Faking Benchmarks, The Good Benchmark List, How To Spot Cheats and More...

**Sword** · 04-04-2005, 07:39 PM

Well,I am new to this forum.and when I read this thread about cheating on your benchmarks,I can't believe that people would stoop so low to gain recognition!WTF!

FROG · 04-05-2005, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Sword

Well,I am new to this forum.and when I read this thread about cheating on your benchmarks,I can't believe that people would stoop so low to gain recognition!WTF!

As in a previous post its pretty strange to cheat at something so Geeky..

**berkut** · 05-09-2005, 12:23 PM

I think this is a bugged score:

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=4825

Im almost certain its bugged :| As well as the 6.6ghz score i posted for Kunaak.

Shamino has the no.1 fastest EE

**Kunaak** · 05-15-2005, 02:10 PM

I am still working on testing new benchmarks and programs.
I will update this real soon.

I have also sent the information to get the obvious fakes removed from the CPUID database, so we can keep the legit stuff in the hall of fame

**happyhero** · 07-08-2005, 07:00 PM

I hate it when people fake scores. it make the legit people with high score get scrutinized.

**ibby** · 08-05-2005, 12:52 AM

i hate cheaters

**lv_88** · 08-05-2005, 03:14 AM

it's sad, it's supposed to be fun benchmarking on high levels without cheating

**Liquid3D** · 08-12-2005, 05:23 AM

About three years ago I posted a sarcastic thread "I've found a new way to overclock."
In that post I stated that by setting the Windows clock ahead the PC was tricked into thinking it was running too slow, ergo it's runs faster. The further you move ahead the time the faster the system runs to "catch up".

Funny how that silly thread actually held some truth.

My take on cheating is simple, it's a reflection of one's character (or lack thereof). Cheating isn't the problem it's a solution to a problem from the mind of a disturbed person. As destructive as it may be to the community cheating is worse then character assination, it's character suicide minus the reprieve. I don't know if we should fear, puinish, or try to help such people, the latter being the most constructive and of course most difficult.

By the by here's a screenshot I'd asked about in a former thread which shows a clear discrepancy in software results. When surpassing numbers no system has seen in an attempt to break records, there's also bound to be some anomalies. The screenshot below exemplifies how inaccurate results can be in a science in which we expect accuracy, especially at extreme frequencies (relatively speaking)...

chew* · 09-03-2005, 07:28 PM

Kunaak I found a way to cheat prime 95 by accident im not going to post how or show a screenie but it is way to easy pm me for details please.

**cmay119** · 09-19-2005, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by chew*

Kunaak I found a way to cheat prime 95 by accident im not going to post how or show a screenie but it is way to easy pm me for details please.

who would cheat at a program like prime95? Is that prog even declared a benchmark. I've always looked at prime95 as a stability tool only. That's like saying I hacked memtest86+ now my ram doesn't show errors even when the memory is erroring hard.

**Liquid3D** · 09-20-2005, 04:22 AM

Now that's about as funny as what occured during the development of my Pat. Pending Singularity Frequency Booster. The software is based on the Special Theory of Relativity Time Dialation axiom. I reproduced (to the best of my ability) J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating's Time Dilation experiment (Science 177, 166 (1972)).

The original experiment went as follows;

"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."

My experiment involved two cats; Socrates (my cat) and a firends cat Plato. I used my Frequent Flyer miles to fly each :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: in an opposite direction around the world each with a Casio digital time piece on their collars. The test was rendered moot the first time when it was discovered Plato had taken an unscheduled tour of a Tokyo Brothel where he requested a "Massuse" dressed as Catwoman to give him a "flea bath." His indiscretion was only discovered after charges were found on my Mastercard to Feline Fetish Leather Shop, Naughty Natalies House of Oils, White Trash Limo Service and room service requesting a mini-bar filled with Cat Nip, Organic milk from Vermont and two disposable cameras which have not been found yet. Of course we couldn't make the numbers work which was our first indicator something was amiss...

On the second attempt my cat Socrates took it upon himself to adjust his Casio for Daylight Savings Time tyring to be helpful. Eventually the experiment worked and I wrote a program which basically reproduces the simultaneous effect on time in opposite directions. We basically trick the PC to run faster by giving it the impression it's being drawn into a Black Hole. The CPU panics and speeds up to save itself. The program will be avilaible soon as Freeware....

**InSanCen** · 09-20-2005, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Liquid3D

Now that's about as funny as what occured during the development of my Pat. Pending Singularity Frequency Booster. The software is based on the Special Theory of Relativity Time Dialation axiom. I reproduced (to the best of my ability) J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating's Time Dilation experiment (Science 177, 166 (1972)).

The original experiment went as follows;

My experiment involved two cats; Socrates (my cat) and a firends cat Plato. I used my Frequent Flyer miles to fly each :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: in an opposite direction around the world each with a Casio digital time piece on their collars. The test was rendered moot the first time when it was discovered Plato had taken an unscheduled tour of a Tokyo Brothel where he requested a "Massuse" dressed as Catwoman to give him a "flea bath." His indiscretion was only discovered after charges were found on my Mastercard to Feline Fetish Leather Shop, Naughty Natalies House of Oils, White Trash Limo Service and room service requesting a mini-bar filled with Cat Nip, Organic milk from Vermont and two disposable cameras which have not been found yet. Of course we couldn't make the numbers work which was our first indicator something was amiss...

On the second attempt my cat Socrates took it upon himself to adjust his Casio for Daylight Savings Time tyring to be helpful. Eventually the experiment worked and I wrote a program which basically reproduces the simultaneous effect on time in opposite directions. We basically trick the PC to run faster by giving it the impression it's being drawn into a Black Hole. The CPU panics and speeds up to save itself. The program will be avilaible soon as Freeware....

You really are Rather strange... But hey, it's all good

**x3ro** · 10-20-2005, 08:29 AM

Its just sad when you cheat.. When it are real results you feel happy bout it when people compliment you bout it.. I dont think you have the same with cheating tho...

**quent** · 11-02-2005, 05:30 AM

Cheat with memtest and DFI Lanparty Nf4

If you use 120/200, 140/200 or 180/200 ratio for memory, memtest will show the FSB and not the real frequency..

**BlueWonder** · 11-23-2005, 02:57 AM

lol, after reading the first post I put the slomo hack to the test. Lol. SOOOoo unbelievably cheap. worked like a charm on 3dMark 03. Used an old prog I keep to play all those cpu speed based games that run at the speed of light on a modern day comp. Lol, a 9800XT and barton core just beat Kinc. YAY FOR THE WORLD RECORD!! lol.

if only it were legit.

**wwwww** · 12-07-2005, 07:05 PM

yaaaaaaaahhhh

http://users.tpg.com.au/weigner/wtf.PNG

goooo the banias

**arisythila** · 12-28-2005, 11:56 AM

nice guide! Thanks

**IluvIntel** · 12-31-2005, 08:57 PM

I have found from personal experience that Futuremark detects my system about 99% of the time with accuracy based on what I set in the bios. It gets the 1% wrong when I enable Intel's EIST function to "minimum" in bios and misinterprets the multiplyer on the cpu.

**~~Serge84~~** · 01-18-2006, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by perkam

Thx for the more understandable syntax Kunaak, it helps

BTW, your faked SuperPi shot is funny--> An 18s SuperPi WOW, man, what kind of knocked out system would you need to get THAT in real life.

EDIT: Though Kunaak, I appreciate, as we all do, stuff on programs that CAN be cheated, are there any 3rd party programs that are more reliable/credible then those listed above (I mean as an alternative to CPUZ, etc).

Perkam

We'll see those kind of speeds when they go to diminds to replace silicon.

Speeds like that are impossible even military wise. 32ghz was it. lol On one of those faked cpuz shots.

Only diminds can make those kind of cpu speeds realisticly it would be easaly 3 times that.

To the future!!!

chew* · 01-18-2006, 11:03 PM

prime and sp2004 are both vulnerable to this and its just to easy. Always request a pi 32m along with prime or someone might pull one of these. Be especially aware when people try to sell you a cpu.

**knob** · 02-07-2006, 06:13 AM

i have heard from somewhere u can cheat on Prime too!

**Kunaak** · 02-22-2006, 10:05 PM

SP2004 and Prime 95 are both exceptionally weak indicators of cheat free stability testing. for instance I can run prime 95 for a hour, so it looks legit, then make it look like it ran for 3 days... with no real effort at all.

the only programmer, that really takes my advice, is Wizzard.
in Systool, the iterations are so close, that even one fluctuation, screws up the even-ness of the results, and then become obvious that they were tamperd with.
WIzzard and CPUZ, and SNQ are about the only people that actually take my advice when I give it.
other programmers seem to work with me, then wimp out at the last second, claiming "no one will go for online verification"...

but look at CPUZ...

if it helps prove something, and is easy, people will do it.
I just seem to get alot of programmer, who want half hearted attempts of cheat free stuff... then give up.

SNQ (the makers of Super Pi-Mod) CPUZ and Wizzard, have all been a joy to work with however, cause they actually take my advice and build on it.
I am just glad someone gives a damn

**mursaat** · 03-08-2006, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by cmay119

who would cheat at a program like prime95? Is that prog even declared a benchmark. I've always looked at prime95 as a stability tool only. That's like saying I hacked memtest86+ now my ram doesn't show errors even when the memory is erroring hard.

Well this days almost every cpu you see in ebay shows a prime/sp2004 screenshot showing "3ghz 24h stable". So making it show 24h in only 1 REAL hour is a way of cheating. One of the worst, as they cheat people's money

**blazin-asian** · 04-04-2006, 01:14 PM

i accidently cheated SP2004 when i reset my bios and changed the date to current date. it changed to 200+ days stable, lol. nice to see SP2004 Beta fixed it.