Crew Leeghoofd Posted July 12, 2014 Crew Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) Really stuff this benchmark, so sick and tired of it... I just run it and each score gets reported as it is bugged, due to mismatching passwords... Am I doing anything wrong here ? There's no fancy stuff, just set the threads, select SSE3 and run it at the highest possible clocks... And now the g3258 score seems to be bugged again... I can understand to ban if the bugged thread/password was the determining result, sadly most of the times it is not (at least not in my case)... Seriously HWBot I'm not running this crap 5 times to get a normal score in... get it fixed or remove the points in general till a decent version is out there... Secondly also start to remove all the scores that just run one thread selection as there is no way to veriofy the bugged run or not... CL3P20 has to become the moderator on this as he is reporting most of the scores... Last but not least it should not be my job to configure a benchmark to make it run properly! Options: 1) either remove the thread selection option in general from a future version 2) get a new buggless version out with thread selection possibility 3) just F L U C K THIS Benchmark and ditch it... Edited July 12, 2014 by Leeghoofd Quote
GENiEBEN Posted July 12, 2014 Author Posted July 12, 2014 New version is on its way, patience. Buzz me on FB when you're not sure about a score, as there are also a bunch of misreported scores. Quote
Crew Leeghoofd Posted July 12, 2014 Crew Posted July 12, 2014 Thanks for the offer to verify scores El Genieben, however not wasting any LN2 on it anymore to get "a" score, bugged or not..., no longer gonna run it, till they can release something decent and stable Quote
ObscureParadox Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 Are we just going to get rid of all the old scores when the new version is released then? Seems like the easiest way going forward. Quote
der8auer Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 We're currently discussing internally what to do. Quote
CL3P20 Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 *maybe new wrapper could identify physical # of cores on CPU.. and 'remove' thread count selections that would produce a bugged result. Seems if we could remove the ability to select sets like this from the start, based on current CPU... these bug runs would be minimized quite a bit... @ leeghoofd - I dont have a full proof method for this bench producing a valid score. It takes trial and error after error unfortunately. This is what I have found to work best for this bench though, to produce valid scores efficiently: Use 'no affinity' setting in bench Use the 'Auto' settings, choose your fastest SSE instruction set.. Start with 3 -4 different thread count settings, which are evenly divisible by the physical # of cores your CPU has Re-run using only the 2x fastest thread counts from previous... For valid result the password checked column must "descend" from top to bottom, increasing in the # of passwords checked. As for tweaking for final score : *finding the right combination of thread sets to run for max score is key (even if '64' is your fastest set.. you can boost score using different thread set before or after) *adding 'start /high /b' seems to do little to nothing on a consistent basis for me *using other start flags only increased chance for bug result.. and did NOT increase overall score when run multiple times with/without flags *running my fastest thread set last, with a previously slower set - often gives me a nice boost for overall score (so long as result is valid according to 'password checked' column *Vista for best results vs. Win7 or XP UCBench air G3258 - http://hwbot.org/submission/2582281_cl3p20_ucbench_2011_pentium_g3258_693.4_mpt_score UCBench cold 4670k - http://hwbot.org/submission/2547957_cl3p20_ucbench_2011_core_i5_4670k_1500_mpt_score UCBench cold i7 930 - http://hwbot.org/submission/2547368_cl3p20_ucbench_2011_core_i7_930_1101.1_mpt_score Quote
Mr.Scott Posted August 28, 2014 Posted August 28, 2014 Are you ever going to do anything with this bench? Team CP is in the process of deleting all bugged results. How many honest teams are out there? Time to put up or shut up. It's never going to get done unless you do it yourselves. Quote
GENiEBEN Posted August 28, 2014 Author Posted August 28, 2014 Still waiting for author. Also new rules in place since 20th. Quote
Mr.Scott Posted August 28, 2014 Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) Still waiting for author. Also new rules in place since 20th. The author isn't going to remove the bugged subs. I always see/hear about trusting the integrity of the benchers and teams...........well, talk is cheap. How can anybody buy into any trust if the benchers can't even be trusted to remove their own bugged runs. Most know they're bugged, yet they leave them up anyway. You know why?, because there's nobody calling them out on it. How do you build trust when the 'nobody will catch it' attitude is so prevalent. Benchers want to be trusted, make them prove they can be. 10-4 on the default thread count rule. That should help, although one of my subs was run default and was still bugged. Edited August 28, 2014 by Mr.Scott Quote
Bones Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 Are you ever going to do anything with this bench?Team CP is in the process of deleting all bugged results. How many honest teams are out there? Time to put up or shut up. It's never going to get done unless you do it yourselves. Already went through mine and got rid of the bugged runs I spotted. Mr. Scott, check it again and delete any others that may appear to be suspect please. Quote
Mr.Scott Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Team CP is now clean of bugged UCB runs, at the cost of roughly 1000 points. Anybody else want to do the right thing before I start to overload the moderation staff members? Quote
havli Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 I deleted all my bugged results except this one - http://hwbot.org/submission/2306844_havli_ucbench_2011_pentium_e5700_%283.0ghz%29_465.1_mpt_score The delete button is missing, can someone of the hwbot staff remove it, please? And I am not sure about this one http://hwbot.org/submission/2569757_havli_ucbench_2011_xeon_3.2ghz_%282mb_l3%29_55.9_mpt_score It is done at default settings but still seems to be bugged. Quote
GENiEBEN Posted August 31, 2014 Author Posted August 31, 2014 ^ First - deleted Second - it's legit. Quote
Mr.Scott Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) I deleted all my bugged results except this one - http://hwbot.org/submission/2306844_havli_ucbench_2011_pentium_e5700_%283.0ghz%29_465.1_mpt_score The delete button is missing, can someone of the hwbot staff remove it, please? And I am not sure about this one http://hwbot.org/submission/2569757_havli_ucbench_2011_xeon_3.2ghz_%282mb_l3%29_55.9_mpt_score It is done at default settings but still seems to be bugged. Thank you Havli. I'm sorry it had to come to this. Maybe you can persuade your team mates/captains to moderate their own subs too? Maybe a few other team captains would like to step up and take responsibility for their respective teams? Maybe the staff will hate me a little less then. Edited August 31, 2014 by Mr.Scott Quote
Bones Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 In reference to the above: Who else has got a pair to remove their bugged runs like I did - Voluntarily? Lost 11 trophys in my case, 7 being Gold but I don't care. I've removed suspect or outright bad runs on my own before when I discovered they had a problem and this is no different. I hear all the complaints about bad/bugged runs but when it comes down to it, next to none actually help make the situation better on their own without griping about it provided they even do that. I know, it hurts to lose boints but don't go talking about how things could be fair or more honest if not wanting to set an example on your own. If I were a mod here, some folks would be mega-bunnying-pissed at me as a mod over some of the things I've seen here before but it's not the job of a mod to "Please" anyone/everyone, it's to enforce the rules as they are currently written. Even now there are still some questionable entries floating around with even a few that's outright impossible but again, it's not my job to moderate things except to keep myself straight and prove myself as being "Honest" with actions, not words. Quote
Christian Ney Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Yeah, got to clean my own subs too . Quote
GENiEBEN Posted September 1, 2014 Author Posted September 1, 2014 he means I had to clean them ) Quote
Moose83 Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 So hwbot has not finished with Ucbench I think it will takes months to clean rankings^^ Quote
Mr.Scott Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 So hwbot has not finished with Ucbench I think it will takes months to clean rankings^^ Not if they receive support instead of resistance. Many hands make light work. Quote
ObscureParadox Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Well I recently just realized that I had a result reported by Mr Scott which was subsequently blocked by Christian Ney. Only just seen that now but I'm glad that is at least 1 more result that is off the system. Personally I think it is time to stop all submission being uploaded to the bot if there is going to be a new wrapper/version put in place soon which will stop all these bugged results from happening. Evening running stock settings on some chips can bring about bugged runs so how is any noob/extreme/pro bencher ever meant to submit valid results 100% of the time if they don't know what would bring about a bugged run and/or simply don't know what one looks like sometimes. I have to admit I don't always look at a result and know whether it is bugged or not because it is simply to confusing Quote
havli Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Thank you Havli. I'm sorry it had to come to this. Maybe you can persuade your team mates/captains to moderate their own subs too? No problem. I have checked my teemmates scores and they are all fine - default UCBench settings. Quote
Mr.Scott Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Well I recently just realized that I had a result reported by Mr Scott which was subsequently blocked by Christian Ney. It wasn't personal. It was a gentle nudge to get some help to resolve this bench. I hope you understand. 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.