118 pts Team MLG

2nd place is better then first in my opinion

Unlock cores is possible in this stage?

X2 555 > X3 and X4?

Unlock cores is possible in this stage?

 

X2 555 > X3 and X4?

Yes, thats always permitted in pcmark rankings, so its valid in these stages.

555 is dual core, so it can be submitted as dual, tri, and quad.

Yes, thats always permitted in pcmark rankings, so its valid in these stages.

 

555 is dual core, so it can be submitted as dual, tri, and quad.

Thanks I.M.O.G. Nice challenge you have in the ucbench with the 3770k...

Thanks I.M.O.G. Nice challenge you have in the ucbench with the 3770k...

Thanks, looking for more competition at the top end of the UCBench rankings. Currently its pure CPU frequency at the top, but it seems there are tweaks that have been proven out for many people, but no one is using yet on LN2, or the tweaks don't work the same on LN2.

Thanks, looking for more competition at the top end of the UCBench rankings. Currently its pure CPU frequency at the top, but it seems there are tweaks that have been proven out for many people, but no one is using yet on LN2, or the tweaks don't work the same on LN2.

Hope my 3770k arrive on time for enter to your challenge...

But we can't use unlocked dual core cpu to x3 or x4 in x2 stage. Yes?

It should be allowed. If it works or not is a different question, I remember there was a technical problem in a competition a while ago - amybe that's sorted now?

But we can't use unlocked dual core cpu to x3 or x4 in x2 stage. Yes?

Yes, you can, and it works. However, if using the unlocked dual core CPU in the x2 stage, you must run it with only 2 cores activated.

So i was thinking good

can we use 4core cpu in x2 or x3 stage with 2 or 3 cores activated?

nope a 4 core is a 4 core, other way aorund is allowed an AMD 2core that you can unlock to 3 or even 4 cores...

"Use x processor core(s) in total."

it does not sound that accurate. "use" and not "have".

how does HyperThreading count? physical cores or logical?

a dualcore with HT can only start for 2cores (unless you are able to unlock it to something bigger) or also in singlecore if 1 core is fully disabled for that run?

HT counts as a feature, and not a core. Bulldozer, on the other hand, is defined to have 8 cores although that's not 100% true (IMO it's more like a beefed up quad core).

One last time

DISABLING CORES IS NOT ALLOWED, HOWEVER ENABLING/UNLOCKING CORES IS...

EG: A single core unlocked to a dual core is allowed, BUT a dual core with one core disabled does not count as single core...

I hope it's clear now

Verification URL error Blachbolt's all upload scores!

One last time

 

DISABLING CORES IS NOT ALLOWED, HOWEVER ENABLING/UNLOCKING CORES IS...

 

EG: A single core unlocked to a dual core is allowed, BUT a dual core with one core disabled does not count as single core...

 

I hope it's clear now

After ask for three competitions is clear for me. X2 555 can be unlocked and used in x2, x3 and x4 category but x6 can only be used in the x6 category

what i'm doing wrong that my score is 0?

http://3dmark.com/pcm05/3165481

any help?

Install Windows media encoder

i instal WME x64 and don't help

/edit

ok now it's work i dont' know why earlier when i try install x86 version i have error

wtf ... witch team is team OC-Team Europe. i dont see a single submission but yet they have first place ??

Which os?

tryed pcmark on second os,win7,sucsessful

I have this verification url from futuremark :

http://www.3dmark.com/pcm05/3166149'>http://www.3dmark.com/pcm05/3166149

and hwbot uploader says it is not a correct pattern because it should be :

http://www.3dmark.com/pcm05/ numbers

I think its the correct pattern, then whats the problem ?

uploaded a single result to futuremark.com and copy pasted the link...

I have this verification url from futuremark :

http://www.3dmark.com/pcm05/3166149'>http://www.3dmark.com/pcm05/3166149

 

and hwbot uploader says it is not a correct pattern because it should be :

http://www.3dmark.com/pcm05/ numbers

I think its the correct pattern, then whats the problem ?

uploaded a single result to futuremark.com and copy pasted the link...

Take out the 'WWW.' and it'll work fine.

lol

Take out the 'WWW.' and it'll work fine.

Thanks for the info... I was trying since yesterday to submit to x2 & x4 section without luck... now working also for me...

Thanks for the info... I was trying since yesterday to submit to x2 & x4 section without luck... now working also for me...

You're most welcome.

are we allowed to run a unlocked dual core ( that unlocks into a quad core ) as a tri core ? i noticed one of the teams doing it

are we allowed to run a unlocked dual core ( that unlocks into a quad core ) as a tri core ? i noticed one of the teams doing it

Yeah, its possible always that unlock as a tri core and enough stable for the run.

are we allowed to run a unlocked dual core ( that unlocks into a quad core ) as a tri core ? i noticed one of the teams doing it

Can always unlock and compete in a higher weight class - can't disable cores and compete in a lower weight class. Refer to pcm05 rankings for tri core. Also for 5 core. Lots of unlocked results there.

cool imog what about unlocking 555 BE into a 4x cpu and using it to submit as a 3x cpu ?? ppl in your team are doing so

That's not OK. Post some links here and I'll edit them, or you can report them if you prefer.

nah there are so many guys using 4x unlocked cpus and removing a a core a doubt it will be fair now to report them

nah there are so many guys using 4x unlocked cpus and removing a a core a doubt it will be fair now to report them

Report it, I haven't seen that, but that's what I do when I see people making mistakes with submissions on my own team. There are only a handful of people with incorrect tri core submissions... It was a few months ago when I was doing pcm05 tricore globals, and i reported a lot of erroneous submissions from people who didn't know better.

otherwise if you are too lazy to provide proof, dont make accusations. Really, you didn't know the rules until I explained them to you... I doubt you are correct in what you are saying. For instance, a 555be that unlocks to 4 cores can legally be submitted as 2x, 3x, and 4x. If there is a problem, let's see it.

nah there are so many guys using 4x unlocked cpus and removing a a core a doubt it will be fair now to report them

I'm not seeing it either? Unless you are referring to the AMD Phenom II X4 B55 submissions?

When the X2 555 is unlocked, it becomes the X4 B55. But as I.M.O.G. stated, unless you are going to come up with the proof, don't make the accusations.

nah there are so many guys using 4x unlocked cpus and removing a a core a doubt it will be fair now to report them

There are several ways to unlock a CPU to 3x. I think some ASUS boards can do that directly if the 4th core isn't stable at all, but usually you have to unlock to 4x and then disable one core in BIOS. Both ways are definately legal.

sorry i didnt mean to offend any1

Gluvo Tweak 2.2 is there, but I have problems to submit

So what do the experts think about the VAPOR scores ? His Virusscan is insane, Gen HDD usage pretty high too. And that all accomplished with just 2 SSD's in RAID and no other soft ?

Maybe he is just better?

So what do the experts think about the VAPOR scores ? His Virusscan is insane, Gen HDD usage pretty high too. And that all accomplished with just 2 SSD's in RAID and no other soft ?

Bugged, if not ramdrive. Only areca ramcache or hardware ramdrive do gen usage like that.

Virus scan is high, but certain drive setups and firmware yield extra high virus scan. Dunno about that high.

Gen usage is the one hard to fake. Virus scan can get crazy.

I've done gen usage like that, but with $2500 worth of storage.

Yes D3mox FYI Santa Claus and the pope are the same guy Dunno if it's hard to replicate then results with just 2 SSD's.

Will block them all when I reach a pc! Party time (not for him)

Thanks Christian. I also bencht before onboard, Virus scan 2g is possible, but 3g on single core and 5g on multicore isnt possible.

So i think this is cheating, and gen usage on onboard also cant so high.

I hope, that there are consequences for him, we all want to reach top, but only with fairplay:)

Thanks Christian. I also bencht before onboard, Virus scan 2g is possible, but 3g on single core and 5g on multicore isnt possible.

So i think this is cheating, and gen usage on onboard also cant so high.

I hope, that there are consequences for him, we all want to reach top, but only with fairplay:)

It's not that different than the crazy audio/video encoding scores and no one has complained about those yet (rules say no replacing codecs - are they replacig codecs?). A 6.1 ivy does 10k in each with basic codec setting tweaks. I hope no one gets in trouble for pcmark submissions. It is so hard to tell what is legal and what isn't.

The whole "no tricking the benchmark to make it believe it ran faster" rule also doesnt apply to pcm05 - memory latency scores when tweaked disrupt the measurement.

Gluvo plays hard, but always fair. His Audio tweak is settings i gues Dennis is an top tweaker.

I have 990FX here, and nearly same Hardware. I will test today the 12.8 RAID with ssd onboard if this can be true:)

You'll want to test different cluster sizes when formatting the drives, and for the RAID stripe sector size. I've seen a teammate do extra large scores in virus scan that way, same as the submisions in question... That was some time ago, my teammate didn't submit them because he didn't want to bother with the questions/criticism because it looks bugged. Changing cluster sizes shouldn't have that sort of effect, but when using it with the amd storage manager for some reason it can do that.

Here's a screenshot, big gen usage and 9K virus scan by modifying those kinds of formatting settings on amd platform (3x crucial m4 raid0):

[ATTACH]1337[/ATTACH]

So it can be done on two SSD's without any 3rd party non legit software... cool...

I think we should be consistent. We don't question text edit and TW scores that are crazy high, we just "assume" they're OK based on trust (it looks that way to me, at least). Vapor's word is just as good as Pro, CherV, Stevero's - or the rest of that bunch of crazy guys, so if we can trust them when they say their tweaks are legit (without proof), then we have to trust Vapor as well.

Im testing it atm. 12.8 driver with SSDs onboard:)

So, the results of VapoR are real! I did an short test, with no overclocking, all running standart

http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=unbenanntzhp1a.jpg

I test again, http://www.3dmark.com/pcm05/3168391 almost 10k VS! I think Samsung 830 i the best SSD, i tested Vertex 4 128GB and it has poor performance in PCM.

So it can be done on two SSD's without any 3rd party non legit software... cool...

Yes but its a bug that tricks the software into thinking it ran faster than it did. It doesn't actually produce higher results in ANYTING, except PCM05, because it bugs out on a setting which has nothing to do with actual performance.

But then, nothing in PCM05 has anything to do with actual performance anymore, which is why only a handful of people bother running it anymore.

I shouldn't have said anything about the settings I mentioned, because that same handful of people will use it, despite it being a bug, and everyone will clamor over how great the scores are. Certain drivers and firmware have the same result, they bug out PCM05.

Yes but its a bug that tricks the software into thinking it ran faster than it did. It doesn't actually produce higher results in ANYTING, except PCM05, because it bugs out on a setting which has nothing to do with actual performance.

 

But then, nothing in PCM05 has anything to do with actual performance anymore, which is why only a handful of people bother running it anymore.

THIS. Favorite bench is ruined

it help also in ATTO, 2MB size length, Transfer size >128KB. Write speed grow from 600 to 855MB/s. When i try use other benchmark (HDTune), when i select my RAid Volume i get BSOD. AS SDD cant start.

It uses ram for caching, but no 3rd Party Programm needed.

Also is legal i think. Areca do same using cach for score.

PCM05 is dead with all of these new "tweaks".

Simply cap general & virus like hdd startup...

PCM05 is dead with all of these new "tweaks".

is dead long time ago.

Simply cap general & virus like hdd startup...

No good. With the super tweaks artificial capping would be a joke. Transparent window, audio/video, memory latency, text edit, and I probably missed one in there... they can all be supertweaked.

Congratz to the tweakers !! You pOwned us all

Congratz to the tweakers !! You pOwned us all

This ^^

Why mtech use only 4 activ core cpu in x6 CPUCore Stage?

Its allowed, using 6 core and deaktivate 2 cores.

I did the same with bulldozer, using 4 cores.

As long as the CPU is x Core native you can compete in the x Core stage and disable how many Core you want. Unlocking Cores is not allowed for the x Core stages but allow the processor to compete into the x+1 or x+2 stage.

Why mtech use only 4 activ core cpu in x6 CPUCore Stage?

No subtest can use more than 4 core. If you might clock higher or more stable, 4 cores are best.

No subtest can use more than 4 core. If you might clock higher or more stable, 4 cores are best.

If so, why can't 4+ core categories be merged?

They should be in my opinion.

However I assume its more complicated than that, because multigpu categories should also be merged. Scores go down with more gpus in various 3d tests.

EDIT: To be exact...

Covering the 3d tests divided by GPU count:

Doesn't scale beyond 1x GPUs and shouldn't have globals in 2x-4x: 3d01, 3d05, aquamark, 3d06

Doesn't scale with anything beyond 2x GPUs and shouldn't have globals in 3x-4x: 3d03

Doesn't scale with anything beyond 3x GPUs and shouldn't have globals in 4x: Unigine Heaven

Scales with 4x and should have globals in 1x-4x: Vantage, 3d11

Covering the 3d tests divided by core count:

Doesn't scale with anything beyond 4x cores and shouldn't have globals in anything higher: PCM05

Doesn't scale (really) with anything beyond 12x cores and shouldn't have globals in anything higher: wprime32m, wprime1024m

Scales on everything: UCBench2011 (still doesn't award any globals)

Yes but its a bug that tricks the software into thinking it ran faster than it did. It doesn't actually produce higher results in ANYTING, except PCM05, because it bugs out on a setting which has nothing to do with actual performance.

Does the firmware/driver trick the benchmark or is it just boosting the one thing the benchmark is designed to test for?

The RAID expert Software use ram for caching. This is the same like areca cards do.

Doesn't the Areca have onboard cache?

So it's something like MFT or ramcache?

Areca has onboard cache, usually as a stick of RAM.

I don't see any difference, really. The Areca cache and the controller communicate on the same PCB, same as this controller - the only real difference is that the cache of the onboard raid controller is also used by other apps, as that cache also happens to be the system memory.

Seems to be no difference between 1 ssd and several acards, no scalling ( or very minimal ) with ram frequency or ddr type either. Would call it a bug but still.. No different to any other 'tweaks'.

ATTO would go bonkers if it were normal ram cache.