|
|||||||
| Overclocking and tweaking What's that smell? |
 |
| Thread Tools |
|
|||||||
| Overclocking and tweaking What's that smell? |
|
| Thread Tools |
|
#32
03-12-2009, 17:53
|
|||
|
|||
Let me attempt to simplify this debate a little bit. I don't really mind the HDD bias myself much, IF that were what the problem were.
 If the hardware were legitimately capable of 9000+ MB/sec bandwidth then sure...but let's just step back to reality here? Do you any of you really believe that ANY RAID array is capable of that? You could string up a million SSD's for all I care and RAID 0 them, but that still won't take away the inexorable fact that your controller isn't going to capable of delivering much more than maybe a tenth of the bandwidth that the virus scan is claiming. (At best) RAMDAC's own HD tune benches show 773 MB/sec peak, and consequently we're supposed to just believe that the 9100 MB/sec PCMark is showing is accurate?? The point is not just that the "scores are too high" it's just that the benchmark is obviously not even testing the hardware. Even though MFT is off in this case, somehow it's caching something for that test for sure. It's just common sense... Let me reiterate this in case it's still not clear. The problem is not that the hardware is "too new" or "too good"; it's that PCMark isn't testing it accurately 
|
|
#33
03-12-2009, 18:03
|
||||
|
||||
|
I would like to know if hwbot its even considering replacing PCMark05 with the more reliable and newer PCMark Vantage ? It would be a viable solution in my opinion and a good option to have another bench to play with.
chispy.
__________________
|
|
#34
03-12-2009, 18:47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Many people have come to the defense of pcm05 and only 2 people you and gautam seem against it. If you dont like the way the bench is weighted, then dont play it I may not like the fact that team finland has an AMD employee who can get unlimited free and ES cpus but hey... life aint fair. So if you dont want to spend the cash on a nice SSD array or some hardware ram disks & a controller card thats not anyone problem but your own. Many people obviously like this bench and it should not be dumped becuz 2 people dont. There are not many options for a full PC test suite out there that runs with XP. So what exactly do you propose replaces it? I have asked this question many times and everyone is skirting the answer...
__________________
|
|
#35
03-12-2009, 18:58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 It happens often enough to me, LOL. 
|
|
#36
03-12-2009, 19:33
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I have nothing against this benchmark itself. I should not even write this, but I will. I do have plans to make some 4x SSD RAID 0 array for my 24/7 + gaming PC. I have nothing against SSD's or the speed gains what they are bringing. I feel good, cause this is the part which have been lagging behind in normal use. I do own I-ram and at the moment my web browser is launched from it. Fastest internet browsing I have seen ever  So, these issues are not personal. They are PCMark05 problems and we are still finding a good way to solve this mess. Futuremark raised the cap to 300MB/s, if someone didn't know that already. So you can get to hall of fame now with the scores we have seen here. We are not ready to say, which will be our decision, but we might go with 300MB/s cap too. Then everything will be like before, but cap is just raised. If we start to see a lot of bugged HDD scores, PCMark05 will be under discussion again. Stay tuned.
|
|
#37
03-12-2009, 20:31
|
||||
|
||||
Great to hear they raise it to 300mb
, thanks for the info SF3D,so it is confirmed. I think thats good for the new hardware point of view , now that we know the cap limit lets have some benching fun again . Happy benching to everyone.chispy.
__________________
|
|
#38
03-12-2009, 21:29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
To address Gautham, yes, the 9000mbps test was obviously using some sort of caching. So what's the problem? It's identifyable, define some limits and let people enjoy the benchmark. ...just like what has happened with the 220mbps limit, and now the 300 mbps limit. It's funny how people didn't talk about dropping everyone's points for 3DMark03 when AMD GPU's started producing bugged runs. I'm gonna step out of this thread now as I've said my bit and just want to get on with benching, including PCMark05.
|
|
#39
03-12-2009, 22:49
|
|||
|
|||
|
there is nothing wrong with the 220 limit. As i said before if a raid setup beats it and say gets a score of 235. Then its a challenge to get it under 220. The person should accept that challenge and find a way to get with in the rules
__________________
|
|
#40
03-13-2009, 00:27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
