bad X6 with 6,24,60 = good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riska Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I cant see the problem here? why not just use the stock settings for the bench, and disallowe the user to set the threads them self? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug2507 Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Because it removes part of the fun, we all like benches that you can tweak! Although having said that maybe it's not such a bad idea if system settings still have a big influence, that would still leave room for manoeuvre. I guess another option would be just to shit can it and enable points on another bench. Would also save having to sort out 12k worth of subs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I cant see the problem here? why not just use the stock settings for the bench, and disallowe the user to set the threads them self? Im also for disallow all threat settings...Then there is no problem like we have now The bench is enough tweakable only with tweaking the OS No one wants to bench with math calculator lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObscureParadox_3XS Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 X3 with 3,15,60 = good X3 with 4,16,64 = bad X6 with 6,24,60 = good Now I'm confused again because 15/3 = 5. Am I right in thinking then that with an odd number of cores we need the division to equate to an odd number too or does it also have to be even and this is another mistake in the example?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENiEBEN Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 Am I right in thinking then that with an odd number of cores we need the division to equate to an odd number too[...] You are correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Strunkenbold Posted May 5, 2014 Crew Share Posted May 5, 2014 Actually 12k results are way too much to get moderated by 2-3 persons. This will take ages. We probably should consider making a clean cut here. There are more up2date benchmarks out there dunno what is so special about UCbench that we have to keep it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Just disallow this threat settings and done Its more math then benching with this threat count... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObscureParadox_3XS Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 You are correct. woot woot!!! I'm getting somewhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 The cpu can actually complete those even threads without carrying over to next thread selection. X3 with 3,15,60 = good X3 with 4,16,64 = bad X6 with 6,24,60 = good You missed the point. Default settings for the bench automatically selects 1, 2, 3, 4, 8. A 3X core running 3 threads should be bugged according to your math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENiEBEN Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 You missed the point. Default settings for the bench automatically selects 1, 2, 3, 4, 8. A 3X core running 3 threads should be bugged according to your math. Except it never is bugged on default settings, I know what you meant. Will update my post tonight with the answers I gave through PM's. 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.