140k 3dmark 2003 air cooling

[SF3D]

I see!
This bug happens only in Vista 64. It is a bug, cause your performance is not in a line with the real performance. For example spl's 05 is normal for those clocks and 03 is way out of the line.

But who can say what is "real" performance? I think it would be best, if top overclokers would not use this combination (Vista 64 + 3DMark03 + 4870X2), cause our rankings in HWbot.org will get nasty otherwise. It is really hard to moderate, if there is some bugged runs in the middle. If the drivers are working "properly" in Vista 64 and the other OS's are bugged, why other 3D benchmarks are not affected at all n Vista 64?

Do we care about real performance or bugged performance?

[CCC]

I dont think it is a win64bit bug overall as it happens on single card 4870x2 runs in winxp even 'check hbot'

Looking at hwbot you have guys at 850/900 single doing 105k and guys that are doing 1000/960 and getting 106k becasue of the gt2/3 bug, but in all cases nature is showing the scalibility of the gpu+cpu power and when both work right you get a good true score. I do admit some of these cfx scores are looking bogus and easily repeatable in 64bit, but there is something that is causing the 03 scores and or performance to suffer at times on 3870x2/4870x2 runs

So its a ramdom bug in any os on sinlge or multi card runs and if you look back on the 3870x2 cfx history there was the same gt2/3 bug as kinc+elmor had it on there 03 run.

gt2 should have been 1140+ and gt3 900+

http://service.futuremark.com/result...eResultType=10

[gandalfone]

I see!
This bug happens only in Vista 64. It is a bug, cause your performance is not in a line with the real performance. For example spl's 05 is normal for those clocks and 03 is way out of the line.

But who can say what is "real" performance? I think it would be best, if top overclokers would not use this combination (Vista 64 + 3DMark03 + 4870X2), cause our rankings in HWbot.org will get nasty otherwise. It is really hard to moderate, if there is some bugged runs in the middle. If the drivers are working "properly" in Vista 64 and the other OS's are bugged, why other 3D benchmarks are not affected at all n Vista 64?

Do we care about real performance or bugged performance?

I think.....now this is big problem for hwbot.

I will not to do 3d03. I don' know which is real performance with ati card...

[nachthymnen]

Bugged runs happened also with XP for me, also with single card.
I got 104.5k with 6.1Ghz cpu and 830/940 cards and after this I gor a 98k with 6.2Ghz cpu and 835/945 cards
I'm starting to hate this bench

[SF3D]

Bugged runs happened also with XP for me, also with single card.
I got 104.5k with 6.1Ghz cpu and 830/940 cards and after this I gor a 98k with 6.2Ghz cpu and 835/945 cards
I'm starting to hate this bench

There's no bug in your score, cause your 104,5K run is exactly what it should be.

If you would have used vista64 and got 110K, then that would have been the bug

[AndreYang]

There's no bug in your score, cause your 104,5K run is exactly what it should be.

If you would have used vista64 and got 110K, then that would have been the bug

I already found how to control this bug. GT2 1350~1550 is so easy on air and any cpu speed. Should I need to submit 200K to hwbot or ORB? I already saw some guys submit it. I am so mad about that.

[SF3D]

Andre- Please don't publish it

I don't know what we are going to do in HWbot

[Oliver]

Thanks for information

[.p4nzer]

I already found how to control this bug. GT2 1350~1550 is so easy on air and any cpu speed. Should I need to submit 200K to hwbot or ORB? I already saw some guys submit it. I am so mad about that.

U must publish it if there's a way to show that u are not using the cheat.

If it's a driver or a setting we can find a way to show it. If a screen is posted without the evidence that is legal hwbot will not accept it.

Bye

[AndreYang]

U must publish it if there's a way to show that u are not using the cheat.

If it's a driver or a setting we can find a way to show it. If a screen is posted without the evidence that is legal hwbot will not accept it.

Bye

I prove something to everyone.

My CPU speed is 6.4G. Look at my GT2. And comparing with some guys.









Why do I say some guy do bug run and submit?

I did 6.4G CPU speed full run 03. I believe no one did 6.4G+ 03 05 so far, only me did it. And my VGA clock 857/950 which is similar to some guys.

Look at my GT1 and GT4 which are very high, so this run is real run.









I didn't want to say who did bug run, but you guys looks for some results who did it bug.



Some guys use " BLACK SCREEN" to do bug run. Don't think nobody knew you did bug run and submit.

[GLENBOY]

nice going andre 1400+ fps mother nature theres no bugs in that score , nice going ( any chance of pm'ing the top bioses off your x2) can't blame a guy for asking

i had a black screen bugged score like andre says the the giveaway is the high first 3 tests scores for cpu speed and low mother nature score see below

at 4800 mhz and gpus at 840/940 with tight timings i get 129400 which i would say is in line with whats expected at that speed

[Gautam]

GLENBOY, Andre is proving a point by showing a bugged GT4.

[GLENBOY]

ahh right thanks gautam, jeez its getting confusing 3d03,what a minefield, whats going to be the outcome and why all of a sudden are all the bugged runs coming with the 4870x2's

[Gautam]

This ain't new, and it ain't restricted to 4870X2's. (Or even ATi for that matter)

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=179719

[k|ngp|n]

Andre- Please don't publish it

I don't know what we are going to do in HWbot

I say publish it Andre!! Publish the 200K score. If other guys are going to post bugged runs, why not. This is RIDICULOUS. If true, it is really dissapointing that ANY peeps would post bugged runs to a competitive ranking. There is nothing worse than that.
3DMARK 2003 is a total joke now.

[Stapler]

GLENBOY, Andre is proving a point by showing a bugged GT4.

Hold up, didn't Andre say his 160k was real because of GT1 and GT4 are higher than GT2.

I guess '03 really isn't worth much anymore, hwbot needs to do something about this looks like there are quite a few bugged runs posted.

[GLENBOY]

problem is how do you spot bugged runs if you have run one thought it was nature was low in comparison to other tests but not sure now, i thought on a 130k score nature should be in excess of 1000

[Gautam]

Hold up, didn't Andre say his 160k was real because of GT1 and GT4 are higher than GT2.

I guess '03 really isn't worth much anymore, hwbot needs to do something about this looks like there are quite a few bugged runs posted.

He was being sarcastic.

[NeverMore]

Yeah, he submitted it.

Linky

[AndreYang]

Yeah, he submitted it.

Linky

I didn't submit 180K+ score. 160K is nothing now. Everyone said his score is real run. All are BS.

[Kinc]

I prove something to everyone.

My CPU speed is 6.4G. Look at my GT2. And comparing with some guys.









Why do I say some guy do bug run and submit?

I did 6.4G CPU speed full run 03. I believe no one did 6.4G+ 03 05 so far, only me did it. And my VGA clock 857/950 which is similar to some guys.

Look at my GT1 and GT4 which are very high, so this run is real run.









I didn't want to say who did bug run, but you guys looks for some results who did it bug.



Some guys use " BLACK SCREEN" to do bug run. Don't think nobody knew you did bug run and submit.

The mother nature fps is extremly high compared to the GT2 and GT3 fps. What LOD it that with? 32 or 64 bit OS?

[massman]

So it's the VPU recover which is messing up the benchmark with the X2's? Is there a solid way to spot these bugged runs or is it only by comparison possible to determine whether or not a score is bugged?

It's quite obvious that bugged scores don't belong in a competitive ranking .

[DeDaL]

What is " BLACK SCREEN" Andre ?

[DeDaL]

Just run 2006 on single 4870 with 850/1137 clock

Unfortunately clocks drops to nominal after first 2 game tests



I will check 2003 now

[GLENBOY]

good thinking dedal