PCMark04 released and and Hanners reviewed it.

[digitalwanderer]

Yup, you can find Hanners' review here (http://www.elitebastards.com/page.php?pageid=2679&head=1&comments=1) and can download the benchmark here at Futuremark (http://www.futuremark.com/download/?pcmark04.shtml).

I'm d-loading it now...

[nForceMan]

Cool. AMD-NVIDIA combo has simply slaughtered INTEL-ATI. :rofl

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by nForceMan
Cool. AMD-NVIDIA combo has simply slaughtered INTEL-ATI. :rofl
My rig Bubbles scored a 3,700 with a 9600 Pro in her beating both those scores of Hanners. ;)

[Malfunction]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
My rig Bubbles scored a 3,700 with a 9600 Pro in her beating both those scores of Hanners. ;)

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=238142

And my score out does yours. Sucks that I can game @ 3.6Ghz but can't run this *meaningfull benchmark at that. So I ran it at 250FSB which is 3.5Ghz for me. Stupid videocard was only clocked at 360/650.

I think I will stick to game(s) and Fraps instead.

Peace,

:rolleyes:

[Malfunction]

And yet, I've beat my score again... :rolleyes:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=4238

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=238199

Peace,

:o

*EDIT - If you scored around 3700 Points, and my score is 5228 Points. Do you believe that my PC is 29% faster than yours?

http://www.algebrahelp.com/calculators/number/percentages/pg5.htm

[Hanners]

Originally posted by Malfunction
I think I will stick to game(s) and Fraps instead.

That's very nice and all, but PCMark04 isn't a gaming benchmark. :confused:

If you can't run this kind of benchmark at the levels you're overclocking at, it suggest that your system isn't stable enough at those speeds to run truly system intensive applications - Gaming may be fine, but try running something like Folding@Home or DivX encoding for several hours and you'll most likely have problems.

[Malfunction]

Originally posted by Hanners
That's very nice and all, but PCMark04 isn't a gaming benchmark. :confused:

If you can't run this kind of benchmark at the levels you're overclocking at, it suggest that your system isn't stable enough at those speeds to run truly system intensive applications - Gaming may be fine, but try running something like Folding@Home or DivX encoding for several hours and you'll most likely have problems.

Great, however I ran Photoshop, BF1942, MGP2, 3DMark03 Looping Nature Demo while at 3.6Ghz for 30min. Since I am never playing more than one game at one time, let alone benching anything while I am gaming... your telling me that PCMark04 is here to show me if in the "Future" if I can use Folding@Home or do DivX Encoding only?

Pffft... ok, sure..

Peace,

:screwy:

*EDIT - PC Performance Analysis

PCMark™04 is the latest version of the popular PCMark series. PCMark04 is an application-based benchmark and a premium tool for measuring overall PC performance. It uses portions of real applications instead of including very large applications or using specifically created code. This allows PCMark04 to be a smaller installation as well as to report very accurate results. As far as possible, PCMark04 uses public domain applications whose source code can be freely examined by any user.

What if I use more than just a portion of a program, does that mean the results are hardly realistic?

[schuey74]

*EDIT - If you scored around 3700 Points, and my score is 5228 Points. Do you believe that my PC is 29% faster than yours?
[/B]
I hope not since that's a 41% increase in performance.:rolleyes:

If your system was not stable running this program then it is highly unlikely that it was 100% stable at 3.6 to begin with. It may have never failed for you, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't fail running some other software. But what matters is that it's stable for you and you have no problems playing your games and using your software at 3.6. Just take this PCMark04 as a warning that some software you use in the future may be too much for 3.6 on this CPU.

[Malfunction]

Originally posted by schuey74
I hope not since that's a 41% increase in performance.:rolleyes:

If your system was not stable running this program then it is highly unlikely that it was 100% stable at 3.6 to begin with. It may have never failed for you, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't fail running some other software. But what matters is that it's stable for you and you have no problems playing your games and using your software at 3.6. Just take this PCMark04 as a warning that some software you use in the future may be too much for 3.6 on this CPU.

5228 - 3700 = 1528

1528 is what percent of 5228?

Answer = 29.227237949502676%

I can also run 3.6 while running Sandra... go figure. :rolleyes:

Peace,

:D

[CaptNKILL]

Originally posted by Malfunction
5228 - 3700 = 1528

1528 is what percent of 5228?

Answer = 29.227237949502676%

I can also run 3.6 while running Sandra... go figure. :rolleyes:

Peace,

:D
1528\3700= 41%

1528 is a 41% increase over 3700 ;)

[Malfunction]

Originally posted by CaptNKILL
1528\3700= 41%

1528 is a 41% increase over 3700 ;)


Ahh hell, it's been a long day! lmao... :D I don't know why I did that, got myself all mixed up and was denying it was better than I was saying. Sorry schuey74 and CaptNKILL, :) thanks for not stopping till I got it...lol.

Peace,

:o

[kraigc]

I download it and tried to run the becnhes. For soom reason it keeps saying I need to select a system suite. Anyone have any idea what the programs talking about?

[Malfunction]

If you don't have Windows Media 9 Encoder, you might need it as I did. You'll need Windows Media Player 9 though.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/encoder/default.aspx

Peace,

:)

[kraigc]

Yah, I thought as much. Im downloading it now.

[bkswaney]

I'm scoring 5200 with my setup to.

Tho I did have pcmark crash 2 times trying to run it.

What's up with that? I run every test I can throw at it on being stable
and it is stable.
I guess it does not like overclocks very well.


EDIT: WHat I cannot figure out is why I'm not crashing running the test.
But when I try and use the online compare it locks me up.
Any idea's?

[Hanners]

Originally posted by Malfunction
Since I am never playing more than one game at one time, let alone benching anything while I am gaming...

This is my whole point - This isn't a gaming benchmark.

I know a few people who have had perfectly stable overclocked systems for months on end, then one day they'll do something different with their machine and bang! Blue screen heaven. Down clock a bit, and everything is fine again.

This is exactly what you're seeing, this benchmark obviously just pushes your machine just that little bit too far. That doesn't make PCMark some terrible, evil benchmark.

[Malfunction]

Originally posted by Hanners
This is my whole point - This isn't a gaming benchmark.

I know a few people who have had perfectly stable overclocked systems for months on end, then one day they'll do something different with their machine and bang! Blue screen heaven. Down clock a bit, and everything is fine again.

This is exactly what you're seeing, this benchmark obviously just pushes your machine just that little bit too far. That doesn't make PCMark some terrible, evil benchmark.

Originally posted by bkswaney
I'm scoring 5200 with my setup to.

Tho I did have pcmark crash 2 times trying to run it.

What's up with that? I run every test I can throw at it on being stable
and it is stable.
I guess it does not like overclocks very well.


EDIT: WHat I cannot figure out is why I'm not crashing running the test.
But when I try and use the online compare it locks me up.
Any idea's?

I'm not the only one with an Intel setup that is having their system overclocked, yet we can both run other stability programs like (Sandra, SysMark or Prime95) without problems at our normal o/c speeds.

You can't say. "Flawed"? How do you know it is so perfect? How do you know it isn't plagued with bugs?

In your own words:

"nVidia takes the crown by a massive margin here, and gives some rather interesting results. As expected, the extra bandwidth and fillrate of the 5900 over the 9800 Pro gives it the edge in most tests (although ATi's card performs better in the transparant window test). However, the score in two of the tests relating to graphics memory show an absolutely immense difference in favour of nVidia, to the tune of around 3,000 FPS!! I'm unsure of whether these scores are accurate and reflective of the hardware or down to a driver issue on ATi's part, but nevertheless those results give a huge boost in the AMD systems favour, and as one of these tests is also present in the main PCMark test to calculate an overall score, it explains the large advantage the AMD rig shows in the final scoring."

You are straight out contradicting yourself.

Peace,

:(

[rellingsen]

It seems to be a much better benchmark then PCMark02. I scored a 5233 on my first run with my rig. I'd post a link but I can't get into ORB to copy and paste it right now, it just keeps timing out.

[digitalwanderer]

Malfunction? What point are you trying to make? :eek2:

[schuey74]

He's trying to say that the program may be "flawed" or "buggy" because it is not stable at his max overclock like all his other software. I myself can't see blaming a program for crashes if your overclocked and when you bring it down a bit, it no longer crashes. I see it simply as the program pushing some component in your rig to hard and it just can't take it. It may be the CPU, RAM, NB, or more than likely the voltage regulators.

My current P4 system runs 99.99% stable at 266 FSB. Never, ever a crash in any games or gaming benchmarks. I'm talking about running prime for 24 hours straight and looping both 3d Marks for hours at a time. But in about one month's time it has reset itself twice while doing pretty intense work in Photoshop. Setting the FSB to 260 solved the Photoshop problem. I believe the problem to be either the memory or a lack of cooling for the back of my voltage regulators. My temps reach as high as 88C under full load on the backside of the VRs. I'm going to slap on a heatsink there and a nice 120mm blowhole on the backside of my case to keep those temps down so that won't hold me back when I get my new memory in about a week.......PC4400.

[Hanners]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Malfunction? What point are you trying to make? :eek2:

That FutureMark are evil I think - Some people can't differentiate between 3DMark and PCMark.


Originally posted by Malfunction
You can't say. "Flawed"? How do you know it is so perfect? How do you know it isn't plagued with bugs?

Personally, I didn't experience any crashes, so I can say that in my experience it isn't flawed. Of course, you can almost guarantee that it isn't perfect or 100% bug free, but then again what software is? Because a piece of software has problems with massively overclocked systems, that doesn't make it unreliable.


Originally posted by Malfunction
You are straight out contradicting yourself.

Not really - The score was consistent across benchmark runs, so it was safe to assume that the problem was something else on my system, which is what I was trying to point out in what you quoted. Other peoples scores in the test I mentioned have born this out to be true as they are much, much higher than what I managed.

[Malfunction]

I will say this much about it then. Hopefully they put more of an effort into this than they did with 3DMark. I'm just curious how soon a patch will come out. :)

Peace,

;)

[The Baron]

god, stop with your constant "3DMark is complete crap" already. if you ask nicely, I'll be more than happy to explain to you why your views on the subject are so incorrect.

[ChrisRay]

Yup Baron, It has no place in this thread.

[Malfunction]

Originally posted by The Baron
god, stop with your constant "3DMark is complete crap" already. if you ask nicely, I'll be more than happy to explain to you why your views on the subject are so incorrect.

No Baron, you have your veiws and I have mine. Don't think that is ever gonna change either, but thank you for the offer. :) I said my peace with this topic, and won't come back to it again.

ChrisRay, when you make a supercilious remark such as now... you ever ask yourself if you are defusing a situation or creating a situation?

Peace,

:(