My 30K Pcmark05 score ?

[eva2000]

Just pulled off a nice 30,132 pcmark05 score with raid 0 SSDs but futuremark submission isn't going through - so emailed them to see what's what but wondering if it's okay for hwbot submission ?

http://i4memory.com/f80/dfi-x58-t3eh...-broken-13124/

System specs

• Intel Core i7 920 3836A756
• Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme + LGA1366 Bolt Thru kit + 2x 120x38mm Scythe UltraKaze 2000rpm 87cfm fans in push/pull
• DFI LP UT X58-T3EH8 R.A51 - 12/31 bios
• HIS HD4870x2 CAT 8.11 Hotfix (Vista)
• 2x1GB Cellshock PC3-14400 (Micron D9GTR) + 1GB OCZ PC3-14400 Platinum (Micron D9GTR)
• Ram cooling: 3x 60x25mm Sunon 23.5cfm Maglev fans
• 750GB Samsung HD753LJ
• 4x32GB OCZ Core V1 SSD Raid 0 + Highpoint RR3520LF PCI-E Raid controller 256MB Cache
• Pioneer DVD-RW
• 1KW Corsair HX1000 psu
• Vista Ultimate SP2 Beta 64bit vLite'd

Click image for FULL LARGE screenshot











edit: in response to comments made in this thread i posted my reply at http://www.hwbot.org/forum/showthrea...ed=1#post27351

copy and paste quoting

Geez guys getting their knickers in a knot MFT reserves part of the usable target drive's (SSD or regular HDD) free space for it's work (~10% of SSD drive space).

You should just allow software ram based benchies too and solve the problem. Software ram disks are accessible by everyone if they want it (sometimes at a price) which is no different to how liquid helium, dry ice and LN2 are available for folks who are willing to fork out dollars for pots, dewars and related expenses. You don't see folks complaining they don't have access due to price/costs to liquid helium, dry ice and LN2 and calling a ban to such usage - well okay there are some folks calling for separate categories to cooling so they can compete.

Costs of ramdisks/ssd can't be a valid argument for not allowing them, as liquid helium, dry ice and LN2 costs for pots, dewars and related expenses can also be lumped into the argument for disallowing sub zero cooling.

Honestly, have no idea why folks and futuremark are so strongly against allowing memory system be a factor in a benchmark that benchmarks the entire system and should reflect real world usage.

Real world facts

1. SSDs are in use for both os and non-os disk purposes
2. Hardware raid controllers use memory caches to improve raid/read/write performance
3. Hard drives have a memory cache to do the same
4. Utilising system memory based caches exist to improve I/O performance is widespread in both consumer and corporate worlds.
   • Operating systems utilise memory system for caching.
   • Databases have query caching (MySQL) to reduce the load on database servers. There's also Memcached to basically move databases into ramdisk storage rather than on hard drive.
   • PHP which is widespread and utilised by allot of applications can use PHP caches like xcache, Eaccelerator and APC to cache PHP to reduce cpu loads.
5. Benchers tune their system cache/memory performance to improve their pi and even 3dmark results

Pcmark05/benching

1. pcmark05 measures overall system performance and memory system is part of that so allowing such will open up competition to see who can tune their memory system and bandwidth the best - similar to super pi, everest bandwidth that folks like to see. It still takes into account the cpu and gpu so folks tweaking that + the drive system + mem system will still come out on top eventually
2. we have folks running e-ram/ramdisk for when they bench super pi 32m
3. we have folks clocking and tuning the memory system to get more memory bandwidth and faster memory latency to get better pi and even squeeze out a few more points in 3dmark

Folks complaining, are you so stuck in the past that you can't see the future ? In the future, memory system tuning and benching will become even more important especially with both Intel and AMD parties moving to integrated memory controller. Every benchmark run will utilise the memory system and to differing extent improvements and gains in benchmark results will occur by tuning and tweaking that memory system - be it clocking memory higher, tightening main and subtimings etc.

The future is here now!

[K404]

Nice Windows startup speed

I wish PCM05 wasnt so badly affected by RAMDisks/SSD etc...gives a totally skewed score system

[TheKarmakazi]

Awesome score eva... its def that XP startup throwing the orb off. iirc they put an auto rejection at 225 mb/s (or there abouts). I have a valid at 217 mb/s.

I would certainly hope they approve your score, or just modify the rules altogether. Especially with the newer SSD's that should be coming out this year (500mb/s+).

Very impressive whether they approve or not though

[eva2000]

thanks guys...

I tried submitting but hwbot automated verification keeps asking me for compare url hehe

Submitted via forum bot update

[benito]

over 220 mb/s (xp startup) FM does not return the verification link ...

[TheKarmakazi]

Originally Posted by benito

over 220 mb/s (xp startup) FM does not return the verification link ...

Thank you for clarifying that! Its a rule they will have to look at and reconsider. It was put in place to prevent software ramdisks from owning the orb. But now with SSD arrays and the like, its going to be invalidating alot of valid scores... Someone email FM!

[chispy]

Congrats George on your WR bro , well done. Those SSds are flying thru .
Keep pushing it.

chispy.

[Gautam]

Congrats, but you're not the only one that's done unpublishable scores due to too high XP startup...

(Like youngpro for example)

The FM rule is pretty goofy, but if this score is to be accepted by hwbot, it's establishing a precedent, and everyone should be able to submit PCMark scores without verification. (Which I wouldn't be totally opposed to personally)

[eva2000]

Thanks guys... Well it ain't exactly un verified, as those 4 screenshots (click image for full version) show exactly what was run.

Got a reply from FM and it seems there's a chance it will go through. Will do what they suggest later today with a rerun (might as well as above you can see the 2D windows test is quite low).

Hello,

Thank you for contacting Futuremark. This error may be due to outdated Futuremark systeminfo software. I suggest updating your software by running VirtualMark off of our website and accepting the download/install of more recent systeminfo software.

http://service.futuremark.com/virtualmark/start.action

This will most likely solve your problem.

Regards,
Trevor

[Gautam]

The futuremark people don't even know what's going on, this was an attempt by one of them years ago to block ramdisk scores.