View Full Version : PCMark Vantage - why not part of HWbot
Quick question - why is PCmark Vantage not part of HWbots scoring? too hard for overclocking?
zanzabar
12-06-2008, 01:19 AM
1) it costs money to use so it has to be voted on (i think it has to pass by 65%)
2) it takes like 30mins
1) it costs money to use so it has to be voted on (i think it has to pass by 65%)
2) it takes like 30mins
hmmm - you're right about the pay part - shouldn't be too hard
to talk FM into reconsidering their approach about introducing benchmarks. Paying to bench is silly if you are not a review site... funny thing is all the review sites got the software for free.....and those should be the paying customers - not the benchers....
BUT it's so rewarding to learn how to PCmark
30mins is an interesting bench these days nevertheless - espically consdering that 32m is a sub 10min bench now. Used to take years to complete a 32m in the old days...
Blazing fire
12-06-2008, 06:04 AM
Price is the primary factor for me. I'm quite sure many are deterred by this too.
[XC] gomeler
12-07-2008, 09:37 AM
It's too damn long for me.. PCM05 is long enough, I hate nervously pouring for ~10 minutes, I couldn't imagine 30 minutes :(
Well that would make it more of a bench- stamina! None of this 6 second rubbish! :p:
Whos got the control and the stability?
massman
12-08-2008, 01:21 AM
If I remember correctly, the biggest drawbacks were indeed money and length.
I'm not sure if everyone is all that happy about running 30mins of benchmark. Tbh, that's quite costly, knowing the LN2 rates in some countries.
[XC] gomeler
12-08-2008, 05:32 AM
Well that would make it more of a bench- stamina! None of this 6 second rubbish! :p:
Whos got the control and the stability?
Could always just hook up a cascade and call it a day then :rofl: Wouldn't mind seeing PCMV added to HWBot, always enjoy new benches, but I don't think the adoption rate would be that high.
Not sure - but I think Vantage is just a few minutes longer than PCamrk05 for me - maybe 14mins. I'll doublecheck later.
Come on - making a benchmark LN2 firendly should NOT make a benchmark viable or not. That's just my thought. I find this is actually a positive , especially for all the peeps who don't like LN2 to be a standard. LN2 obviously is a great tool to accomplish extreme results, but wouldn't a benchmark that shows more 24/7 capable results a viable bench to throw in the mix?
I can garantee you - with a fast system Vantage is NOT 30mins. People used to run 32ms for years before Conroe etc. and this used to be way longer then Vantage
RE. Price concerns - isn't it the same price as 3DMark?
TheKarmakazi
12-08-2008, 12:17 PM
I agree I would like it to be included also...
Vatos_locos
12-08-2008, 12:27 PM
any time i tried to run vantage i just couldn't wait for it :p is a loooooooooong one bench :/
just tried a run on a Quad core with a slow IDE drive and it took 16min40secs , with fast array it is actually quicker. Just don't do the entire suite - that could take a lil while
Now run with SSDs - 10mins58secs
So price for the benchmark and time shouldn't really be the reason or?
LN2 prices - well PCMark05 isn't that much quicker
[XC] gomeler
12-08-2008, 04:07 PM
I'd say LN2 costs aren't a viable issue to block a bench. I'd actually like to see a bench that takes advantage of Core i7 hit HWBot, PCM05 is old news supporting only 4 threads :up:
Hyperhorn
12-08-2008, 04:32 PM
I don't think we need a new PCMark @ hwbot. As you can see many guys just don't use any PCMark. Sometimes there are 20/30/50+ results for a certain CPU and not a sinlge PCMark-result. The fact that you have to spend some money, it's Vista-only and so on leads to the conclusion, that PCMark Vantage may be a good benchmark for testing your PC, but not as a benchmark for a competition. (Same as 3DMark Vantage, but I don't want to argue about it ;) )
I would prefer something like Cinebench and Super Pi 64M :cool:, which should have a CPU-Z-like verification-system (IMO it's very important, that you can upload the file from another PC after the session)
I'm not sure if everyone is all that happy about running 30mins of benchmark.
IMO it just depends on the benchmark. If you get much information during the run (e.g. Super Pi/ wPrime) it's like a thriller and worth every minute as you know for sure. :yepp:
I don't think we need a new PCMark @ hwbot. As you can see many guys just don't use any PCMark. Sometimes there are 20/30/50+ results for a certain CPU and not a sinlge PCMark-result. The fact that you have to spend some money, it's Vista-only and so on leads to the conclusion, that PCMark Vantage may be a good benchmark for testing your PC, but not as a benchmark for a competition. (Same as 3DMark Vantage, but I don't want to argue about it ;) )
I would prefer something like Cinebench and Super Pi 64M :cool:, which should have a CPU-Z-like verification-system (IMO it's very important, that you can upload the file from another PC after the session)
IMO it just depends on the benchmark. If you get much information during the run (e.g. Super Pi/ wPrime) it's like a thriller and worth every minute as you know for sure. :yepp:
well there are 5-6 3D benches, 3-4 Pi benches - having 2 PCmarks wouldn't be too far out of balance.
I hear your joy of Pi benching, but Vantage is also great test that limits the software tweaking and rewards the hardware tweaking. I personally could never get too much in the PI game, considering all the CDTs, waazas and all the other crap that is involved running these benches if you want to be on top. Having to limit your avail ram to run PI???ouch