3dmark Invalid Score
Karri Weston
Whenever I enable Advanced Performance Optimization in the Intel Arc Control panel and run a Timespy benchmark I get an Invalid Result.
Advanced Performance Optimization DISABLED
Score- 13105 Valid Result
Advanced Performance Optimization ENABLED
Score- 14471 Invalid Result
I was wondering if you guys are aware of this. Don't think it is a bug but it seems odd to me that changing settings renders a benchmarking score invalid.
Thank you for posting in the communities. I might need to coordinate this with our team for further checking. Before I do so, aside from this result, are you experiencing any issues with the Intel Arc A770? If you have access to other benchmarking software, does it also give the same result? I kindly ask as well for your SSU logs so we can be more familiar with your system configuration and check for possible errors. I will be waiting for your reply.
No I am not experiencing any other issues with my Intel Arc A770 16GB. And using other benchmarking software to verify this result is not possible as far as I know because I would need another benchmarking app that Intel Arc Control could detect and allow the application of the Advanced Performance Optimization setting which I am not currently aware of. Any suggestion?
I provided the SSU txt file and also the Arc Control Logs.
I also found this:
Some recent versions of AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin Edition include an application-specific profile for 3DMark. Running 3DMark with this profile will result in an invalid score, even if the profile does not modify any settings.
To get a valid score, open the AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin Edition application and remove the 3DMark application profile. Alternatively, you can use the Factory Reset option to restore all driver settings and profiles to the default values.
Thank you for responding back to my post. For now, we will be looking into this information you have shared and get back you on this thread once an update is available. Thank you for your patience and cooperation.
Thank you for patiently waiting. Upon coordinating with our team. I want to let you know that this is expected behavior. The "Advanced Performance Optimizations" option may not be compatible with 3rd party benchmark scoring systems. If you have further questions, feel free to let us know as we are here to assist you. Feel free to reply to my post.
As we have not heard response from you , we will proceed in closing this case. Should you have future inquiries, feel free to create a new thread as this one will no longer be monitored. We wish you the best in your future endeavors!
Intel does not verify all solutions, including but not limited to any file transfers that may appear in this community. Accordingly, Intel disclaims all express and implied warranties, including without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement, as well as any warranty arising from course of performance, course of dealing, or usage in trade.
Initially, I tried with just the 1050. I constant got Error code 43, which seemed to be connected to NVIDIA driver nonsense, but even after making the appropriate changes, it would still refuse to work. When I disabled the virtualized video driver (QXL/Cirrus for spice), Windows just went black, while Ubuntu got a bit further in that the greeter showed up, but it never finished booting. In dmesg, I saw `vfio-pci 0000:0e:00.0: Invalid PCI ROM header signature: expecting 0xaa55, got 0xffff`.
Then, I tried with both the 7770 and 1050, with 7770 as the boot gpu. When I had both, I was able to passthrough both to windows, at the same time. 7770 was completely effortless to get started. Windows recognized it and installed the drivers, and started outputting to the screen even while spice/qxl was still connected, and it allowed me to freely move my mouse between the two displays (extended). A couple of reboots were needed for the 1050 driver, but finally it also started working. There were no errors/fatals in the dmesg log this time. I disconnected the 7770 from the vm and after a reboot, the 1050 was still functional. So there were no problems with the 1050 while the 7770 was the boot gpu.
Aside, passmark crashes the system while collecting "cpu info", and 3dmark occasionally refuses to start up, stuck at "collecting system info" (takes a couple of reboots and a couple of restarts). But cinemark and furmark run just fine. I suspect it's because kvm with a ryzen cpu appears to treat it as an EPYC cpu and the model just isn't recognized. A successful 3dmark score in question (with the 7770):
Due to the inflated and bugged scores we have seen lately pop up at the UL Hall of Fame and at HWBOT it would be recommended to enable the ECC Memory setting in the nVIDIA Control Panel. This is a request for testing to see if this is a solid fix by UL.
What are you talking about? This is like the 4th time they got me with hardware I no longer own. Didn't see anyone waving the white flag when I got hit laptop benching. And laptop benching is like 5 to 10 times more expensive! So pony up or except the loses like I and others already have had to do.
Are you guys going to finish removing invalid 4090 benchmarks or not? I am starting the process of redoing them and trying to get the ones of mine in question deleted, but if that is not the case then I do not want to potentially have good scores deleted.
This actually doesn't make any sense. So you are keeping the BS runs while new submitted runs are under scrutiny of the new ruling? Which makes them lower and slower runs unable to beat the bugged runs. That sounds very productive.
Hi bro. I think the point John was making is someone actually did to him what you keep saying will not be done. I think it happened to others as well. So, you are saying you're going to stop doing that now because doing so was a mistake, or you were not aware that had already taken place?
Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
This is the answer. Yes atm both ECC on/off score are on hwbot, from before and after the change of rules. We are just waiting for a fix to take a final decision and yes everyone will have to follow the same rule, no mix of both.
Hi. I saw one of you have blocked my 4090 Fire Strike Extreme subs. Reason. ECC disabled run. But I'm quite sure I had it Enabled. I don't even think older Fire strike benchmark offer driver status as ECC disabled/Enabled in their results summary. Or maybe LOD tweaks is one of the culprits (allowed for hwbot) for not show it up. I can't confirm this right now as I have returned the card. Maybe others can test out this with 4090. I mean every single Fire Strike Extreme benches posted on hwbot don't have the results summary with ECC disabled or Enabled in their results. Either it will be showed as Driver version approved or the driver version. Nothing about ECC disabled or Enabled. What to do with results that is valid but you can't show it due Futuremark system info can't show it correct? Will all 3DM Suite Fire Strike (Extreme) results be removed/blocked now even if they are done correct? Thanks
In short... Newest Futuremark System info 5.55 or newer doesn't matter. Offer nothing about ECC disabled or Enabled info for some benchmarks as etc 3DM Suite Fires strike Extreme or Fire Strike. You either get approved or the driver version instead in the results summary. Nothing more. Correct me if I'm wrong. It will be wrong blocking posted results if this is correct and you haven't done something or anything wrong. Examples below.
That really stinks. If they are going to remove 4090 submissions, then they should just remove all of them across the board and make everyone start over rather than making arbitrary assumptions about which ones are legit and which ones are not.
- when did we impose the ruling? We are blocking the ones atm that don't adhere to this rule set. Anyway did you think you could get away with a small
increase in freq that would boost your score so high that you even beat LN2 or chilled setups... now some opt that the best defence is to attack...
- What is the safest score to submit, the ECC or the non ECC one ? We see user sub ECC enabled ones for the non global benchmarks and trying
to stay under the radar and subbing ECC disabled ones for the benchmarks with global points.
A suggestion... if ECC enablement is required, perhaps also require NVIDIA Control Panel in the screenshot. I purchased a 4090 since this debacle started (received Friday) and all of my submissions have it enabled. I see many older submissions (before ECC checking was a thing) often with lower core and memory clocks than I am running with signficantly higher benchmark scores. If I disable ECC, I can match them, but don't see any point in uploading 3DMark runs only to have them deleted later. It is a shame that we have to gimp performance by having this enabled, but I suppose if everyone has to gimp their 4090 it will level the playing field. I have ECC disabled when I am not submitting scores for the leaderboard. I kind of wish the option was not even present in NVIDIA Control Panel.
If Nvidia removes ECC we have a big problem, than it's fully up to UL to impose proper bugged score detection...as users will keep on claiming their score is fully legit and will cry it is labeled Valid by UL.
What is being repeated? I don't understand. I merely offered a suggestion to provide an additional point of reference just as the CPU-Z and GPU-Z are required in screenshots for validation purposes. But, we still require them even though you can Photoshop them. I took your invitation to offer a suggestion seriously. Perhaps I should have just kept my idea to myself. I apologize if it was a point of frustration, but I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
93ddb68554