Black Cobra Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I know its not banned yet. But theres some guys who want it to be banned... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chi-Kui Lam Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) Only data can find the true and eliminate the cause!! After 4000 times test on same conditions 4.5GHz Core i7-4770K if add -ri7 add odd no. , the range is from 1172 to 1766 (1000 times) if add -ri7 only , the range is from 1198 to 1745 (1000 times) if add odd no. threads only, the range is from 1196 to 1716 (1000 times) if add no -ri7 and no odd no. , the range is from 1135 to 1420 (1000 times) - assumed more threads is more password attemped and take more times to process basis , the range is only 1135 to 1347 only !! almost 90% are average scope - All scores over 1450 has same issue , the 2nd run is take a double password attempt and very long process time but 3rd run drop near 40% and take 100% less process time then 2nd. Edited February 18, 2014 by Chi-Kui Lam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Strunkenbold Posted February 18, 2014 Crew Share Posted February 18, 2014 What sense would a wrapper have? How will the staff get rid of the bugged runs which are already in the db? And dont compare this bench to PCM05. PCM05 isnt based on coincidence like UC... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObscureParadox_3XS Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Only data can find the true and eliminate the cause!! After 4000 times test on same conditions 4.5GHz Core i7-4770K if add -ri7 add odd no. , the range is from 1172 to 1766 (1000 times) if add -ri7 only , the range is from 1198 to 1745 (1000 times) if add odd no. threads only, the range is from 1196 to 1716 (1000 times) if add no -ri7 and no odd no. , the range is from 1135 to 1420 (1000 times) - assumed more threads is more password attemped and take more times to process basis , the range is only 1135 to 1347 only !! almost 90% are average scope - All scores over 1450 has same issue , the 2nd run is take a double password attempt and very long process time but 3rd run drop near 40% and take 100% less process time then 2nd. Very interesting results, thank you very much for doing that. So it seems that both odd numbers and -ri is an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Disallow all Threat and command linie and put it in an wrapper and done, same chances for all with only Windows Tweaking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Cobra Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I dont think they should disallow threats... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 What is UCBench ? , LOLzzzzzz i ran it once on each cpu and I am done with it , too many funny tweaks and funky scores , makes no sense to me to keep on running this old benchmark when most of the scores are bugged runs the way it is right now ,hopefully this will change in the future , in my opinion once Genieben finish the wrapper , a throughout very deep clean up will have to be made of all the UCBench submissions and removed, to be 100% clean out of bugged runs , this is a must to keep this benchmarks for points :celebration: , we need more benchmarks to run , not less , so let's fix what is broken and keep at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[GF]Duke Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Have there been any breakthroughs in this bench yet?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatBoyNotSoSlim Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Hmmmmm. Hello, An HWBOT moderator, "Christian Ney", has blocked one of your submitted scores. It has marked one of your submissions as 'impossible score at given settings, possible bug or other'. This was the reason the user gave: Make sure your Pwds. Checked are in ascending order, otherwise it is a bugged score. You can view your result here: http://hwbot.org/submission/2478115_fatboynotsoslim_ucbench_2011_core_i5_4200u_310.5_mpt_score I just went through about 30 subs that are currently in the top 5 for their respected cpu cores, and almost all of them have out of order Pwds. Checked scores. Do you want me to report all these now, or will the mods get around to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENiEBEN Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Hmmmmm. I just went through about 30 subs that are currently in the top 5 for their respected cpu cores, and almost all of them have out of order Pwds. Checked scores. Do you want me to report all these now, or will the mods get around to them? We will get to them, remember there are 12400 subs for that benchmark and 2 people checking them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatBoyNotSoSlim Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 We will get to them, remember there are 12400 subs for that benchmark and 2 people checking them. No worries, I've gone and reported a bunch, hopefully to make your jobs easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l0ud_sil3nc3 Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 No worries, I've gone and reported a bunch, hopefully to make your jobs easier. If you can't beat em, report em Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatBoyNotSoSlim Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Well it should atleast be put on the rules page for the bench: http://hwbot.org/news/4591_application_33_rules/ First I learned of the need for the numbers to be in order, so if others are missing them, gotta ban them all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Genieben what is with wrapper you are working? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poorya_lion Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Well it should atleast be put on the rules page for the bench: http://hwbot.org/news/4591_application_33_rules/ First I learned of the need for the numbers to be in order, so if others are missing them, gotta ban them all. Childish behavior !!! FYI: http://hwbot.org/submission/2542100_ and if GENiEBEN say that below result is a bug result I will accept. Nevertheless this rule can not match with this situation: http://img.hwbot.org/u35685/image_id_1166592.jpeg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENiEBEN Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 http://img.hwbot.org/u35685/image_id_1166592.jpeg Bugged. 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.