Overclock.net banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Alright, I've finally got PCmark05 running on W7 64 bit. So I ran the test a few times which failed because it required the 32 bit version of windows media encoder installed.

SO I got that sorted out and now I have a successful run ready to be submitted. ....except that all I get is an error that says

"Error submitting the result." and a single button with says 'cancel'. What the hell do I do to submit this thing?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,558 Posts
I'm feeling the rage now, got the ssds in raid0 & my HDD performace is better. But at the same settings I got that 20k last night my transparent windows score has gone from 4200 to 500 & I can't figure it out...
Even with the better HDD scores my total score has gone down 1000 points.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,558 Posts
This thing is killing me. Got the SSD's in raid & graphics tests go downhill.
Ended up reinstalling windows, graphics tests work fine but no raid0 (disks are in raid0 but windows experience & HDDtune say no speed difference from single SSD).
Reinstall again, graphics tests work, raid0 appears to work (windows experience to 7.1 from 5.9, HDDtune results almost double the speed).

Comparing to mu 19973 with 1 ssd, with the 2 ssds in raid0 at the same overclock I get 50.51 compared to 43.66 on the xp startup, but the HDD general usage has gone from 38.44 with a single ssd to 21.24 with 2 x ssd in raid0.

single ssd - http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=2234565
2 x ssd raid0 - http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=2235537

I was ready to break shtuff last night...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Man, I can understand that feeling. Seriously. I'm going to be reinstalling windows soon too. MSI afterburner doesn't play nice with drivers that aren't the ones fresh on the install. That's maddening. I blame MSI because everything else works as expected. That being said, the XP boot result doesn't surprise me much as it's mostly random read performance more than sequential. The general usage is just weird.

Maybe it's the board....

So, want to buy my UD7? LOL.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,558 Posts
It's the raid controller, for some reason windows will just not see it as a raid array. I'm gonna try updating the driver in windows again, last time computer shut down after install & there was no windows anymore.
Tried installing the driver for the intel matrix manager in windows install but no dice last time, are you using the intel manager or the jmicron controller?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I'm using the intel controller. They're much faster in my experience. I didn't bother installing the drivers from intel and just used the stock windows7 ones that came with the install. It's worked for both the BR and my UD7.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,558 Posts
Here is the best I've been able to get (21468), I'm pretty confused by the general HDD usage score though. As you can see in the ORB link by going to raid0 from a single ssd xp startup has gone up almost 50% & virus scan went up over 100% so the raid array is obviously working (hdd tune & matrix storage manger say so too).
But HDD general usage is still DOWN by about 50% though. Shenanigans. But it'll still move me from 81st to 34th for the i7 920 at hwbot.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=2236138 2 x ssd in raid0
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=2234565 single ssd

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I think that general usage is more random read based and apparently random reads are hurt by raid-0 (increased latency by having to go through a raid controller).
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top