Critical thinking - Should Maximus V Extreme be banned from competitive overclocking?

  • News, Editorials, Articles
  • 250
  • HWBOT

Critical thinking – Should Maximus V Extreme be banned from competitive overclocking?

Introduction

Author: Pieter-Jan Plaisier

The world of overclocking and the community it’s founded on is in essence not so much different from any other field of interest or social group. We have our own language, our own set of principles, our own set of shared motives and goals and (virtual) places we visit. Just like any other social group, once in a while we are forced to face an existential crisis; a problem that pushes us to think about what overclocking and benchmarking is, or what it is supposed to be. Over the years, we’ve had lengthy (and interesting) discussions regarding the usage of extreme cooling, a debate on whether or not graphical artifacts should be tolerated, if adjusting LOD values should be considered legit and many many more. In a recent conversation, overclocking legend Sampsa Kurri brought up an interesting subject that could very well bring us back into the position of facing another existential crisis.

In the video he linked a new feature of the infamous ROG OC Key is demoed. Let’s have a look.

As you can see in the video, this new feature of OC Key (currently without a marketing name, so let’s call it ROG Pause) allows the user to completely freeze the entire system at any point during the benchmark, go for a walk or (more likely) cool down the system and continue the benchmark when ready. As far as we can judge based on the very limited documentation available on the web or in the video, it seems that the ROG Pause functionality is purely hardware-based and stops the system on a hardware level. If correct, it’s important for two reasons:

  • It means that this new function is not affecting the benchmark’s perception of time directly as, for example, a speedhack software application would. It doesn’t speed up or slow down time, it just halts everything.
  • Unlike what MSI did upon themselves with a BIOS feature called “lab burst mode” on a couple of Llano mainboards, the perception of time is not altered either. For those who don’t know, the Lab Burst Mode essentially was a guarantee for successful overclocking past 133FSB. As power users (such as The Stilt) later pointed out, this featured altered the PLL (clock generator) mode, which caused the reported frequency to be higher than it really was. The frequency was not really 133+ MHz, it was much lower, but because it’s a hardware-level feature none of the software could detect this. The benchmark results with Lab Burst Mode are effectively hardware-based speedhacks.

Even though ROG Pause does not cheat the timer, on a fundamental level it’s affecting the benchmark’s legitimacy in quite a similar way. Not by affecting the timer of the hardware, but … by affecting real time!

That last sentence probably made you think I’m sort of a sci-fi lunatic. But bear with me for a few more lines as I’m going to explain why ROG Pause affects real time. But first, let’s think about the relativity of the PC’s timer and benchmark results.

It’s all relative …

‘Time’, so beautifully defined at Wikipedia as the continuing sequence of events occurring in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future, and a measure of the durations and frequencies of events and the intervals between them, is not an easy to grasp as a concept. We’re all able to work with it and somewhat understand the principles and the practical effects. Essential to understanding the implications of ROG Pause is understanding that the concept of ‘time’ on a PC configuration is, if not synced via network or internet, an arbitrarily defined constant designed to ensure that the configuration is running in sync with the real world. In other words: hardware and software engineers ensure that ‘one second’ on your PC equals ‘one second’ in real time. One of the reasons why it’s so important to have the PC’s timer line up with the real world time is to ensure that your PC can produce accurate measurements and predictions. After all, how would your PC be able to calculate the travel time between London and Paris if it does not have the correct definition of ‘second’?

Okay, let’s make this a little more OC relevant. One of the most important measurement tools used to determine the performance of your system is FPS, Frames per second. As you know, the significance of any FPS indication is relative to two variables: the frame (“How many frames were calculated?”) and the time (“How much time has passed?”). In most 3DMarks the time is a constant, which means that for every benchmark the only variable is the amount of rendered frames. The decision to have the benchmark time constant is not a given, but merely an arbitrary decision made by the developers at Futuremark. In fact, when designing a benchmark that uses FPS as measuring tool, you need define both “frame” and “second”. We have to ask the questions “What constitutes a frame?” and “What is a second?”. Adjusting the definition of either parameter affects the significance of the performance measurement.

And this is something we, the overclocking community, already know!

A small note to end this paragraph with: adjusting the definition of either variable has been judged illegal by the majority of the overclocking community.

Measured time versus real time

So, now that we’ve established the importance of defining all variables as well as the significance of having the PC’s time line up with the real world time, we can have a closer look at the implications of the ROG Pause software. As we’ve figured out earlier in the write-up, ROG Pause does not seem to change the system’s perception of time. In other words, every second on the M5E equals a ‘real’ second. So, technically, that would mean that any performance measurement is a reliable measurement. Or does it?

The “Bolt Marathon” Paradox

Shock in the world of athletics! Usain Bolt, 100M Dash WR holder, has challenged Patrick Makau, marathon WR holder, for a marathon duel, claiming he can easily beat Makau’s best time and win the race. Makau, fit and healthy as he is, accepts the challenge and agrees to run the marathon first. He finishes the race in a time that ties with the current world record; he needed 2 h 03 min 38 sec, averaging 20.5 km/h, to finish the 42,195 km. Impressive!

Usain Bolt, sneaky as he is, will be using a different strategy to run the 42,195 km as fast as possible. Instead of performing the full marathon in one straight run, he splits the marathon up in stages of 100m. After every 100m, he will take a 5 minute rest. Bolt, not so fit and not so healthy, runs every 100m of the marathon in a very poor 10 seconds. Still, he finishes the 42,195 km in a brilliant 1h 10 min 19.5 sec, averaging an incredible 36 km/h.

So, there we have it! Usain Bolt took the WR for the fastest ever 42,195 km (“marathon”)!

Do you accept Bolt’s time as new WR for the marathon?

Probably not. And you are right not to! After all, Usain Bolt did not finish the marathon in 1h 10min 19.5sec, but actually used a lot more time. To be precise, he used 421,95x 5 minutes more as that’s the time he took to rest in between every 100m. Therefore, his real marathon time is 36h 20min 4.5sec!

ROG Pause and SuperPI

The same logic can be applied to the ROG Pause functionality with regards to any benchmark result. The easiest way to comprehend this is by using SuperPI, a benchmark which indicates how much time was needed to complete a specific calculation, as example. By enabling ROG Pause during a SuperPI benchmark, you do the exact same as what happened in the “Bolt’s Marathon” paradox. An example: there are two configurations, both assigned to complete the SuperPI 32M calculation as fast as possible. Both systems are configured exactly the same. System “Makau” will do the entire calculation in one run; System “Bolt” will be paused 1 second after every loop to cool down in order to ensure stability. The results are

  • System “Makau”: 5min 0sec 0ms
  • System “Bolt”: 5min 0sec 0ms

How much time did it take for both systems to finish the calculation? Well …

  • It took System “Makau” exactly 5min 0sec to finish the entire SuperPI 32M calculation.
  • It took System “Bolt” 5 minutes plus 25x 1 second, equaling 5min 25sec, to finish the calculation

As you figured out by now, the main conflict we have here is that there’s a difference between the measured time and the real time. And that’s where the existential crisis kicks in. Is it allowed to change the system’s perception of time to be altered during a benchmark? Is it allowed to split up any benchmark into an unlimited amount of sections? How long did it take to complete that 32M calculation?

3DMark01 and ROG Pause

Without any doubt, the first argument people will use in favor of the ROG Pause functionality is of course going to be 3DMark01. After all, the principle of starting and stopping a benchmark is essentially what makes 01 so different from all other benchmarks. And, yes, it’s true … even though 3DMark01 is supposed to be run as one long benchmark, overclockers still go subtest by subtest, segment by segment. But is it the same like ROG Pause? No, not at all. And here’s why:

  • First of all, the legitimacy of splitting up the benchmark into different segments is a feature of the benchmark. The benchmark developers have determined that it’s allowed to go subtest by subtest to get an overall score.
  • Secondly, the benchmark can only be split up in a pre-defined amount of subtests. Returning to the world of athletics, we could make the analogy with decathlon. In decathlon, there are also a pre-defined set of events in between which you can rest. It’s just part of the game.
  • Thirdly, the measured time it took to render X amount of frames during each subtest is equal to real time. Unlike ROG Pause, having the ability to segment the 3DMark01 benchmark does not create a difference between measured and real time.

Therefore, 3DMark01’s application feature to split up the benchmark into different segments is not a valid argument in favor of tolerating ROG Pause.

Conclusive lines

Ultimately, there only a few ways to overcome this existential crisis. Either we allow a difference in measured time and real time or we don’t. Each way has their own set of implications: If allowed, we break with our previous policies against altering any of the definitions set by the benchmark developers. If disallowed, we have to find a way to detect the usage of ROG Pause to be able to ban it. As the entire system is halted, including any system timer, no software application can measure the real time it took to complete the benchmark, which means there’s no software tool to detect the usage of ROG Pause. Practically, there are two solutions.

One solution would be to develop a software tool that checks at what point a benchmark started, syncs with a calibrated off-system clock (e.g.: via the internet) and syncs again when the benchmark finishes. In this case, a significant difference between the measured off-system time and the measured on-system time would indicate tampering. This is an interesting solution, but it comes with a serious development cost (it has to be very secure) and obviously requires you to always have your bench system connected to the internet.

The second option, suggested to me by a fellow member of the overclocking community, is a lot more drastic: nullify all benchmark results done with the Maximus V Extreme (or any other mainboard supporting ROG Pause), which effectively bans the board from being used in a competitive overclocking environment.

In any case, as a community we will have to think about the validity of benchmark results done with pausing. As it does not only affect the principles of the competitive aspect of overclocking/benchmarking, but also affect a (commercial) benchmark’s business selling point as indication of stability, I assume that benchmark developers such as Futuremark will also have internal discussions on this subject. The main purpose of this write-up was to inform you about the problem and implications of the feature rather than effectively imposing a new policy or rule at HWBOT. Of course, at HWBOT, we’re very interested in hearing your opinion and thoughts, so feel free to comment in the forums!


250

Belgium leeghoofd says:

So we can expect a CPU-Z tab being mandatory for the motherboard soon then ?

says:

Is it available in M5G and M5F?

Germany der8auer says:

First of all I have to say that this article is very well written! Well done Pieter :)

And I agree with you. ROG Pause does not affect the benchmark itself but it affects the way the benchmark normally works.
We buy CPUs e.g. offered as 6,7 GHz 32m stable. Well If the system got freezed 20 times within the benchmark the result says nothing about the real power of the CPU.

For me this is quite similar to the Lucid Virtu thing. It does not realy change the benchmark itself but it affects to comparability. No matter which result we have here on the bot we always know "this system was stable at xx clocks to run a xx time or result". Allowing ROG pause we won't be able anymore to have comparable results.

It seems like there won't be a ways to detect ROG Pause as this is a hardware-feature. So my vote goes to ban the board completely. At least as long as we have a different solution for this issue.

United States Mr.Scott says:

der8auer said: First of all I have to say that this article is very well written! Well done Pieter :)

And I agree with you. ROG Pause does not affect the benchmark itself but it affects the way the benchmark normally works.
We buy CPUs e.g. offered as 6,7 GHz 32m stable. Well If the system got freezed 20 times within the benchmark the result says nothing about the real power of the CPU.

For me this is quite similar to the Lucid Virtu thing. It does not realy change the benchmark itself but it affects to comparability. No matter which result we have here on the bot we always know "this system was stable at xx clocks to run a xx time or result". Allowing ROG pause we won't be able anymore to have comparable results.

It seems like there won't be a ways to detect ROG Pause as this is a hardware-feature. So my vote goes to ban the board completely. At least as long as we have a different solution for this issue.

+1 Totally agree with everything here.

Kazakhstan TerraRaptor says:

don't think that is a big problem.

Australia KngtRider says:

The concept of pause is not new, far from it. non x86 PCs/Consoles had pause and pause will work in certain states of a systems operation with the pause key on the keyboard. it can be used with POST in some scenarions.

Why not petition ASUS for a solution on this site and other sites, it might be able to disabled with a BIOS update despire being a hardware solution.

Mobo makers have a habit of going too far for marketing purposes and they might not realise otherwise.

While your at it why no ban ln2 mode or slow mode as thats another form of cheating despite its technical merit. Not all enthusiast extreme oc grade mobos have these modes old or new. Isnt the challenge to see what you can do without assists/aids?

Does not posting the issue as a news posting on your frontpage act as a scare tactic to the wider enthusuast community ? It is a quite unprecedented headline,there are only more ROG boards coming for Intel and AMD.

I learned of this from a retweet, I am sure some enthusiasts right now are going 'zomg asus is cheating benchmarks' as we speak without reading the details.

If you single out a board for one feature that is undesirable, every other board must be gone through with a fine tooth comb to see if anything has been missed for fairness.

Someome I mentioned this story to suggested videoing some runs as proof not very practical.

Time sync has pros and cons. Some boards develop RTC drift (at stock) which can skew the result.

More invesgitation and testing is needed to see how temperature and power vary when the system is paused.

United States I.M.O.G. says:

John Lam said: Is it available in M5G and M5F?
No, its only available with the OCKey, which is only available on the RIVE and MVE (I think), and further, the pause feature only currently exists for the MVE OCKey firmware. (so pause is not available on the RIVE, despite it supporting the OCKey as well) Good article Pieter - The big challenge I see is the message that blocking it would send. We're here in the overclocking community to keep these companies innovating right? Look at everything we've brought them to do with motherboards and GPUs, pretty cool overall! Many of us were around 10 years ago and remember how the industry treated overclockers then, and now they fight to cater to us. The MVE's OCKey pause is problematic tho... But it doesn't seem that different than ROG Connect/RC TweakIT - you can change voltages and frequencies on the fly by hardware, to let things cool down or run harder, so the final screencapped settings may not reflect the actual settings the benchmark was ran at. Same goes for boards with the onboard toggles. Then there's afterburner and other tools used by all the other guys - if they support profiles, people are changing GPU settings on the fly during the benchmark... no way to detect what profiles they used to produce the final score thats screencapped. They don't change time though... And that seems different enough to single it out. The pause makes a minimal difference though, if any at all. Take wp1024 for instance, it runs on Ivy at about the same frequency as wp32 - with the pause feature it can be run at the same frequency - a difference of maybe 100MHz usually. And I haven't seen anyone test it diligently enough to determine if the pause affects efficiency. If you look at 3D instead, you can run slightly unstable GPU clocks by pausing in frequent intervals stalling the onset of heat affecting stability... It isn't similar to MVP in how it changes results by 25% or more, and it isn't similar to how MVP skips a bunch of the benchmark rendering - but by being diligent about pausing at the right times and pushing it right on the edge of stability, pause might yield a slight improvement. Minimal though, it just controls the affect of heat on stability really. So I dunno. I think it can be considered problematic. I think blocking the board entirely sends a message against innovation though as well, and thats kind of problematic too. The solution could be simple - updated firmware for the OCKey that disables pause. But still no way to know if someone is using it or not.

Norway knopflerbruce says:

I don't see the issue. When Bolt takes a rest he does it because of restitution. You don't have anything equivalent to restitution in the hardware world. Temperature is the closest variable, but if you measure the delta between the pot temp and the die temp it's not THAT time dependant. Maybe there is 1% to gain from this (compared to ~40% in Bolt's case), nothing more (just check wprime32m vs 1024m CPU clock speeds). Anyone running prime95 or something equivalent will see this, too. Most of the temp increase comes right as you start the test, then it goes up by a degree here and there, but not by much at all.

Removing all subs done with this mobo is not an option at all, they were all legit at the time of posting. That's one of the most fundamental rules we have here.

Let's look at this from a different perspective: what if there is a god somewhere in the sky who sits on a chair with his own "pause button" and pauses "universe time" whenever he feels like. For US it would not be possible to know if this happens, as everything is paused - our watches, our PCs and so on. When the pause button is released, the world continues like nothing has happened. This ROG button sounds very similar, the computer itself won't know that the time was paused - the benchmark continues just as if it was ran without a break. The computation is not affected directly by hitting this button

Netherlands Viss says:

I just dont see a real issue/benefit from this to be honest.

India thebanik says:

Ban the bugger, :p

Belgium Massman says:

FYI - the article is based on a very limited understanding of the technical aspect of the feature. Not that I didn't go and look for it, there's just not much info out there.

KngtRider said: While your at it why no ban ln2 mode or slow mode as thats another form of cheating despite its technical merit. Not all enthusiast extreme oc grade mobos have these modes old or new. Isnt the challenge to see what you can do without assists/aids?

Does not posting the issue as a news posting on your frontpage act as a scare tactic to the wider enthusuast community ? It is a quite unprecedented headline,there are only more ROG boards coming for Intel and AMD.


Slow mode and LN2 mode don't affect any of the benchmark's parameters. I don't think it's really relevant to this topic?

The title is a little provocative, I guess, but the content is very relevant to overclocking. I never want to scare people - I don't even see how it could scare anyone.

KngtRider said: I learned of this from a retweet, I am sure some enthusiasts right now are going 'zomg asus is cheating benchmarks' as we speak without reading the details.


I can't help there are idiots out there commenting on stories they didn't read :D.

United States Gunslinger says:

I don't see the issue with it either, I have the board, and don't use the OC Key as I find it more bothersome than helpfull.

says:

Massman said: Oh, I see Andre also gave you the "Massman/HWBOT hates Asus"-speech while you were out in Taiwan :D.


Hahaha, M5E killed my 7GHz+ x 2, I banned this MB for myself , but i love M5G and M5F.

Croatia dejan_bin_laden says:

interesting read for sure

Denmark zzolio says:

I can not see the issue As I see it it is just one more way of tweaking to achieve the maximum frequency when it has no impact on the time it takes to run the bench the only difference it makes is that you might run a little faster and there are many other things which do that so I cant see the issue but it must of course be tested to see if there is a difference with the use of the pause button at the same speed

Germany Moose83 says:

Im for banning it, this is not fair against all overclockers! What is next, changing CPU during Run?Bann it!

Italy Mafio says:

der8auer said: First of all I have to say that this article is very well written! Well done Pieter :)

And I agree with you. ROG Pause does not affect the benchmark itself but it affects the way the benchmark normally works.
We buy CPUs e.g. offered as 6,7 GHz 32m stable. Well If the system got freezed 20 times within the benchmark the result says nothing about the real power of the CPU.

For me this is quite similar to the Lucid Virtu thing. It does not realy change the benchmark itself but it affects to comparability. No matter which result we have here on the bot we always know "this system was stable at xx clocks to run a xx time or result". Allowing ROG pause we won't be able anymore to have comparable results.

It seems like there won't be a ways to detect ROG Pause as this is a hardware-feature. So my vote goes to ban the board completely. At least as long as we have a different solution for this issue.


100% agree with you.
I vote for completely ban the board/s.

TaPaKaH says:

Two things I want to see tested
1) does pausing a benchmark affect the end score?
2) does pausing a benchmark affect the ability to run it at higher frequency? I'm not talking about temperature, a pot with 0.000001 reaction time would give you the same advantage.
For example, if wPrime 32 and 1024M apply same stress on CPU "per second" and ability to run each at certain frequency can be defined as "ability to hold load X for Y seconds straight" then we might have a problem as splitting 1024M into 30-40 chunks should effectively raise the 1024M passable freq to where 32M is.

Germany BenchBros says:

What about Asking ASUS to remove it from next BIOSes? So you can only allow "no-pause" BIOSes?

Norway knopflerbruce says:

It will help, a little bit.

South Africa Vivi says:

drweez lifted this point when we discussed it over the phone,

you know at the start of 3dmark11 when you have to super-dunk your 580 to get it stable for the 1st bit. well pausing would help significantly. you would be able to run many mhz higher, pause run pause run.

it's an innovative option for a mobo which would give an advantage over others. but i would say it's a fair advantage, if a mobo thinks of this idea good for them.

personally i don't mind it. but i guess like the article states it messes with time. making superpi 32m into five 100meter sprints instead of one endurance race.

Brazil Rbuass says:

I don't think is a problem... better is MSI, GB and EVGA make for their overclocking boards...
I don't know how can it affect the benchmark...and I believe still be needed same skill to keep in the top.
I can be wrong... but atm I think this way because I never tryed this feature

Canada Vinster says:

I think it's an advantage for running higher clocks... when i'm running DICE sometimes have issues holding a cold temperature with certain CPU's so with this on Long benches I could pause the bench to allow my POT to cool back down... how much would it benefit, I don't know... but that's the first thought that came to my mind.... then I'd be able to surpass scores that I would not had without it... So with that thought I would think it's a cheat of sorts... I'd hope there would be a Bios release to disable this feature for competitors, but then it would be mandatory to have the MB tab open in CPU-Z to see the bios version... then the rules on every bench and section would have to be updated and this has not been done in years already so policing this would be a nightmare... Vin

K404 says:

I'm on the fence. If we can pause a bench and get temperatures back under control (GTX580 for example) then it takes away some of the challenge of benching. Should benching be a skill or should venders take as much skill out of it as possible? For popular cards now, don't need to voltmod, memory profiles are loaded in at the factory, auto OC is in BIOS....... But..... generally, I like innovation. I like neat workarounds Should HWB tweak a rule to allow a product? How will it be enforced? CAN it be enforced?

Germany dernettemann says:

I've bought this board, didn't know anything about the pause option. This feature is open for everbody not like other features (Spezial Bios, Afterburner Extreme etc.) So why banning this feature and not the other ones.

Italy Mafio says:

dernettemann said: I've bought this board, didn't know anything about the pause option. This feature is open for everbody not like other features (Spezial Bios, Afterburner Extreme etc.) So why banning this feature and not the other ones.


I can't be 100% sure as I don't have the board but being able to "divide the benchmark in many chunks" (run-stop-run-stop) will probably make the the system able to pass certain heavy tests at an higher frequency than what it could do if the tests were ran without interruptions.

United States [GF]Duke says:

Banning the board shouldn't be an option. If anyone thinks its such an advantage then go buy one. Asus FTW. It's like saying that the 7970 lightning has an advantage over the stock 7970's because of ovp control. It's harware.

Italy Mafio says:

'[GF]Duke said: Banning the board shouldn't be an option. If anyone thinks its such an advantage then go buy one. Asus FTW. It's like saying that the 7970 lightning has an advantage over the stock 7970's because of ovp control. It's harware.


yeah, but the 7970 Lightning render the scene EXACTLY like the reference 7970 does.
if we allow this board to be used then we should also allow Lucid MVP. :)

United States [GF]Duke says:

Mafio said: yeah, but the 7970 Lightning render the scene EXACTLY like the reference 7970 does.
if we allow this board to be used then we should also allow Lucid MVP. :)


lol That makes no sense to me.

United States sin0822 says:

I say establish a parliament and take votes. or just ban asus for not support HWBot. LOL haha.

seriously more investigation into this actually helps would be needed.

Australia nooster says:

I think that this will have an effect on allowing your pot to cool down between frames allowing higher clocks.

If Asus can release a bios that disables this feature then problem solved. it just means that for future sub's the MB cpu-z tab needs to be displayed.

The actual difference in times in 2D may not be huge increase using the pause feature; however every milisecond counts and can mean the difference btw 1st and nth place.

I dont believe that banning the MB outright is the best way to go, as it is counter productive to the innovations for OCers everywere.

as mentioned above, is it not because we demand better features so that we can tweek our runs that these things (MVP, LN2 Mode, ROG Connect, etc) have been develloped specifically for us as a community?
to ban them is not the best way to go, we just need to find a way to either show that it is disableed (maybe a tab in CPUZ to show it is disabled in bios) or a bios update to completly remove the feature.

just my 2c worth

Taiwan AndreYang says:

K404 said: I'm on the fence. If we can pause a bench and get temperatures back under control (GTX580 for example) then it takes away some of the challenge of benching.

Should benching be a skill or should venders take as much skill out of it as possible? For popular cards now, don't need to voltmod, memory profiles are loaded in at the factory, auto OC is in BIOS.......


But..... generally, I like innovation. I like neat workarounds

Should HWB tweak a rule to allow a product?

How will it be enforced? CAN it be enforced?




not really....

2D and 3D is still enough stability on high clock. Any instable clock will crash within one sec. whatever you are using pause. It just improved more easier for benching.

Belgium Massman says:

It seems that many people are missing the main point of the article. What I'm trying to point out is that pausing the system during a benchmark creates a situation where the time it took to complete the benchmark no longer lines up with real time. Just like with the concept of 'frame' and 'second', we have the questions whether or not we can allow fiddling with the principle of 'measured time must line up with real time'.

The answer can be yes (as I pointed out in the conclusive lines) and the answer can be no.

It's not really about whether or not we like or dislike the M5E or the vendor.

//edit: As it's apparently not allowed to have a critical view on any Asus product, I moved all the "Massman is an Asus-hater" to the dedicated thread over at off-topic. Just FYI, the first to link this feature to the word 'cheating' was not me, but Sampsa in his article over at Muropaketti (link). By some people's logic here, he must be a hater too :).

United States sin0822 says:

I mean ASUS's idea of slowing down benchmarks, when the whole purpose of overclocking is to complete benchmarks faster, is kind of funny to me. THe only way to discover is this can make a benchmark score better is to give it to someone like massman who isn't on ASUS's love boat, and let them see if they can improve their score with it. So Andre, Send massman a board!

K404 says:

Massman...... to add a situation to the situation, Vantage runs slower on a low-end card than a high-end one.

How does that fit in to things?

[QUOTE= Andre Yang]
Any instable clock will crash within one sec.
[/QUOTE]

We both know it depends on the reason for the instability. Asus Pause means we don't need to buy super-awesome pots that can handle massive load, we can buy cheaper pots and split the benchmark into bits to keep the temperature low enough that the card will not "overheat"

Or: 4-way SLI/CF + Slim pots. Being able to stop and regain control of temperatures will COMPLETELY change 4-way 3D.....and that's where (most of) the world record points are.

Iran Amateurs says:

I don't know whether it is correct or not to ban ROG boards, but think about it in this way : Why till now no one talked about Extreme Tweaker mod or super Pi Tweaker mod in asus ROG boards ? there is two concept "Tweaking" & "cheating". It is more like technology than robbery ... What is the fault of person who bought that board ? What is the fault of ASUS Co. that made these boards for just one reason ? Don't say to each other that I'm Asus fan boy !!! I just love good products, as I always told my friends that lightnings are good cards... Now what is the solution ? I'm thinking about 2 ways , 1st : there should be a HW program which can record duration or Load percent of GPU or CPU for every test. As I understand from Pieter's text, It is impossible , But I think if the software has internal clock, it will works. 2nd : Ask or force asus to release a bios for disabling this feature and all of shots with these boards should contain MB tab which shows the Bios version. If it is possible , it is the easiest way.

K404 says:

Just because it's in the BIOS, doesn't mean someone has disabled it.

United States [GF]Duke says:

The system can't be tweaked in "pause mode". It does not affect the score only the length of time it takes to run the bench. Dosn't seem to be a cheat to me.

And, what would the solution be? Tell everyone that spent $400 for this board they can't use it? Good god this is the most rediculous thing.

United States l0ud_sil3nc3 says:

'[GF]Duke said: The system can't be tweaked in "pause mode". It does not affect the score only the length of time it takes to run the bench. Dosn't seem to be a cheat to me.

And, what would the solution be? Tell everyone that spent $400 for this board they can't use it? Good god this is the most rediculous thing.



Didn't know that the system can't be tweaked in "pause mode" hmmmm. . ..

Belgium leeghoofd says:

What you mean it can't be tweaked ? no ROG connect ? Isn't it possible to preset stuff, adjust temps, then unpause the benchmark ? Or does the entire world stop if we press the magic button ? If it doesn't have any significant benefit, why would the ROG team develop it ? I kindda like the innovation ASUS came up with. But I can also grasp that it can give a big, to some maybe unfair advantage. Like Kenny suggested once you go eg. multiple GPU that this nifty device might give you a big advantage. Before I take a stand I would like users like Viss , Splave and co that already own the board explain us what the advantages or usage of this "special" function is. Then we can draw a line what is feasible or not... This is not a ban thread, it's an open discussion. But to be honest I hardly see any decent input regarding how and why ? Seems it will turn more into I stand with my brand and sponsors, no matter what... Maybe it's hard to be objective and discuss the hows and what. Maybe some are afraid to loose their sponsorship ? Nothing has been decided yet, think of this as a think tank... collecting data resulting in a poll, which allows the HWbot community to democratically vote on the matter...

Norway knopflerbruce says:

If the computation remains the same => no issue at all.

I believe the most use from this will be between subtests, so you can set clocks and other things, much like we've done 01 for years already. Let's ban 01, too?

United States [GF]Duke says:

It might be a big advantage for air cooling. loool

Denmark M.Beier says:

SoF said: you may explain how the "myth" around 3DM 01 raised on near all "older" benchers?

It was exactly that "oh I can run this scene at this clock and this one at this" "and fluck LH just don't want that high clock" - that made it so fun to bench. And one 01 took people HOURS sometimes...

Just remember the times when vince was rerunning CL (iirc) a gazillion times to finally get a high peak giving him the record.

according to what I currently read out of your article is that this shouldn't be the way that's meant to be played / paused? Hmmm, I might be out of that then, making 05 and 06 runs which are not legit on hwbot...and even they are legit the board is banned - I start to laugh about how that even sounds.

It was not that good to adopt to 03, 05 and 06 due to the scenes changing that quick. I really await the first benches to hold the scenes while loading but not pause them during the runs and see if GT1 is really that easy on 03...


Intesresting debate... Well the pause in 01SE between runs back in the days were good for two things;
1) Evap to get a few C colder...
2) Ram availability.... Its a very ram dependant benchmark, or used to be.. s939 and prior.

.... In SPI, I wonder how this pause effects the ram cycle, it should be possible to gain massive boost.... If this is the case I'd say; Ban....... If it is just PAUSE without no impact on clearing any caches, well then I dont see why it should be banned.

EDIT; Also if knut is right, and that you can change clocks, timings etc. during pause..... Then it might be good to ban as well....

Belgium leeghoofd says:

I wonder if the ROG team can create a Marc Beier pause button. Now that would be a major selling point :p It's why I asked the people that effectively own the board to give an objective insight what the pause button allows them to do Marc. At the moment most of us are just speculating...

Norway knopflerbruce says:

M.Beier said: Intesresting debate... Well the pause in 01SE between runs back in the days were good for two things;
1) Evap to get a few C colder...
2) Ram availability.... Its a very ram dependant benchmark, or used to be.. s939 and prior.

.... In SPI, I wonder how this pause effects the ram cycle, it should be possible to gain massive boost.... If this is the case I'd say; Ban....... If it is just PAUSE without no impact on clearing any caches, well then I dont see why it should be banned.

EDIT; Also if knut is right, and that you can change clocks, timings etc. during pause..... Then it might be good to ban as well....


Why? Changing clocks is not a crime.

Denmark M.Beier says:

Leeghoofd said: I wonder if the ROG team can create a Marc Beier pause button. Now that would be a major selling point :p

It's why I asked the people that effectively own the board to give an objective insight what the pause button allows them to do Marc. At the moment most of us are just speculating...


Objective speculations without having any facts available?

Norway knopflerbruce says:

It's all if's and but's here now.

One thing that's quite clear is that it's a problem if the owners of HWBot, supported by competitors of ASUS, make the decision. Doesn't sound too unrealistic that "some" companies would ask for this board to be removed from the rankings - because they fear it will hurt their sales if it was allowed. That's what it will look like if PJ suddenly makes a news post stating that it can't be used for HWBot rankings any longer.

United States [GF]Duke says:

^^^^agreed.

United States I.M.O.G. says:

Testing it this weekend, during the "set voltages to stun" event. Will do quick tests of pause with sp1m to judge impact on efficiency. Will test for 3d also, that's what we are mainly running.

United States I.M.O.G. says:

By the way, unsure if it allows change while paused. That is not the main idea tho... Main idea is giving breaks. Like the damn butterfly landing on rock, if the bench is crashing at a certain point, pause just before, smash ln2 in pot, unpause and hope the bug sticks the landing.

Belgium Massman says:

So, it's official then. I am no longer allowed to make any critical thought on anything Asus-related because HWBOT is getting paid by competitors. Haha, great stuff boys! :D

//edit: pretty annoying that everyone seems to be so hung up on the fact it's an asus board. Why is no one talking about the essence of the article? Seems like a lot of people are a lot more worried about the HWBOT/ASUS thing than I am :D

Italy giorgioprimo says:

pretty hard question to answer.

From my point of view, as the features doesn't effect the way the benchmark produce the scores, it is legit.
It is just a kind of optimization to allow the clocker to maximize the way he deals with he hardware.

About the "Bolt paradox" ....well is difficult to get a position.

I understand what you mean, benchmark are made to be run without pause, and get the chance to pause them is a "kind of doping" for the hardware, which give a "kind of" advantage besides those who cannot pause.... but still you have to understand wen and how to use the pause, and analyze if it give any advantages.
It is a features which you need to study and practice a lot with.
Because of that, I think it should be allowed at least in the pro league

Denmark slaske6 says:

would like a anser . when we all bought this board to bench on . mvg is to crappy becaurse the voltset are not stable on it .

Denmark M.Beier says:

Massman said: So, it's official then. I am no longer allowed to make any critical thought on anything Asus-related because HWBOT is getting paid by competitors. Haha, great stuff boys! :D

//edit: pretty annoying that everyone seems to be so hung up on the fact it's an asus board. Why is no one talking about the essence of the article? Seems like a lot of people are a lot more worried about the HWBOT/ASUS thing than I am :D


Its a generel thing, just, no critical thoughts from Massman :-P

Denmark slaske6 says:

iwe send it back on the rma M.B . all my things are only 4 bench and nothing else . and like it is now .it sems to be banned .and if it banned ,so it s getting cheaper . 445$ 4 the nice board is expensive ,byt still have all the feature to make it worth.

United States Splave says:

If you have used it you would find out that it only really benefits
A.Someone trying to single man pour 4-way and things are getting out of control just halt system and regroup
B.Someone on air/water cooling (have fun pausing every 5 seconds jesus christ that would be boring as F)
C.Someone that is a novice on ln2 and has trouble to keep a pot full lol
D.Pausing before CPU tests to lower speed but ROG connect does this well enough without pause...
E.Your wife calls you in the middle of WR heaven run

This feature does not turn a shitty chip or card into a WR breaker. On air or water you are going to reach a peak temperature within 2-3 seconds especially in threaded benchmarks so are you really going to pause a 4-10 minute bench every 2-3 seconds for 5-10 seconds?.....It is a kinda neat feature though and pretty innovative but I have yet to find a real use for it myself.

Bulgaria I.nfraR.ed says:

Either that

E.Your wife calls you in the middle of WR heaven run


оr the pizza-man rings on the bell and you have to choose between food and a really good run to finish :D

K404 says:

LOL "wife" LOL "food" None of you guys are benching properly! These things belong to people with a life! The ONLY "real-world" reason to maybe need Asus Pause is because you really really must absolutely RIGHT NOW go to the toilet.

United States I.M.O.G. says:

K404 said: The ONLY "real-world" reason to maybe need Asus Pause is because you really really must absolutely RIGHT NOW go to the toilet.


n00b!

I will share a team secret... It's called the "bucket tweak". I doubt further explanation is needed.

If you are pro, extra efficiency points when combined with "no pants tweak".

Denmark riska says:

If you ban this board you have to disalowe all the 3D2001 scores and remove the benchmark from HWbot because you can the same thing whit that benchmark you can even change your Xp install to another version to do nature runs at the end and many more things...

The pause button dosent affect any thing other than you can cool your things down again or heat them up nearly all mobos and gfx cards you can change mhz real time onthe fly in bench or betwen diffrent secctions of the bench and that opption have been avalible for years with software like Afterburner and different clock software with profiles buttons.
Even the asus extreme and the x48 WS mobo you had the opption to change fsb realtime in bench then they should be removed also..

K404 says:

I.M.O.G. said: n00b!

I will share a team secret... It's called the "bucket tweak". I doubt further explanation is needed.

If you are pro, extra efficiency points when combined with "no pants tweak".


Ahhhhh.... I like to bench neat. :D

United States DOM. says:

what about just in your boxers tweak ?

K404 says:

One thing at a time, I benched without a shirt for the first time only a few days ago. Is this going to become a "sauna prep" tweak?

United States DOM. says:

lol i bench yesterday just in boxers and flipflops retesting cpu i had forgot how it oc and it didnt help XD

Denmark M.Beier says:

riska said: If you ban this board you have to disalowe all the 3D2001 scores and remove the benchmark from HWbot because you can the same thing whit that benchmark you can even change your Xp install to another version to do nature runs at the end and many more things...

The pause button dosent affect any thing other than you can cool your things down again or heat them up nearly all mobos and gfx cards you can change mhz real time onthe fly in bench or betwen diffrent secctions of the bench and that opption have been avalible for years with software like Afterburner and different clock software with profiles buttons.
Even the asus extreme and the x48 WS mobo you had the opption to change fsb realtime in bench then they should be removed also..


01SE was designed by madonion/futuremark, to allow such

"The pause button dosent affect any thing other than" the problem is; nobody knows, it can theoretically change alot more things.

unknown 149 says:

Who tested? How it influence on results?

Denmark M.Beier says:

slamms said: Who tested? How it influence on results?



Nobody.

United States sin0822 says:

Massman said: So, it's official then. I am no longer allowed to make any critical thought on anything Asus-related because HWBOT is getting paid by competitors. Haha, great stuff boys! :D

//edit: pretty annoying that everyone seems to be so hung up on the fact it's an asus board. Why is no one talking about the essence of the article? Seems like a lot of people are a lot more worried about the HWBOT/ASUS thing than I am :D


I honestly think ASUS should step up the the plate and sponsor HWBot then this wouldn't be an issue. Funny that the largest motherboard maker with the largest marketing budget can't support a site that even ECS supports.

Denmark riska says:

It have been tested alot of times but nobody will share the results of it the mobo have been out to selects ocers for over nearly 2 months or more

Denmark riska says:

And marc if u say the software was made to do that then i say the mobo was made to do so it is not a cheat but a hardware tweak to allow the wrm to not overheat and to let the user controll the temp alot better on the pots when u are in pause mode u cant do any thing mhz vice or suchs so you are not getting better scores because of the buttom like a cheat..

I say it is just whiners there say ban it because it is very pricey and many ocers cant get it from asus what if allt the manufactures made that button should we then ban every mobo???

United States Witchdoctor. says:

Nothing is stopping Asus's competetors from implementing this idea,So if if they feel it is unfair they can work harder to make inovations for their boards as well. Being this helps or not is irrelevent, Asus has put out a board that works, who are we to sit here and argue over it's validity.

K404 says:

A lot of people are missing a point. THE point? Does this tweak break an existing HWB rule? If so, should HWB change the rules to ALLOW a product, knowing that the rules on time would have to be built around this particular vendor-specific idea? The guys who HAVE this board aren't commenting on how this tweak works. Why? (should employees of Asus answer? Would the answers be biased?)

Belgium leeghoofd says:

Thanks for the thumbs up Kenny, indeed it's about the rules that are being bended, not the board in particular... Still awaiting feedback from Extreme users...

Denmark zzolio says:

will start testing now what should I test and how should it be tested? I have a few ideas myself. to things I want to test A: is it possible to change the frequency in pause mode B: is there performens improvement C: is it possible to run at high frequency I can test with box cooler and ss and cc

Denmark riska says:

Great my freind check mhz sensitive benchmark sush as Superpi pifast and vantage cpu test

Denmark zzolio says:

I think those who run with ss and cc. are the ones that will get most out of pasue button if they have trouble keeping temp under load I would have gotten around 100Mhz more in Vantage CPU test with my 3930K because my ss then could keep it cold at 5400mhz

United States l0ud_sil3nc3 says:

Well I just bought one of these yesterday so once I get some juice I will test out the "pause" feature.

Honestly I am kinda curious as to how many people have even used the OC Key?

I know I never even took mine out of the package on the RIVE:D

Denmark zzolio says:

i dit use the oc key on the RIVE

United States Splave says:

K404 said: A lot of people are missing a point. THE point?

Does this tweak break an existing HWB rule? If so, should HWB change the rules to ALLOW a product, knowing that the rules on time would have to be built around this particular vendor-specific idea?

The guys who HAVE this board aren't commenting on how this tweak works. Why? (should employees of Asus answer? Would the answers be biased?)


I have two of them mate....pause just makes my runs take longer so I dont use it anymore lol

United States I.M.O.G. says:

zzolio said: I think those who run with ss and cc. are the ones that will get most out of pasue button if they have trouble keeping temp under load

I would have gotten around 100Mhz more in Vantage CPU test with my 3930K because my ss then could keep it cold at 5400mhz


It will improve wprime 1024 by 100mhz for most ln2 benchers. Most can run wprime32 at 100mhz higher than wprime1024... By pausing every 3 seconds so that wprime1024 is like 40 wprime32 runs, you could get 100mhz higher result. This assumes pausing 40 times has no negative efficiency effect... Wprime1024 load is the same, just longer letting heat build up more. Pausing eliminates that effect. It would benefit everyone, air to ln2 in my opinion.

For anyone testing:
1. Run sp1m 10 times and take the average of all scores
2. Repeat, but pause 2 or 3 times each run, take the average of all results

That should show impact on efficiency, if any outside normal variance.

Edit: I had mve, killed it. Didn't have ockey. Have 2 more coming. With ockey.

Denmark M.Beier says:

I.M.O.G. said: It will improve wprime 1024 by 100mhz for most ln2 benchers. Most can run wprime32 at 100mhz higher than wprime1024... By pausing every 3 seconds so that wprime1024 is like 40 wprime32 runs, you could get 100mhz higher result. This assumes pausing 40 times has no negative efficiency effect... Wprime1024 load is the same, just longer letting heat build up more. Pausing eliminates that effect. It would benefit everyone, air to ln2 in my opinion.

For anyone testing:
1. Run sp1m 10 times and take the average of all scores
2. Repeat, but pause 2 or 3 times each run, take the average of all results

That should show impact on efficiency, if any outside normal variance.

Edit: I had mve, killed it. Didn't have ockey. Have 2 more coming. With ockey.


What he said, but probably 8M instead of 1M though.

Colombia saint19 says:

Here is my opinion about this. I'm a nOOb in the overclocking world and more nOOb in the extreme part...so, I have not all the experience that you guys have in this things.

der8auer said: First of all I have to say that this article is very well written! Well done Pieter :) And I agree with you. ROG Pause does not affect the benchmark itself but it affects the way the benchmark normally works. We buy CPUs e.g. offered as 6,7 GHz 32m stable. Well If the system got freezed 20 times within the benchmark the result says nothing about the real power of the CPU. For me this is quite similar to the Lucid Virtu thing. It does not realy change the benchmark itself but it affects to comparability. No matter which result we have here on the bot we always know "this system was stable at xx clocks to run a xx time or result". Allowing ROG pause we won't be able anymore to have comparable results. It seems like there won't be a ways to detect ROG Pause as this is a hardware-feature. So my vote goes to ban the board completely. At least as long as we have a different solution for this issue.
Totally agree, but we also can thing in ban the mobo ONLY in the enthusiast and overclock league. Pro-overclockers league is another world and should find a good correct use of that feature.
BenchBros said: What about Asking ASUS to remove it from next BIOSes? So you can only allow "no-pause" BIOSes?
That would be a great idea, now we need to know what ASUS thing about remove that and more important, when only a few of the owners of that model know the function of that button...the rest buy the mobo for install his super gaming rigs with 3 or 4 GPUs and maybe never overclock the components.
'[GF]Duke said: Banning the board shouldn't be an option. If anyone thinks its such an advantage then go buy one. Asus FTW. It's like saying that the 7970 lightning has an advantage over the stock 7970's because of ovp control. It's harware.
Banning the mobo should not be the option, but for now, it's the only one.
giorgioprimo said: pretty hard question to answer. From my point of view, as the features doesn't effect the way the benchmark produce the scores, it is legit. It is just a kind of optimization to allow the clocker to maximize the way he deals with he hardware. About the "Bolt paradox" ....well is difficult to get a position. I understand what you mean, benchmark are made to be run without pause, and get the chance to pause them is a "kind of doping" for the hardware, which give a "kind of" advantage besides those who cannot pause.... but still you have to understand wen and how to use the pause, and analyze if it give any advantages. It is a features which you need to study and practice a lot with. Because of that, I think it should be allowed at least in the pro league
Totally agree in the last part, allowed only for Pro-league. ------ Now, AFAIK some GPUs (i.e. 7970) freeze when memory (not sure) goes under sub-zero. Allowing that feature would do possible that people without much experience in keep those temps in the "proper" range can pause the benchmark if the temps of that GPU are going under sub-zero and continue with it after temps are "normal" for the GPU, avoiding the "freeze" and obviously the non-stable rig. Agin, I'm still a nOOb and it's my opinion.

United States Deux says:

I loved OC Key on the RIVE, really liked only needing a seconds keyboard instead of a whole second machine to change clocks on the fly :)

Denmark zzolio says:

pause works only in bios 0010 for now

United States dumo says:

There hundreds of oc forums that do competitive overclocking and who are we that can decide to ban a board because of its feature. Lol

United States Mr.Scott says:

dumo said: There hundreds of oc forums that do competitive overclocking and who are we that can decide to ban a board because of its feature. Lol

When it's your site you can do whatever you like.

United States OC Nub says:

The guys that helped design this board are respected benchers. I don't see this as anything more than just anther tweak. There are no modifications being made to the benchmark.

Maybe we should be asking the guys at Gigabyte and MSI to work some overtime to try and catch up. But I guess it would be easier to penalize the leader, than to try and get the others to pick up the pace.

I would be willing to bet that a lot of the guys saying "Ban it" would be singing to a different tune had they been sent a sample to test.

Just my opinion.

Denmark M.Beier says:

OC Nub said: There are no modifications being made to the benchmark.

Sir, can you confirm this? Because I still do not see any documentation that it does not, or it does.... Perhaps you can share your knowledge with me?

What I want to know is; Can the pause clear the L2 cache..... If it can, you DO SEE that it is a problem for 2D benchmarks, yes?

United States OC Nub says:

M.Beier said: Sir, can you confirm this? Because I still do not see any documentation that it does not, or it does.... Perhaps you can share your knowledge with me?



The only change I see is the way the benchmark is being run.

Belgium Massman says:

OC Nub said: There are no modifications being made to the benchmark.


Well, that is exactly the question I posed in the article. One of the fundamental axioms of benchmark might have been compromised, just like it was the case with Lucid Virtu and software speedhacks.

The fundamental axiom is: "Time on your PC configuration must be in sync with real time". Why that's an axiom is explained in the article. Lucid compromised the fundamental axiom "a frame has to be fully rendered", for example.

United States reggiesanchez says:

IMO by simple straight forward definition this is a cheat. If you pause a system 4 times during 32m run then it's not a 32m run. Same argument can/was had for lod. The outcome In my opinion should be the same. A lot of hard work will be required to see any tangible benefit from a system pause. Not as simple as , get oc key, get better score.

Only concen is this



M.Beier said: Sir, can you confirm this? Because I still do not see any documentation that it does not, or it does.... Perhaps you can share your knowledge with me?

What I want to know is; Can the pause clear the L2 cache..... If it can, you DO SEE that it is a problem for 2D benchmarks, yes?


If it does in fact clear cache then it presents a Huge problem to those without the board. If it doesn't then it's just another oc feature to play with. And like anything else if it's something usefull it will soon be offered on other brands boards.

And like you said, only real solution for monitoring is A Internet connection and that is a bigger step in the wrong direction than this.

Australia T_M says:

Irrespective of the manufacturer, I think this feature should not be allowed.

Australia Jimba says:

wouldnt it just be easier to ban the OC key been used with the MVE? So MVE with OC key= Banned and MVE without OC key=Allowed? Pausing a benchmark defeats the point of running it at all. If your going to do something (like run a benchmark) then run it full and complete in one go not many. Benching is about skill isnt it?

Denmark zzolio says:

I have not had the time to test so much now

I've only run a run without pause and a run with pause every two loop

but can say does not change anything in super pi 32M

Denmark zzolio says:

Jimba said: wouldnt it just be easier to ban the OC key been used with the MVE? So MVE with OC key= Banned and MVE without OC key=Allowed?

Pausing a benchmark defeats the point of running it at all. If your going to do something (like run a benchmark) then run it full and complete in one go not many.

Benching is about skill isnt it?


why ban the hole ockey

and you cant see if I use it or not

Poland jurek says:

zzolio said: I have not had the time to test so much now

I've only run a run without pause and a run with pause every two loop

but can say does not change anything in super pi 32M


tip: you shouldn't test on stock frequency ;)
test it on cpu frequency whereby you get problems from throttling

Norway knopflerbruce says:

Massman said: Well, that is exactly the question I posed in the article. One of the fundamental axioms of benchmark might have been compromised, just like it was the case with Lucid Virtu and software speedhacks.

The fundamental axiom is: "Time on your PC configuration must be in sync with real time". Why that's an axiom is explained in the article. Lucid compromised the fundamental axiom "a frame has to be fully rendered", for example.


While the benchmark is still actually running it is.

Norway knopflerbruce says:

reggiesanchez said: IMO by simple straight forward definition this is a cheat. If you pause a system 4 times during 32m run then it's not a 32m run. Same argument can/was had for lod. The outcome In my opinion should be the same. A lot of hard work will be required to see any tangible benefit from a system pause. Not as simple as , get oc key, get better score.

Only concen is this





If it does in fact clear cache then it presents a Huge problem to those without the board. If it doesn't then it's just another oc feature to play with. And like anything else if it's something usefull it will soon be offered on other brands boards.

And like you said, only real solution for monitoring is A Internet connection and that is a bigger step in the wrong direction than this.


What does it calculate? 32m digits of pi, using the superpi application => this is indeed a superpi 32m run even when it's paused.

I don't know about cache clearing, but: if it actually clears the cache, then it does it after the pause button is pressed and the time has been stopped. However, if the setup is capable of clearing the cache, then the time should still be running, so THAT is in fact cheating the clock.

...I do not really see how this improves efficiency, though - data cleared from cache just means it has to re-enter the cache when the run continues, which again equals time lost. I'm willing to bet that the time to clear the cache and the time it takes for the data to get back into the cache are the same (clearing is probably the faster one of the two if there is a difference at all). And then cache clearing is no longer a real argument, as it is slowing the run down rather than speeding it up.

And just a quick reminder: we can't ban the feature if we don't know what it's doing. It should be up to US to prove that it f*cks up the benchmark. Usain Bolt is not a drugged athlete until he can prove he's clean ;)

Belgium leeghoofd says:

The point of that marathon comparison is Chris the duration of the bench versus real time is changed. This for better or for worse outcome. Indeed if you just pause to eat ya pizza or feed the cat, then the outcome will be probably the same ( speculating here ) But what IF like with the Wprime and or multipe GPU setups ? Can we start a benchmark with 2 GPU's, then pause at the end and remove one and make a valid screenshot ? I just want to know what possibilities this innovative feature has. Most might not even use it properly, the way Shamino intended it to be... But let's hear some things you could be able to do if you pause... besides making food or taking a leak...

Belgium Massman says:

SoF said: As long as pause doesn't change at all the score who should care? It is not like Mr.Bolt who can refresh during pause! It's still a damn silly computer, which will not be faster after pause!!![/COLOR] Massman's comparison fails in this point and gives a wrong impression that the system would be faster with pauses..


I used that analogy mainly to point out the difference between "real time" and "measured time", not really to point out the intention on why it could be beneficial to split up in segments. The intention or motive is actually not relevant to the topic brought up in the article; it doesn't matter WHY you would pause a system or why Bolt would split up his marathon in segments. The real question is about the difference between the measured time ("sum of all segments") and real time ("time it took to complete the benchmark").

One of the possible arguments could be to vote to amend the axiom and say that as long as the perceived time equals real time ("one computer second = one real second"), pausing the system is allowed. I think that's pretty much what you are saying, right SoF?

By the way, I do agree the pause functionality is, in itself, quite innovative and certainly an interesting approach to address some of the issues related to overclocking.

Australia T_M says:

Using the example of the runners was good, but could be improved by using the same runner to eliminate "yeah but Bolt can run faster" lines.
If that marathon runner can run at 30km/hr over a distance of 10km, but cannot maintain it over 40km (unstable), he would certainly benefit from splitting his 40km run into 4 x 10km segments if the rest times don't count! I'm surprised people don't recognize this.
THERE MUST BE A REASON THIS FEATURE WAS DEVELOPED, and it certainly aint for pausing your game to eat pizza.

Denmark zzolio says:

the best use for the pause is to refil the dewar

CPU power consumption increases when you go into pause mode This is 4GHz and relative to the super-pi while it decreases when you run wPrime

Denmark zzolio says:

I will test with ss to day

FlanK3r says:

1)Hardware is not man, is running at the same performance (example in superpi32M at same clocks/settings will be result +- the same with pause and without pause). Pause function of OC key can help it, if you have exmaple some condensation behind benchmarking and worried about stability system-so pause it and dry it etc. Sometimes you can change settings, but again, ROG connect was the same-you could change settings behind benchmarking. In my eyes its not cheat, but HW feature for next level of benchmarking.
2)Lucid MVP is different story, because empty/duplicate frames for higher score

Iran Amateurs says:

zzolio said:

and you cant see if I use it or not


Excuse me, Can you see which mobo I used for my tests? or did I use mipmap or what level of LOD ? Even you can not know the cooling in Enthusiast league !!! Let's discuss about them too !!! Massman talked about FPS , 2 factors , Frames and Seconds. OC key will affects seconds(I mean real time) so LOD will affects load of GPU and frames !!!
FYI , validation link will shows every things which is mandatory for first 10# in hall of fame.
Let me know how would you know the mobo in super Pi & wPrime ???

Poland jurek says:

but this feature is all about cooling down your system if you would like to ban it you would have to ban also everything that helps cooling down a cpu thus: ln2 helium air coolers watercoolers intel heat spreaders... lol let only a cpu core be cooled by ambient air no radiators allowed! lmao then peeps would go to antarctica to cool down their cpus lamo

Germany Moose83 says:

I put CPU-Z shot of Mainboard in all my Submissions. I think this must be in the rules too!

Poland jurek says:

Moose83 said: I put CPU-Z shot of Mainboard in all my Submissions.
I think this must be in the rules too!


you 've issed the point of this thread
the question is if this feature should be banned or not and not how to check if someone was using this motherboard or not

Germany Moose83 says:

I already woted for bann it! But so you see Mainboard and BIOS, and this must be in the rules. Not complete bann this Mainboard but the pause Feature.

Kazakhstan TerraRaptor says:

After reading this thread today the only useful side of PAUSE feature is to cool down things in halt mode. However this advantage will give more chances to those having bad LN2 pots - if one owns higher grade pot which lets holв the temperature stable then there is no need to him to use PAUSE functionality.
As far as we don't have a kind of "default" pot here may I ask then why my chance to make my Koolance pot comparable to Dragon F1 is taken as illigal? Taking closer look PAUSE will just let me keep temperatures more stable - as if I just use a better pot.

Finland SF3D says:

I think I will put my thoughts here too :)

There is this thing called "real time" which is related to gravitation and movement of the object. When we build computers we need to make them to be in the same time as we are living in. It is done with crystals and certain frequencies. This way computer can keep up with our time, but it need to do cooperation with software. You can alter this relationship of hardware and software by changing the hardware clock frequency or modify the software. Both ways are illegal, cause they are making the hardware/software time different than our own.

With pause function you stop this hardware/software clock and when you continue there is no time taken off from the benchmark or time added to benchmark. It is actually very simple feature, which could have been done long time a go, but there have not been these extra parts like oc key available. OC key is independent part, which does not have negative effect on performance, but it will give us possibility to change hardware settings without interfering with the software.

So, I just unpacked the M5E board and tested the pause feature. I does not affect the total computation time in Superpi runs etc, so hardware time is stopped completely while our "real time" is still going on. When you release the system, it will continue from the position it was left before going in to pause mode.

You can adjust multiplier and voltage while you are in pause mode, so when for example 3DMark05 GT1 is over you can pause your system and drop 1 multiplier down, to make your system fully stable.

So final conclusion is, that this feature does not have anything to do with cheating in a benchmark cause the computation will be complete and software is not modified. The changes are only in hardware level and we have been doing it already years with EVGA bot and ASUS Tweakit features. Now you can do it without stress..you have plenty of time to modify settings and continue to 3DMark11 physics test for example.

Massman brought up this discussion, cause this is a new thing and our rules does not know it yet. Calling him a hater etc is just silly and tell's more about the persons themselves than Pieter-Jan. Some guys should really show some respect that he have been able to get this site running so well. What would we do without hwbot in competitive overclocking? We would still live in stone age of the overclocking without HWbot, so please keep this in your mind before you start to call other people on names.

United States Hondacity says:

The thread title already instigates a negative statement. Hence Massman is targeted as anti-asus. The thread would have been named better if it were "Asus innovations on M5E that are not available from other manufacturers, a look into its pros and cons"

Denmark M.Beier says:

Hondacity said: The thread title already instigates a negative statement. Hence Massman is targeted as anti-asus. The thread would have been named better if it were

"Asus innovations on M5E that are not available from other manufacturers, a look into its pros and cons"


Welcome to Hwbot, here is a section you should try taking a look at;
http://hwbot.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7

You will notice that just like a newspaper, or any news site on the web, the title is conducted to CATCH the attention of the reader...

So I guess you make that Massman HATES, from the core of his heart, really HATES Intel, right?
http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=44507

He is being CRITICAL, SCEPTICAL, and QUESTIONING the feature... Cut him some slack...

Poland jurek says:

@sf3d

but what wwith for example air cooling and cpu frequencies that are bringing thermalthrottling that make bench slower (due to thermalthrottling) have you tested if that pause can cool down system and make a better time/result?

Germany Hyperhorn says:

Hondacity said: The thread title already instigates a negative statement. Hence Massman is targeted as anti-asus. The thread would have been named better if it were "Asus innovations on M5E that are not available from other manufacturers, a look into its pros and cons"
While I agree to some point "Asus innovations on M5E that are not available from other manufacturers" is so neutral that it doesn't connote that the company named isn't superior to the others. :rolleyes: I think Massman chose the existing headline to point out the effect the deliberations could have in practice to get more attention on the topic compared to "Einstein reloaded: Is time more relative than ever for Maximus-V-Extreme-users?" or "The definition of time as variable in competitive overclocking" (yawn rate of 100 % for the last one). Personally I think I would have chosen something like "Pause-feature of Asus Maximus V Extreme: How to deal with it as an OC community?" btw I watch the discussion from the very beginning, but won't comment on the topic (yet)

Belgium Massman says:

Hondacity said: The thread title already instigates a negative statement. Hence Massman is targeted as anti-asus. The thread would have been named better if it were

"Asus innovations on M5E that are not available from other manufacturers, a look into its pros and cons"


It's irrelevant that the feature is not available on products from other manufacturers. The board/brand/exclusivity is not what the topic is about :).

South Africa Vivi says:

dear people who are saying 2001SE is the same thing and should be banned too:

did you not read the article? O_O (specially the 01 section..)

Colombia saint19 says:

Vivi said: dear people who are saying 2001SE is the same thing and should be banned too:

did you not read the article? O_O (specially the 01 section..)


Apparently not, some still focus on this as a "hate" against ASUS while the real idea (as I see) is take a decision about this feature that "broke" the perspective of "measured time" vs "real time"

Finland SF3D says:

As we see, the input I wrote to this thread have no effect. It was meant to stop all this nonsense, but no, you can continue now about the title of the thread :D What else do you need to know? Read the post and think a bit. If you have nothing to add, then just leave it. I am out! :)

Belgium Teemto says:

Clearly there is a breach of the perspective of measured time vs real time: for that reason the OC key (not the board) should be banned. Question is how do you do that or better how do you check if it's been used or not.

However, I've not seen any proof in this thread that the 'pause' function actually offers an advantage. Personally I expect that a minor benefit could be gained from it, but like someone said earlier, you won't turn a 6GHz CPU into a 7GHz.

Solution ask ASUS to stop selling the OC key. People that have one could get a partial refund by sending the OC key back :-). ASUS could maybe develop a new key which does not offer the pause possibility but keeps the other features?

Netherlands rsnubje says:

I agree with SF3D here... All the external overclocking softwares like Asus Tweakit and EVGA Bot offer the same possibilities.

United States Splave says:

to the people saying asus should take it out, good luck with that happening...think if your running a company and your are paying many people to develop these sorts of features and you get a complaint for 5 people on some internet forum you are going to comply? Also okay ban the board, prove that I did not use it in 32m where only mem and cpu tab is required in the rules...what about scores that are already submitted are the grandfathered in? It becomes quite a hassle doesnt it?

Norway knopflerbruce says:

jurek said: @sf3d

but what wwith for example air cooling and cpu frequencies that are bringing thermalthrottling that make bench slower (due to thermalthrottling) have you tested if that pause can cool down system and make a better time/result?


No need to even test this as it obviously has a positive effect because it takes some time for the cooler to find the new equilibrium at load vs idle, and lower temp => higher clocks => better scores.

United States sin0822 says:

How can a software application pause the OS half way? And who in their right mind would have a software app open in the middle of a SPI run? Really? REALLY? It isn't the same thing to do it with software, this basically freezes the OS temporarily, and isn't adding extra load to the CPU (or so they say).

Anyways i wonder what the discussion will be when ASUS launches their own benchmark lol, as if anyone without an asus board would ever play that.


IMO lol a pause feature on a OC-Key you think will sell more than 10 boards? I really don't b/c asus is already seeding all the top OCers.

I will also reserve judgment until I see if it can benefit, however things like this usually aren't publicly shown to benefit that way a select few will use them as secret tweaks.

My vote is that Massman is provided a board and sees if he can get out some benefit, but records any benefit gain on video for us. I don't see why hwbot has to be treated differently than any other organization, if you want something validated for use in other sports you have to send the sports league a sample to test, that is common sense. DUH.

United Kingdom ARandomOWL says:

I would love to try this mythical pause function that everyone is talking about, but I do not have a DVI monitor XD

United States sin0822 says:

for the record i want to state i think it is a great idea though, many ways to beat at one thing.

Poland jurek says:

knopflerbruce said: No need to even test this as it obviously has a positive effect because it takes some time for the cooler to find the new equilibrium at load vs idle, and lower temp => higher clocks => better scores.


agree, and i do understand sf3d... he wrote everything that is needed
i'm only curious what influence have taht feature, how much can you gain? I can't find this info on internet i thought i would find it here

i don't have money for all that stuff that is used here and for this motherboard in particular... i anted to know how good that feature is ;)

ARandomOWL said: I would love to try this mythical pause function that everyone is talking about, but I do not have a DVI monitor XD


uhm... what do you need monitor with dvi for?

1. you can use with this motherboard every pci ex gpu possible thus also gf8500 for example this card had vga

2. you can use dvi-vga adapter to connect your monitor with vga with vga cabel to a dvi output card

Poland jurek says:

pls remove

Greece sofos1990 says:

Why to ban it? It's a motherboard's feature. All the other vendors can add/develop it if they want.

United Kingdom ARandomOWL says:

jurek said:
uhm... what do you need monitor with dvi for?

1. you can use with this motherboard every pci ex gpu possible thus also gf8500 for example this card had vga

2. you can use dvi-vga adapter to connect your monitor with vga with vga cabel to a dvi output card


This is not possible as the female DVI connector on the OC key does not have the holes for the analogue pins required for VGA.

ScunnyUK says:

How many times have you run Spi32m or Wprime 1024m with the system on the ragged edge of stability only to have it crash at x percent?

Its pretty obvious that this feature is made to give an(unfair?)advantage in these types of scenario and imo should not be allowed.

Perhaps a bios fix is possible to disable the feature for owners who wish to use it?

(This is not an anti Asus post , my opinions would be the same for any manufacturer) :p

Poland jurek says:

ScunnyUK said: How many times have you run Spi32m or Wprime 1024m with the system on the ragged edge of stability only to have it crash at x percent?

Its pretty obvious that this feature is made to give an(unfair?)advantage in these types of scenario and imo should not be allowed.

...


and pouring helium in place of ln2 to make it happen is no cheat...

Eeky NoX says:

jurek said: and pouring helium in place of ln2 to make it happen is no cheat...

Lol pouring LN² is the cheat xD ...no more cold! Ban Xtrem cooling!! :rolleyes: Are you kindding? oO

I really think it's critical for Wprime1024, if I could I'll do on all my CPUs... but not sure we can do it on s775 ^^

ScunnyUK says:

jurek said: and pouring helium in place of ln2 to make it happen is no cheat...

That is not the same thing, push the system to its limits using helium and at the point where it runs Wprime 1024m but crashes at say .. 90% but cannot complete it. Then run it again but use the pause feature for a minute every 5 or 10 seconds and it will most likely complete the run.

Poland jurek says:

Eeky NoX said: Lol pouring LN² is the cheat xD ...no more cold! Ban Xtrem cooling!! :rolleyes: Are you kindding? oO

I really think it's critical for Wprime1024, if I could I'll do on all my CPUs... but not sure we can do it on s775 ^^


no this guy is kiddin
he said that cooling down system by means of this feature is a cheat (because all that feature does is cooling down a systemm like a cooling solution) so cooling by any mean is according to him a cheat

Eeky NoX says:

Sorry, first sentence was joking of you cus claiming LHe is cheating... what are those purposes? The goal is to push or not? Regarding the second part of my post: I think exactly the same as ScunnyUK. With a such trick most of my Wprime1024 runs would have totally complete at the 32M frequency :/ (benching under SS or Cascade especially)

United States [GF]Duke says:

Rules....are made to be broken. Keep the board. Adapt ffs. Are we that ignorant to change? Like i said if your scores are getting pwned by someone using rog pause then do what you need to do. Get a new board. Thats what we do when new cpu's come out. Thats what we do when new gpu's come out. It's not going to be a big advantage and the only ones it will make a difference to are the big time pro benchers who will just go out and get one. This feature will do jack for the SS benchers and the water cooled rigs. It's really not as big of a deal as it's being made out to be.

United Kingdom borandi says:

I could see myself using this in certain situations.

3DMV, pausing the system to let it cool before the CPU tests (and drop down the extra multi).
3D11, same reason.

It would give people a lot more time to do the on-the-fly adjustments that we should be doing already.

The other benefit could be that if a system is so unstable, you would pause the OS at the end of a run with the CPU-Z up so that it wouldn't crash. Then ASUS would just add another button push to screenshot to USB stick (if possible).

I read through this article and the responses. Kenny had a good answer, and S3FD's answer checks all the boxes and people should read that.

We also have to look at how it could be policed if it was disallowed. The only way would be to ban the board from all scores, and to require a motherboard CPU-Z tab. There is no half-way house on this. Ban the board completely or let it in fully.

The feature doesn't change the benchmark. It is still doing the full computation in the measured time. Massman's comparison to real time and measured time is admirable but false - all along since the beginning we have always defined a second in terms of 'measured time' as per the system, as we do not attach atomic clocks for verification. Hence why time cheats can be difficult to detect and require investigation when accused.

All the feature does is affect the stability when temperature is the factor that affects such stability. If the intensity of the benchmark causes the CPU to warm sufficiently that it is no longer stable, this feature will allow users to reduce the temperature to safe levels and continue.

So that is the vote - should we allow users to improve the stability of their runs by halting the system at the hardware level?

Austria basco says:

i bought this mobo for a lot of money and there is not one sentence about the users who cannot go out and buy another one. get the .ucking mobo and test this before making headlines like foxnews!!!!sorry but i am really pissed right now. gfduke said it in his first sentence:Are we that ignorant to change? if its a cheat -ok but if you do not know then dont make such a storm bout it till you know exactly what it does plz.

Poland jurek says:

ScunnyUK said: That is not the same thing, push the system to its limits using helium and at the point where it runs Wprime 1024m but crashes at say .. 90% but cannot complete it. Then run it again but use the pause feature for a minute every 5 or 10 seconds and it will most likely complete the run.


thus you see... this pause is an addittion to cooling it has never altered the benchmark, why should we ban an alternative cooling solution?

Indonesia Lucky_n00b says:

*phew, just done reading all of this *

Firstly,
IMHO this is a well-put article with quite an interesting viewpoint, although the title might be a little bit too 'catchy' for some people here :p :p

I think what Petri says here already summed things up, let me highlight some of the things that caught my eye :

SF3D said: I think I will put my thoughts here too :)

There is this thing called "real time" which is related to gravitation and movement of the object. When we build computers we need to make them to be in the same time as we are living in. It is done with crystals and certain frequencies. This way computer can keep up with our time, but it need to do cooperation with software. You can alter this relationship of hardware and software by changing the hardware clock frequency or modify the software. Both ways are illegal, cause they are making the hardware/software time different than our own.

With pause function you stop this hardware/software clock and when you continue there is no time taken off from the benchmark or time added to benchmark. It is actually very simple feature, which could have been done long time a go, but there have not been these extra parts like oc key available. OC key is independent part, which does not have negative effect on performance, but it will give us possibility to change hardware settings without interfering with the software.

So, I just unpacked the M5E board and tested the pause feature. I does not affect the total computation time in Superpi runs etc, so hardware time is stopped completely while our "real time" is still going on. When you release the system, it will continue from the position it was left before going in to pause mode.

You can adjust multiplier and voltage while you are in pause mode, so when for example 3DMark05 GT1 is over you can pause your system and drop 1 multiplier down, to make your system fully stable.

So final conclusion is, that this feature does not have anything to do with cheating in a benchmark cause the computation will be complete and software is not modified. The changes are only in hardware level and we have been doing it already years with EVGA bot and ASUS Tweakit features. Now you can do it without stress..you have plenty of time to modify settings and continue to 3DMark11 physics test for example.

Massman brought up this discussion, cause this is a new thing and our rules does not know it yet. Calling him a hater etc is just silly and tell's more about the persons themselves than Pieter-Jan.Some guys should really show some respect that he have been able to get this site running so well. What would we do without hwbot in competitive overclocking? We would still live in stone age of the overclocking without HWbot, so please keep this in your mind before you start to call other people on names.


a) It does NOT change the benchmark 'load' as the Lucid Virtu MVP did
b) It is indeed a NEW feature, so I think it's acceptable if some people did question it's method and how did it comply with our community's rules.

Last time I remember, questioning something does NOT make you a hater, does it?

All things considered, I'll vote to allow this feature(or the motherboard in this case).

If I found myself needing this feature that much, I'll probably buy the board ;)

Just my 2cents,

Turkey hey says:

i remember the old times when a feature came out and you could change the cpu speed between 06 tests.Here the case is totally same!! Was other brands have it at that time? and did we complain that our mabo cant do this ? We didnt and after, many brands included similar features.. I appreciate you guys to make things more fair; but extreme overclocking things cant be fair . Come on give credits to ASUS developing this new feature to oc community. Also i saw some agressive comments about it is obvious the reason of delelopping this feature etc..if this was the reason had bad intention, asus andre or shamino would keep this for themselves only and other brands even wouldnt have any kind of thinking to develop such feature and watch asus top always ...

United States Splave says:

ScunnyUK said: That is not the same thing, push the system to its limits using helium and at the point where it runs Wprime 1024m but crashes at say .. 90% but cannot complete it. Then run it again but use the pause feature for a minute every 5 or 10 seconds and it will most likely complete the run.


to be honest mate, wprime 1024m would take approx $200 a run on helium so not really something feasible but I see what you are saying.


On ln2 unless you are using an old soda can as your pot you may gain 5-10mhz and that is within tolerance of a good and bad run.




United States hokiealumnus says:

SF3D said:
So, I just unpacked the M5E board and tested the pause feature. I does not affect the total computation time in Superpi runs etc, so hardware time is stopped completely while our "real time" is still going on. When you release the system, it will continue from the position it was left before going in to pause mode.

You can adjust multiplier and voltage while you are in pause mode, so when for example 3DMark05 GT1 is over you can pause your system and drop 1 multiplier down, to make your system fully stable.

So final conclusion is, that this feature does not have anything to do with cheating in a benchmark cause the computation will be complete and software is not modified. The changes are only in hardware level and we have been doing it already years with EVGA bot and ASUS Tweakit features. Now you can do it without stress..you have plenty of time to modify settings and continue to 3DMark11 physics test for example.


That pretty much seals it for me, as does Splave's testimony in multiple posts that it doesn't change benchmark results.

Plus it would be rather difficult (impossible?) to enforce without introducing a requirement for CPUz motherboard tab. Then the question becomes, do you really want to alter the entire structure of HWBot screenshot submissions to require something like that solely for a feature that does nothing to affect benchmark times? If HWBot does do this and ASUS comes out with a BIOS that cannot pause, do you really want your mods to have to delve into screenshots, not only to see what board was used but to also verify which BIOS version was used, of which several may have pause and several may not, forcing them to have a list of which BIOSes are acceptable and which are not? What about those that already purchased this $400+ board? It would hardly be fair to implement a ban on the board after they purchased it. To be fair, the rule would have to be effective for future boards that implement a pause feature...and who is to say there will be any?

If votes are being tallied, count me in the no, do not ban this board camp.

a) There is no point because it doesn't affect benchmark times.
b) Enforcement would inconvenience all those that submit to HWBot as well as the volunteer mods that check scores.
c) It would be completely unfair to retroactively implement this rule because of those that already purchased the board.
d) Lastly, it would also serve to stifle additional innovation, as mentioned previously.

Belgium Massman says:

hey said: i remember the old times when a feature came out and you could change the cpu speed between 06 tests.Here the case is totally same!! Was other brands have it at that time? and did we complain that our mabo cant do this ? We didnt and after, many brands included similar features.. I appreciate you guys to make things more fair; but extreme overclocking things cant be fair . Come on give credits to ASUS developing this new feature to oc community. Also i saw some agressive comments about it is obvious the reason of delelopping this feature etc..if this was the reason had bad intention, asus andre or shamino would keep this for themselves only and other brands even wouldnt have any kind of thinking to develop such feature and watch asus top always ...


I remember when the TweakIT feature was launched together with the first Rampage Extreme, people did actually wonder about the legitimacy of the feature. They posed questions, but eventually it was accepted by the large majority of the community.

Poland jurek says:

Massman said: ... the large majority of the community.


if it was accepted by the small majority would it got banned?

Belgium Massman says:

jurek said: if it was accepted by the small majority would it got banned?


There wasn't really any vote on it back then; everyone just sort of went for it. Can't remember anyone putting any critic on paper/article either.

United States Splave says:

first time I heard about this feature I knew this thread was going to happen just didnt know when :) I dont think its bad to talk about it, thats how logical decisions are made.

ScunnyUK says:

'[GF]Duke said: Rules....are made to be broken.


No that would be cheating ;)



Splave said: to be honest mate, wprime 1024m would take approx $200 a run on helium so not really something feasible but I see what you are saying.


On ln2 unless you are using an old soda can as your pot you may gain 5-10mhz and that is within tolerance of a good and bad run.





My referring of Helium was just in response to jurek's response to my first response of this thread :p :D

Italy Iron says:

I'll try to summarize what will that feature mean bench by bench, correct me if I'm wrong: - Spi1M: no differences - Spi32M: little advantage in cpu frequencies? - Pifast: dunno, I'm not addicted to that bench - Wprime 32M: no differences - Wprime 1024M: advantage in CPU freqs, can't tell how much - 3DM01: none/small differences in CPU freq - 3DM03: maybe a little advantage in CPU freq in GT1 - 3DM05: quite the same as 3DM03 - 3DM06: this is where probably there will be a good advantage in CPU tests frequencies - 3DMVantage: same as 06 - 3DM11: same as above, but the Physics score is less important than in 06 and Vantage - Aquamark: little advantage in CPU freq maybe - Unigine: CPU not so fundamental, so I don't think it'll be used in unigine So, on 13 Benchmarks, there will be a clear advantage in 3 of them. in 5/6 of them there will be small advantages. Starting from that abstract (and I repeat, correct me if I'm wrong), can we put some numbers followed by %, to understand how much this feature will impact on the final score? Only after that, we can have a brighter idea about what to vote... just my 2 cents

Italy Iron says:

I'll try to summarize what will that feature mean bench by bench, correct me if I'm wrong:
- Spi1M: no differences
- Spi32M: little advantage in cpu frequencies?
- Pifast: dunno, I'm not addicted to that bench
- Wprime 32M: no differences
- Wprime 1024M: advantage in CPU freqs, can't tell how much
- 3DM01: none/small differences in CPU freq
- 3DM03: maybe a little advantage in CPU freq in GT1
- 3DM05: quite the same as 3DM03
- 3DM06: this is where probably there will be a good advantage in CPU tests frequencies
- 3DMVantage: same as 06
- 3DM11: same as above, but the Physics score is less important than in 06 and Vantage
- Aquamark: little advantage in CPU freq maybe
- Unigine: CPU not so fundamental, so I don't think it'll be used in unigine

So, on 13 Benchmarks, there will be a clear advantage in 3 of them. in 5/6 of them there will be small advantages.
Starting from that abstract (and I repeat, correct me if I'm wrong), can we put some numbers followed by %, to understand how much this feature will impact on the final score?
Only after that, we can have a brighter idea about what to vote... just my 2 cents

Eeky NoX says:

Great summs up. Looking at such conclusions after a few lines may give an advantage to the board if a vote comes.

It seems neglectable considering the whole benchmarks suite. What's bugging me is to move and work deeper :D

In a near future it will just be another tweak you have to use if you want to improve your score. Like lods, on the fly tricks, waza etc...

About the brand monopole: Judge by yourself. How many submissions on IB? What percentage of them are done with MV-G?

I'll vote for let it go. Even if I'm lazy, don't have the board (yet) or Asus support and love PJ ;)

My 2cents²!

United States sin0822 says:

the fact that you can change hardware settings while paused indicates that it doesn't' freeze the hardware. it freezers the software and OS. However if one can get a better score just with it then idk. That means you not only have to buy this board, but if other vendors come out with it you bet they wont put it on their mid and low range board. That means only extreme OC boards would have this feature, and to make matters worse they will cost s crap-load more. Isn't the shining light at the end of the tunnel for this sport that anyone with decent hardware can get a WR, and not the only one with the best? I mean there is always a chance you get the best CPU and any random board can do it, like the guy with the 3930K and the GD65 and his WR for CPu frequency, that gives hope.

Eeky NoX says:

It's a POV but wait a moment and we'll see what happens, like always.

...I just ordered the board lol

United States OC Nub says:

sin0822 said: the fact that you can change hardware settings while paused indicates that it doesn't' freeze the hardware. it freezers the software and OS. However if one can get a better score just with it then idk. That means you not only have to buy this board, but if other vendors come out with it you bet they wont put it on their mid and low range board. That means only extreme OC boards would have this feature, and to make matters worse they will cost s crap-load more. Isn't the shining light at the end of the tunnel for this sport that anyone with decent hardware can get a WR, and not the only one with the best? I mean there is always a chance you get the best CPU and any random board can do it, like the guy with the 3930K and the GD65 and his WR for CPu frequency, that gives hope.


As others said, hardware settings can be changed on the fly, so no difference weather the OS is paused or not.

In the past only Extreme, or the more expensive boards had on-board power, reset, and clear cmos buttons, along with a higher phase count, NF200 chips, more PCI-E slots and lanes which would give an advantage to anyone going for a 3DMark WR running say 4xGTX's. How much did Gigabyte charge for the UD9? Did the UD3, or UD5 for example have the same features?

None of this has anything to do with the topic.

Belgium richba5tard says:

Well written article and good to see different, well argumented opinions. :) Personally I'm slightly in favor of allowing the feature. It does not alter the workload that has to be calculated, so the benchmark result is valid and represents the calculation power of your bench rig. You gain the ability to tweak your system mid run or pause to cool it down a bit, but IMHO I would not mind if this would become an accepted practice in competitive overclocking. If Asus is the only one to implement it, good for them.

A second argument to allow it is from a rules & moderator point of view. Wouldn't it be relatively easy to modify your bios to make CPU-Z report it as a different board? There would be no way to validate 100% that you are not using a motherboard with this feat.

I see only one downside: the ability to run exceptionally long benchmarks no longer proves your system can be stable over a long period.

Denmark M.Beier says:

sin0822 said: the fact that you can change hardware settings while paused indicates that it doesn't' freeze the hardware. it freezers the software and OS.

Really?

Lets put this into context...
You cant remove the BIOS chip from a motherboard, change settings, heck flash the BIOS, then reinsert the BIOS, and boot the board, which then has new settings?

I for one, have used ROG connect, you can make the changes, and when the system boots, the settings will be applied. Equally when you pause the system, it is possible to change which will apply once resuming.

Your colleague, hicookie, can probably explain it to you, he has actually used a board with ROG connect :)

- Also I dont understand why you post such bullshit... Either you are pumped with info specifically for your 'reviews', or you are pretending having no clue how hardware actually works in this situation here....

Belgium leeghoofd says:

Relax Marc, this thread is not the start of World War 3.

C'mon Splave & Viss spill the beans guys : what advantange(s) does the Pause function offer you...

K404 says:

|ron said: I'll try to summarize what will that feature mean bench by bench, correct me if I'm wrong:
- Spi1M: no differences
- Spi32M: little advantage in cpu frequencies?
- Pifast: dunno, I'm not addicted to that bench
- Wprime 32M: no differences
- Wprime 1024M: advantage in CPU freqs, can't tell how much
- 3DM01: none/small differences in CPU freq
- 3DM03: maybe a little advantage in CPU freq in GT1
- 3DM05: quite the same as 3DM03
- 3DM06: this is where probably there will be a good advantage in CPU tests frequencies
- 3DMVantage: same as 06
- 3DM11: same as above, but the Physics score is less important than in 06 and Vantage
- Aquamark: little advantage in CPU freq maybe
- Unigine: CPU not so fundamental, so I don't think it'll be used in unigine

So, on 13 Benchmarks, there will be a clear advantage in 3 of them. in 5/6 of them there will be small advantages.
Starting from that abstract (and I repeat, correct me if I'm wrong), can we put some numbers followed by %, to understand how much this feature will impact on the final score?
Only after that, we can have a brighter idea about what to vote... just my 2 cents


That's a good sum up for CPU-side bro, but you missed GPUs entirely ;) THAT.....is where this feature will REALLY shine.

United States I.M.O.G. says:

Leeghoofd said: Relax Marc, this thread is not the start of World War 3.

C'mon Splave & Viss spill the beans guys : what advantange(s) does the Pause function offer you...


Splave said earlier in the thread he hadn't found much use for it yet.

M.Beier said: I for one, have used ROG connect, you can make the changes, and when the system boots, the settings will be applied. Equally when you pause the system, it is possible to change which will apply once resuming.


I've used a small variety of boards. Most of them being ROG... MIVE, CIVE, CVF, MVG, MVE.

I use ROG connect through the RC Tweakit software. RC TWeakit does not work when the system is not powered on, or any time before the windows loading screen. Any settings applied via RC Tweakit, are undone once the system is rebooted/crashed.

I'm not sure if your memory might be failing on how this works, or if you know something I do not. Either are possible, but I mainly wanted to comment to ensure the functionality in RC Tweakit was clear for anyone less familiar.

United States OC Nub says:

Leeghoofd said: Relax Marc, this thread is not the start of World War 3.

C'mon Splave & Viss spill the beans guys : what advantange(s) does the Pause function offer you...


Or you could just order one and find out for yourself.

Denmark M.Beier says:

I.M.O.G. said: Splave said earlier in the thread he hadn't found much use for it yet.



I've used a small variety of boards. Most of them being ROG... MIVE, CIVE, CVF, MVG, MVE.

I use ROG connect through the RC Tweakit software. RC TWeakit does not work when the system is not powered on, or any time before the windows loading screen. Any settings applied via RC Tweakit, are undone once the system is rebooted/crashed.

I'm not sure if your memory might be failing on how this works, or if you know something I do not. Either are possible, but I mainly wanted to comment to ensure the functionality in RC Tweakit was clear for anyone less familiar.


I believe it was on R3E, and M3E - it only blanked out/faded when you had the PSU turned off, would make perfect sense as well, 5vsb to power on the ROG.

I used the feature on M3E for certain, I shut down OS/restarted (50/50), and during the process while windows was shutting down, I was changing settings in ROG connect.

United States BeepBeep2 says:

SoF said: I was almost out of this but you have the only "kernel" left here...

...and it is very true!



proving stability over more than some seconds will be left to prime / lynx / occt or whatever benches...and I don't see them giving points on hwbot as long as I live (or bench).

So let us see it from absolut max MHZ (OC is about that...for me...)


Pausing a long term bench on air will prove:

can be run on water

Pausing a long term bench on water will prove:

can be run on ss

Pausing a long term bench on ss will prove:

can be run on dice

Pausing a long term bench on dice will prove:

can be run on cascade

Pausing a long term bench on cascade will prove:

can be run on LN2

Pausing a long term bench on LN2 will prove:
[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="4"]
could be run on LHe (maybe)[/SIZE][/COLOR]


Any questions Andre, Shamino and maybe also Raja gave it to us???
Any idea absolut zero participants will approve?

I am just too into it again...last post here I swear!

No...
Pretty sure pause on WC does not mean anything close to "can be run on SS"
Same goes for DICE > cascade > LN2...


Means "can be run higher than without" and not even by much.

Poland jurek says:

richba5tard said:
I see only one downside: the ability to run exceptionally long benchmarks no longer proves your system can be stable over a long period.


i would like also to adres this...
why running long benchmark means your system is stable over long period? Are You keep pouring ln2 in your pot after beating WR just to check if orthos/occt etc. gives You an error after say... an hour? Since when an extreme overclocker is concerned about stability of his/her system after screenshot is safe? ;)
As far as i can see there is no reason for banning pause feature, keeping finding lame excuses to ban this board won't change a thing

Netherlands Viss says:

Leeghoofd said: Relax Marc, this thread is not the start of World War 3.

C'mon Splave & Viss spill the beans guys : what advantange(s) does the Pause function offer you...


None because i have never used it :D I prefer ROG connect & Turbo EVO to change settings and my samples came without the key. Wil flash my R4E key and test it soon.

Italy Iron says:

K404 said: That's a good sum up for CPU-side bro, but you missed GPUs entirely ;) THAT.....is where this feature will REALLY shine.


ok Kenny (is it kenny, right? :D ), why don't you try to sum up the same, regarding GPU side?
It would be interesting, it's always easier for me to decide, when I'm trying to take a side, on a small and precise basis, and not on ethical/philosophical discussions :D

TJB_SC says:

With the VGA on Air Cooling, the 3D benchmarks clock will have a damn difference...

E.g.: My 7970 with 1250Mhz can pass on 3dmark Vantage at maximum temp. of 65ºC, with 1350Mhz, the maximum temp is something like 40ºC, I can't do that with my ambient temp., with this stop feature, I can get more clocks at ambient temp, cause I can cool the VGA every time it heats up...

At Subzero, this feature could help a little bit, but in air/water, it will be a great differential... It's a feature, but we can turn it into a cheat...

I am totally against it...

ps: my english is not beautiful...

Netherlands rsnubje says:

IMO it's just impossible to ban a motherboard completely. If you want high-end, you're going to buy this board. Then it would be stupid if you can't submit scores with this board. Next to that I think the benefits are so little. When I want to get higher on air clocks, I'll just use a better cooler than stock and put some more fans on it. As for watercooling, the benefits will be even less, definitely in case of full cover blocks, because they are at max temp much quicker than air cooling. Point is, I can live with it. I'll vmod my air or watercooled card and still beat the guy who doesn't, but does use the pause function. (speaking of older cards) To me it's only a cheat when it's not available to everyone, which is not the case, and have a real unfair advantage, which isn't really proven for now.

United States [GF]Duke says:

TJB_SC said: With the VGA on Air Cooling, the 3D benchmarks clock will have a damn difference...

E.g.: My 7970 with 1250Mhz can pass on 3dmark Vantage at maximum temp. of 65ºC, with 1350Mhz, the maximum temp is something like 40ºC, I can't do that with my ambient temp., with this stop feature, I can get more clocks at ambient temp, cause I can cool the VGA every time it heats up...

At Subzero, this feature could help a little bit, but in air/water, it will be a great differential... It's a feature, but we can turn it into a cheat...

I am totally against it...

ps: my english is not beautiful...


Thats what i thought too. But as it was explained ... you would have to stop and start your system so many times it would be rediculous. And by the small amount of increase in clocks you might get, you probably wouldn't score high enough to make a difference. Most people would find it's a waste of time to try.

TJB_SC says:

'[GF]Duke said: Thats what i thought too. But as it was explained ... you would have to stop and start your system so many times it would be rediculous. And by the small amount of increase in clocks you might get, you probably wouldn't score high enough to make a difference. Most people would find it's a waste of time to try.


I'm getting the point now...

Poland jurek says:

TJB_SC said: l... It's a feature, but we can turn it into a cheat...

I am totally against it...



please tell us how can we turn it into a cheat?

United States cowgut says:

This is more a trick not a cheat.
Lets you cool down your componets,no other added benifits right?
I see this being more like setting your gpu/cpu + or - on the fly during runs.

I really think that trick would be really special for a smoke break in-between
gpu and cpu tests in 3d vantage.

Denmark riska says:

The function is not made for you to cool down your cpu durings runs but to take the load of the Wrms on heavy cpu load in Ln2mode 2 because you can fry the wrms in that mode during heavy load for a long time

Kazakhstan TerraRaptor says:

btw, this function may let one to bench alone 'cause you won't need a friend to feed a pot with ln2:) That makes benching closer to what I feel it should look like - sport for individuals.

Canada Vinster says:

the more I read this thread to more I think it isn't a big deal. I mainly bench on Air... DICE at some occasions, I think that if I had this feature I would use it to allow things to cool when running long benches, or if I had to go to the bathroom...

also I mainly bench at night and 90% of the time I bench alone, so if one of my kids needs me I normally don't have a clue how long I'll be gone so I normally shutdown my bench setup as I don't want to leave it and risk the pot running dry..

Having this would mean I could pause the system, there would be no load to the system so if running DICE and the pot ran dry nothing would happen and whenever I get back load up the pot, get back to my temp and then carry on with it.

I think I'd end up using that feature for that purpose more than anything. Benching is fun for me, but when real life calls I need to pause my bench and attend to it.

I'm not at all an Asus fan, I've never liked the Bios Layout personally, I've only owned 2 boards in the last 10 years, the rest are all Gigabytes, and Intels... if this board is allowed to be used. I might consider getting it for this feature alone. it's just too darn convenient.

Vin

Canada Vinster says:

riska said: The function is not made for you to cool down your cpu durings runs but to take the load of the Wrms on heavy cpu load in Ln2mode 2 because you can fry the wrms in that mode during heavy load for a long time


but by pausing and taking the load off would allow the CPU to cool down.

Do you have a link that supports that?

Vin

United States sin0822 says:

riska said: The function is not made for you to cool down your cpu durings runs but to take the load of the Wrms on heavy cpu load in Ln2mode 2 because you can fry the wrms in that mode during heavy load for a long time


whats a wrms?

Denmark riska says:

The cpu load in superPI rises about 20-30% when in pause mode..

Wrms is the mosfets for the cpu

Denmark zzolio says:

load only drop 30% if you pause duning wprime

if you pause duning superPI yore load will increase 30%

Germany Blackbolt says:

is nice,but it is not fair against all overclockers!!! Im for banning it!!!

Netherlands rsnubje says:

All overclockers could aswell get the board :P Banning is just not an option.

Belgium Massman says:

borandi said: It is still doing the full computation in the measured time. Massman's comparison to real time and measured time is admirable but false - all along since the beginning we have always defined a second in terms of 'measured time' as per the system, as we do not attach atomic clocks for verification. Hence why time cheats can be difficult to detect and require investigation when accused.


I'm not entirely sure I follow your train of thought here. Have we defined it, is it an unwritten rule or an (undisclosed) axiom? As far as I know, 'a second' has never been defined in benchmarking other than to ban speedhack software ("one second system time must be one real second"). I reckon the "measured benchmark time" has always been assumed to be equal to the "real benchmark time" as it follows from the rule that system second must be equal to real second.

Anyway, it seems that the general digest is that the "measured benchmark time" is irrelevant as long as the system timer is still in sync with the real time. The only rule to follow here would then be that a system second must be equal to a real second; this would prohibit speedhack software as well as alterating the hw clock generators, but allow pausing and unpausing of the benchmark. From a practical point of view, definitely the most easy to moderate :).

K404 says:

Will HWB have to re-write a rule to allow the use of this tweak? (separate to the ongoing rules discussion & progress) If so, that means that Asus are having a rule re-written for their benefit. OMG! Pro-Asus bias at HWB! :D

United States Splave says:

I think the rules should state that 1s in OS should equal 1s in benchmark which the MVE complies with

Belgium Massman says:

K404 said: Will HWB have to re-write a rule to allow the use of this tweak? (separate to the ongoing rules discussion & progress)

If so, that means that Asus are having a rule re-written for their benefit. OMG! Pro-Asus bias at HWB!

:D


Wouldn't say re-write as there's never been a rule written defining the concept of time in the world of overclocking. It's more like a clarification, I guess. It doesn't change much practically (speedhacks were already forbidden), although it will bring a heap of problems in the theory as one system second is not an exact real second (related to the way clock generators work).

Pro-bias? Shit. Well. Ehrm. Ehr. Oh ... I know! I'll just say "allowing the one doesn't exclude banning the other" :p:D




(For those who don't get it, that last sentence was just a joke. No need to start hating again)

United States Splave says:


Denmark M.Beier says:

Splave said: I think the rules should state that 1s in OS should equal 1s in benchmark which the MVE complies with


Then speedhack would be allowed? xD
Alternate time in windows, and you will see massive impact on fps, just sayin'

Belgium Massman says:

M.Beier said: Then speedhack would be allowed? xD
Alternate time in windows, and you will see massive impact on fps, just sayin'


Of course not ... maybe look up what speedhack is?

United States Splave says:

M.Beier said: Then speedhack would be allowed? xD
Alternate time in windows, and you will see massive impact on fps, just sayin'

no

Denmark M.Beier says:

Massman said: Of course not ... maybe look up what speedhack is?


Well, either I did not express myself correctly then, or, I know an additional cheat then.
But you want to discuss that here, as comments/discussion on your excellent article, or, should we take it elsewhere.

Eeky NoX says:

IYA ;) Take profit of summertime Marc :) ...let HwBot server (and PJ) get a lil nap at once ^^

United Kingdom borandi says:

Massman said: I'm not entirely sure I follow your train of thought here. Have we defined it, is it an unwritten rule or an (undisclosed) axiom? As far as I know, 'a second' has never been defined in benchmarking other than to ban speedhack software ("one second system time must be one real second"). I reckon the "measured benchmark time" has always been assumed to be equal to the "real benchmark time" as it follows from the rule that system second must be equal to real second.

Anyway, it seems that the general digest is that the "measured benchmark time" is irrelevant as long as the system timer is still in sync with the real time. The only rule to follow here would then be that a system second must be equal to a real second; this would prohibit speedhack software as well as alterating the hw clock generators, but allow pausing and unpausing of the benchmark. From a practical point of view, definitely the most easy to moderate :).


Unwritten rules are a big problem at HWBot. Too many of them are obfuscated in threads, and they need to be laid bare for people to see. Points need to be explicitly clarified in all contexts. For how long was the 220 MB/s limit never written in the PC05 rules explicitly?

Anyway, instead of the offtopic...

We have all run under the assumption that a system can accurately measure time, and will do so over the duration of a benchmark such that it conforms to reality. But that's all it is - an assumption. For the actual benchmark, it takes the system time, whether it is accurate (or what we perceive to be accurate), inaccurate, or hacked. This was my point. Trying to manipulate it to an analogy...

IUPAC has a ball which weighs exactly 1kg in its vaults. The ball itself is the actual definition of 1kg, and nothing else. From that ball there were made several replicas, and from them more replicas, and so on and so forth. Every 10 years they get the original ball out of the vault to check the accuracy of the first generation of copies. As you may imagine, some may be off due to use, or there is some statistical variance when you get to the 20th/30th generations. But everyone assumes that 1kg on the scales is exactly equal to 1kg as defined by IUPAC and that ball.

Same thing sort of applies to time, with it being 280million waves of gamma radiation from a certain Caesium isotope or something similar. We all assume that the timing circuits in our PCs conform to that, and that the software in the OS will also interpret it correctly. So even if the instructions on your piezoelectric crystal say 'X for 1 second', it may not be explicitly so. Thus when we say one second of system time equals one second of real time, we assume it to be true. This is the difference between the time the system measures, and the time we could measure with atomic clocks. We report the system measured time in our benchmarks, not the atomic clock time, because we hold various assumptions to be true.

I'm all for that assumption. So if my system clock says 19:00 Jan 8th 1985, I know that in five minutes on my clock on the wall, my system will say 19:05. I know that if I pause my system for two minutes using ROG Pause, my wall clock will say 19:07 and my system will still say 19:05, as the system has only processed 5 minutes of time not in a pause state.

If A is the benchmark, B is the system time and C is the real time, A takes B and we assume that B = C. But the crucial factor is that A directly took B which we assume to equal C, not A took C. (yet another way of expressing).

Just to clarify, I'm for the system. I was just clarifying where our definition of system time vs. real time.

Perhaps I am ranting, It probably doesn't even matter in this context anyway, given what Splave has already mentioned.

Belgium Massman says:

Good post, Borandi! Regardless of the practical relevance to the daily HWBOT life, it might be interesting to include a section in the HWBOT rules that specifies benchmark time in a more scientific way. Pretty much what you just did, but including upper and lower tolerance values that specify how much a unit of system measured time may be off atomic clock time.

Poland jurek says:

@borandi and massman i do not have this motherboard thus i have a question to any owner of that board: "Does time change in bios during that pause mode?" If the bios shows after 2 minutes pause also that two minutes are gone then where do You see a cheat? But maybe i'm wrong. I thought bios time isn't paused.

Further if it is so as i thought then You have to make benchmark to check how much time changed in bios and not chceck only how much time the benchmark ran.

United States sin0822 says:

Ian the issue is this, This isn't stopping the system time through hardware, it is freezing the OS. So basically if a benchmark's time is taken off the internal timer in the OS then what happens is you are right the motherboard pause would freeze the OS thus freezing the timing mechanism of the benchmark. This feature can be implemented through UEFI so freeze and unfreeze the OS, i guess there might already be some setting in ther that can do this. There are many things hidden in the UEFI and ME codes as well as more things one can do with EC like is used on the ROG series, however you aren't going to be stopping everything. Hardware will still be "on" just OS will be "paused". IMO you are stopping the time, so what is next, how about the M6E comes out with a way to make time go 2x as fast, through "hardware" LOL, just same thing but make the OS clock go twice as fast. Should we all fight to allow that too? If so what is the point of benching? How about someone comes up with a software program to make the OS timer go 2x as slow, to basically replicate this feature but instead the load over less time I would think could be implemented. So if Work/time= benchmark score(average work/time also equals power in physics), in the past time never changed, thus you had to put more work in over a period of time to get a win. So doubling the time is the same thing as cutting the amount of work in half. So IMO I think if you allow pause function to be allowed one should also allow other software which can slow down(and limited to ONLY slow down) the windows clock by any rate possible. To me that is fair. You cannot ban all programs that distort time and then allow this, IMO if you do then basically Ian's argument can be said for both, software programs that slow down or speed up time are just messing with the Window's clock and not the real one. Next massman we will also have to have a law about OCing in space and orbiting the earth. IMO massman, get a group of people write a constitution enact a congress and then start putting laws into affect. if we are going to be a sport we will need an official governing body. We will have to vote in people of course you cannot just pick and chose. There is also the argument that the playing field needs to be even for everyone, no one will join this if they can only buy 1 brand, let alone a board that costs way too much for what a normal user would ever use it for. So now if you let users play with time, then we have more opportunities to come up with new cheats. Time is one of the ONLY two things kept constant and defined not by us but rather the software its version, and its ability to determine how much time something processed at a certain speed should take.

Norway knopflerbruce says:

The playing field is level. High end boards have features other boards don't have, it's always been like that. I can use my EX58-UD3R to bench a 980x if i want to, but I can't claim it's unfair to compare my rig with one using a rampage 3 black edition, no?

United States sin0822 says:

You shouldn't the R3EBE doesn't' offer anything that would give you a dead set advantage. For instance what feature does the R3E BE have that no other X58 board has other than good tuning and a strong VRM that would help you with OC? IMO allow for the M5E to use its pause feature, however the law should also state that any time altering software that would slow down the time should also be allowed. You gotta vote one way or another on the time. The issue is that up to now anything you could do with ANY OC feature has been able to be done through software or through a mod, however this feature will not be able to be reproducible unless the manufacturer incorporates it, so we want more manufacturer control over WRs and Scores? That is what i thought. So please once again please spell out a feature that is needed to get a WR that high-end boards have that let's say any other board lacks? IMO the best thing about a board like the Z77X-UD3H is that you can get WRs with it, and you dont' need to spend hundreds more. ASUS does this same thing with the M5G, however what if you are an asus OCer and asus decides not to send you a M5E how would you feel? You couldn't get the WR anymore like you had with m5G, and you do what? go buy a M5E, and what does that make any other board then? Worthless for extreme OC right?

Denmark riska says:

When will you guys get it, you wont get any bigger scores, with the pause button. in worst case, you will get smaller scores. only in wprime 1024, wil it help if you can keep the cold down on your cpu. you can alter speeds, on the fly on many many mobos, and you can freeze os on many levels. if this should be banned, so should you remove nearly, alle the HD7970 scores, on cold because the are run at black screen, so you dont now what is going on durring the bench, when the first time black sceen bench appered on the Ati HD3000 series cards, it was not allowed, because you got highere scores durring the bench. but now it is legal??

In next week i have time to bench a little what do you want me to try out with the pause button so i can show you that it is not producing higher scoress??

United States sin0822 says:

I love this thread! Anyways please show us you can improve your score, why would anyone want to see you not improve your score. That is the point give it to OCers who do not like asus and see if they can improve their score, if they cannot then it can't improve your score. having a black screen isn't the same as stopping time.

Denmark riska says:

I bought this board my self i am not getting anything from any wendors and i just want to state that the pause button dossent affect your scores to be higher and no black screen bench issent the same but for a couple a years i was not aloowed but now any big scores is made with it.. in 3D so wy is it allowed now?

I am not saying you should ban the mobo or function the other wendors can just make their own button because it is not as your are stating stopping time like real bench time the unigine bench take 264sek and it take 264sek even with 20 stops on the pause button so the scores are the same

United States OC Nub says:

sin0822 said:

There is also the argument that the playing field needs to be even for everyone, no one will join this if they can only buy 1 brand


Making the playing field even is up to all the manufacturers of the hardware.

If you wanted to cock a core2quad and get a WR which brand of motherboard would you be required to buy? Was the playing field even? After seeing the results people were getting on the Gigabyte ep45 boards, instead of crying that my Asus p5k deluxe didnt clock it as well, and the lack of a fair playing field, I went out and grabbed a Giga p45.

Links of 1st place scores posted here at hwbot running a q9650.
http://hwbot.org/submission/1001170_hoss331_superpi_core_2_q9650_(3ghz)_8sec_875ms

http://hwbot.org/submission/961435_takezo_pifast_core_2_q9650_(3ghz)_18.27_sec

http://hwbot.org/submission/942766_hoss331_superpi_32m_core_2_q9650_(3ghz)_9min_21sec_640ms

http://hwbot.org/submission/2193763_e_mil_pcmark_2004_core_2_q9650_(3ghz)_11844_marks

http://hwbot.org/submission/938117_jor3llbrelano_pcmark_2005_core_2_q9650_(3ghz)_27580_marks

http://hwbot.org/submission/961430_takezo_cpu_frequency_core_2_q9650_(3ghz)_5230.1_mhz

http://hwbot.org/submission/1008588_hoss331_wprime_32m_core_2_q9650_(3ghz)_7sec_457ms

This still has nothing to do with the topic.

United States l0ud_sil3nc3 says:

sin0822 said: Next massman we will also have to have a law about OCing in space and orbiting the earth.

IMO massman, get a group of people write a constitution enact a congress and then start putting laws into affect. if we are going to be a sport we will need an official governing body. We will have to vote in people of course you cannot just pick and chose.



Riiiiigggght, because we need more politics in overclocking.

I can't believe this thread is still alive lol.

And just as OC Nub posted, in the P45 days Gigabyte was king, which why you needed to own them to be remotely competitive (which is why I have one), unlike the M5E which one does not need to be competitive as you so meticulously state.

Show me one WR bench where ROG pause was used, better yet why don't you just go buy a board and test yourself, like most people do.

PS I will have a Gigabyte Z77X UD3H here today to bench, I know that makes you all warm and happy inside;)

Belgium Massman says:

Whether or not ROG Pause can help you get higher frequencies and thus higher benchmark scores is completely next to the question. The article is about the concept of time in relation to the legitimacy of benchmark results. Pretty much what OC Nub said, in other words.

Belgium leeghoofd says:

l0ud_sil3nc3 said: PS I will have a Gigabyte Z77X UD3H here today to bench, I know that makes you all warm and happy inside;)


Can I add you to my facebook now ? :D

United States l0ud_sil3nc3 says:

Massman said: Whether or not ROG Pause can help you get higher frequencies and thus higher benchmark scores is completely next to the question. The article is about the concept of time in relation to the legitimacy of benchmark results. Pretty much what OC Nub said, in other words.


Understood, completely off topic.

However if said clocks/benchmark scores were no higher with the use of ROG Pause, would you be for banning it simply because it defies the basic concept of time alteration (where 1 sec is not = 1 sec) which would be considered a cheat?

I understand your logic completely but think about this, if a feature has no user added benefit then is it really a feature or merely a marketing gimmick?

Honestly I really don't care if it is banned or not, I have other boards and it would not be the end of the world.


@ Leeghoofd

lol, no Facebook here friend:)

United States l0ud_sil3nc3 says:

sin0822 said:

So please once again please spell out a feature that is needed to get a WR that high-end boards have that let's say any other board lacks?

IMO the best thing about a board like the Z77X-UD3H is that you can get WRs with it, and you dont' need to spend hundreds more. ASUS does this same thing with the M5G, however what if you are an asus OCer and asus decides not to send you a M5E how would you feel? You couldn't get the WR anymore like you had with m5G, and you do what? go buy a M5E, and what does that make any other board then? Worthless for extreme OC right?





hmmmm proper bios support is definitely needed to for WR runs, something a lot of companies lack.

http://hwbot.org/submission/2276478_andreyang_3dmark2001_se_geforce_gtx_580_164589_marks/

please refer to the motherboard tab/comments/pictures; guess you don't need a MVE after all:D

United States OC Nub says:

^ A 189.00 micro board. Maybe Gene is short for genetically altered hmm......ban it.

Belgium Massman says:

l0ud_sil3nc3 said: However if said clocks/benchmark scores were no higher with the use of ROG Pause, would you be for banning it simply because it defies the basic concept of time alteration (where 1 sec is not = 1 sec) which would be considered a cheat?


Yes, I think so.

It actually depends more on the practical loopholes the feature would create. So far I haven't seen anyone uncover a real loophole (which is good), but imagine with this feature you could also alter the clock and not just pause. In that case the system could produce any score, which is obviously a problem.

At this point, though, banning the board from the rankings is not in order. It's never really been on the table, actually. It was just mentioned as ultimate consequence of the logic. You know ... "if, if, if, then". And why not? Because the problem is still mainly theoretical and without practical effect.

Australia T_M says:

sin0822 said: So if Work/time= benchmark score(average work/time also equals power in physics), in the past time never changed, thus you had to put more work in over a period of time to get a win. So doubling the time is the same thing as cutting the amount of work in half. So IMO I think if you allow pause function to be allowed one should also allow other software which can slow down(and limited to ONLY slow down) the windows clock by any rate possible. To me that is fair. You cannot ban all programs that distort time and then allow this, IMO if you do then basically Ian's argument can be said for both, software programs that slow down or speed up time are just messing with the Window's clock and not the real one.


^^ I'm with Stupid ^^
Well said.

United States sin0822 says:

I have a M5E. Really.

United States sin0822 says:

l0ud_sil3nc3 said: [url=http://imgur.com/Oq0kD]

hmmmm proper bios support is definitely needed to for WR runs, something a lot of companies lack.

http://hwbot.org/submission/2276478_andreyang_3dmark2001_se_geforce_gtx_580_164589_marks/

please refer to the motherboard tab/comments/pictures; guess you don't need a MVE after all:D

1. I have a M5E
2. You are way out of line
3. This thread is fun, we all know massman wont ban it, ASUS would try to sue him or something like declare war.
4. I don't care what manufacturer this is about, but it would be unfair to allow only this "pause" function to alter time and not allow software that can pause time in the same direction(even if that means some software which pauses on and off for a set time interval every second or so until you tell it to stop. So get ready guys, set a timer for a program to pause Window's time.
5. I like to stand and keep close to me that I stand for not charging the overclockers the most for a product.

Fyi i don't give a damn what hardware you buy. It also doesn't make me happy to know you bought a GB board, why? because i don't care.

I felt what I felt needed to be said, and no one else would say it.

This is supposed to be a constructive conversation, excuse me for not jumping on the "I love asus" bandwagon, I like and respect their hardware, but really despise how they run things, I like one of their employees that I have met, as well as one of their ex employees.

I trust Massman will get the M5E and judge whether or not he can infact increase his score. If it does then perhaps others wont be so far behind, if it doesn't then this whole thread was a great show of who stands for what.

That officially ends all I am going to say in this thread, glad to know my opinion offends so many people, at least you are listening.... if I feel it needs to be said I will say it, even if it is against gigabyte.

PS. Why is it even called Gene? i thought it used to be spelled Genie back in the beginning.

United States l0ud_sil3nc3 says:

^Can't we just agree to disagree friend




PS-You could have at least QUOTEd the image:D

United States l0ud_sil3nc3 says:

Massman said: Yes, I think so.

It actually depends more on the practical loopholes the feature would create. So far I haven't seen anyone uncover a real loophole (which is good), but imagine with this feature you could also alter the clock and not just pause. In that case the system could produce any score, which is obviously a problem.

At this point, though, banning the board from the rankings is not in order. It's never really been on the table, actually. It was just mentioned as ultimate consequence of the logic. You know ... "if, if, if, then". And why not? Because the problem is still mainly theoretical and without practical effect.



Completely valid point, so essentially a vulnerability/exploit that could potentially exist using ROG Pause? If such a measure can circumvent known detection methods and actually alter the clock, then it would be a huge problem.

Never really looked at it like, but I agree that is a real possibility and would have to be dealt with appropriately.

Belgium Massman says:

By the way, in case anyone was wondering. I just received a sample of the M5E + Ockey to check out the feature. And yes, from Asus.

United States sin0822 says:

Okay loud we agree to disagree :D lol, images too big lol. Here is my form of overclocking government. So far it is very hard to pick anyone from any camp, everyone likes to take sides. Thus it is only fair to appoint from those sides. 1. Law Making body will be comprised of all overclockers through voting poll system. To be on this committee requires no requirements other than you have been registered for 1 month or longer, and have made at least 15 posts, also a credit card donation of $1 is required to verify you are of age and that you are not a duplicate. For a bill/law to pass it must exceed 60% of the vote. It takes at least a public petition of 20 overclockers to initiate a topic to end with a poll. Discussion will be held for approximately 1 month, therein afterwards a poll will take place and last exactly 48 hours. Votes will be private. 2. The administration, made up of massman and the other mods and admins will have final veto power on any and all bills passed.

Poland jurek says:

#2 looks like a veto option of china and russia against NATO actions in Syria... thus NOT

United States Splave says:

Massman said: By the way, in case anyone was wondering. I just received a sample of the M5E + Ockey to check out the feature. And yes, from Asus.




The true reasons this thread exists has been revealed, in the end mass just wanted a sample bwahahaha! ;)

Denmark M.Beier says:

Splave said: The true reasons this thread exists has been revealed, in the end mass just wanted a sample bwahahaha! ;)


Spot on!

United States sin0822 says:

jurek said: #2 looks like a veto option of china and russia against NATO actions in Syria... thus NOT


you forget HWBot is a private site, massman is a mod, and the mods work for the site owner, who would really have the say. The issue is we have to work together, as the mods have all been benching for a long time, however without benchers like you then the site would have no hits thus you are forced to work together or go somewhere else. However i highly doubt a private site will just let its users take over, they still have to pay the bills you know.

Poland jurek says:

SoF said: If it does not have handwritten autograph from Andre on the backside - send it back, must have been an accident and for some different Pieter :D


isn't your name pieter? if yes this one was pretty sure meant for You, send it back to sof massman

Poland jurek says:

i call it fake!
they dont have this board in their store http://www.mix-computer.de/html/product/list.html?cmd=search&searchCriteria=maximus&cat1=016&cat2=515&cat3=000

United States PizzaMan says:

K404 said: A lot of people are missing a point. THE point?

Does this tweak break an existing HWB rule? If so, should HWB change the rules to ALLOW a product, knowing that the rules on time would have to be built around this particular vendor-specific idea?

The guys who HAVE this board aren't commenting on how this tweak works. Why? (should employees of Asus answer? Would the answers be biased?)


I don't see it breaking hwb rules as it is. It might alter physical time, but when the benchmark is running(not paused), its not altering the time it is ran in. So long as it's not bugging or manipulating the score, which is what lucid does, I see no issue with it.


And by all means, if the pizza man shows at the door, pause system and get your food.

Poland jurek says:

@up

You have no right to vote because You are a benefitien of this pause feature coz when You go delivering pizza by an overclocker He presses the pause button opens door and gives You a big tip and goes back to benching, You dont see a red face anymore

United States PizzaMan says:

Oh noes....not another beer and monitor pic thread. I killed the last one, like a boss.

Australia JJJC says:

SoF is all about the BurgerMan. :D

Belgium Massman says:

Splave said: The true reasons this thread exists has been revealed, in the end mass just wanted a sample bwahahaha! ;)


- writes article about theoretical implication of new feature => "he is a hater"
- makes picture of asus mainboard showing there's no hate => "he is a brown-nosed ass-kisser"
- mentions a problem+workaround of free sample board => "he is a hater"
- does not mention the problem or workaround => "he is a brown-nosed ass-kisser"

Is it just me or can I really do no good for people here :p :D

Poland jurek says:

@massman
You re good for people here... certainly for those from whom you got your brown tint on your nose ;)

@sof
ye videoclip is needed coz we still believe you ve photoshoped your pic, but no videoshopping this time with clip ;)

United States Splave says:

Massman said: - writes article about theoretical implication of new feature => "he is a hater"
- makes picture of asus mainboard showing there's no hate => "he is a brown-nosed ass-kisser"
- mentions a problem+workaround of free sample board => "he is a hater"
- does not mention the problem or workaround => "he is a brown-nosed ass-kisser"

Is it just me or can I really do no good for people here :p :D


just busting your ballz man ;) you know I <3 massman

United States PizzaMan says:

SoF said: Link or didn't happen :p


Thread was moderated, but someone saved it first.

http://www.gamefront.com/files/22099188/pizza+win.zip

Greece Aristidis says:

I have a better idea from now on when a manufacture put a new feature in a board must be banned.
Also all software utilities that can change clocks on the fly must be banned too.
In my opinion no pause option can help you when your system is unstable due to Cpu, Vga or memory overclocking limit.
Maybe pause option can help you a bit but not much. For example if my cpu can clock 30 mhz higher than yours no pause option can help you to catch me.
So I don’t understand the meaning of all that discussion. It’s a new feature of a new board and in the future maybe and other manufactures can do the same.

Canada Vinster says:

Massman said: Yes, I think so.

It actually depends more on the practical loopholes the feature would create. So far I haven't seen anyone uncover a real loophole (which is good), but imagine with this feature you could also alter the clock and not just pause. In that case the system could produce any score, which is obviously a problem.

At this point, though, banning the board from the rankings is not in order. It's never really been on the table, actually. It was just mentioned as ultimate consequence of the logic. You know ... "if, if, if, then". And why not? Because the problem is still mainly theoretical and without practical effect.



Then a feature to automatically pause the system prior to a BSOD could be possible, then that would give you the ability to bring the OC down a notch or two and complete the bench... so for part of the bench you ran higher to get a slightly better score that if you were at the lower clock for the whole bench?

could that be possible with this?

Vin

United States sin0822 says:

So we all know you cannot predict exactly into the future where a BSOD or when it will occur, however if it occurs at a certain point, perhaps let's say your SPI32M run gives you not exact in round at loop 22 over and over again at the same loop. Then if you pause before loop 22 and then you start up with a lower frequency then you did that. However you can also just change the multiplier in real time, like with OC Touch or OC Kay.

michaelrw says:

sin0822 said: So we all know you cannot predict exactly into the future where a BSOD or when it will occur, however if it occurs at a certain point, perhaps let's say your SPI32M run gives you not exact in round at loop 22 over and over again at the same loop. Then if you pause before loop 22 and then you start up with a lower frequency then you did that. However you can also just change the multiplier in real time, like with OC Touch or OC Kay.
thats a good point. i guess the only difference is it takes more coordination to do it on the fly without pausing...

Poland jurek says:

bsod prediction... now... this would be even more breakingthrough then lucid virtu mvp ;)

guys You have to listen to yourself... pure sci-fi

michaelrw says:

jurek said: bsod prediction... now... this would be even more breakingthrough then lucid virtu mvp ;) guys You have to listen to yourself... pure sci-fi
you make it sound like "prediction" is something that is impossible, like magic or something.. i think if you just pay attention to when/why/how your chip BSOD (or freeze, or crash) and then you can make a reasonable assumption that if you put your chip in the same set of conditions, it will again BSOD (or freeze, or crash) :D

United States SteveRo says:

I.M.O.G. said: No, its only available with the OCKey, which is only available on the RIVE and MVE (I think), and further, the pause feature only currently exists for the MVE OCKey firmware. (so pause is not available on the RIVE, despite it supporting the OCKey as well)

Good article Pieter - The big challenge I see is the message that blocking it would send.

We're here in the overclocking community to keep these companies innovating right? Look at everything we've brought them to do with motherboards and GPUs, pretty cool overall! Many of us were around 10 years ago and remember how the industry treated overclockers then, and now they fight to cater to us.

The MVE's OCKey pause is problematic tho... But it doesn't seem that different than ROG Connect/RC TweakIT - you can change voltages and frequencies on the fly by hardware, to let things cool down or run harder, so the final screencapped settings may not reflect the actual settings the benchmark was ran at. Same goes for boards with the onboard toggles. Then there's afterburner and other tools used by all the other guys - if they support profiles, people are changing GPU settings on the fly during the benchmark... no way to detect what profiles they used to produce the final score thats screencapped. They don't change time though... And that seems different enough to single it out.

The pause makes a minimal difference though, if any at all. Take wp1024 for instance, it runs on Ivy at about the same frequency as wp32 - with the pause feature it can be run at the same frequency - a difference of maybe 100MHz usually. And I haven't seen anyone test it diligently enough to determine if the pause affects efficiency. If you look at 3D instead, you can run slightly unstable GPU clocks by pausing in frequent intervals stalling the onset of heat affecting stability... It isn't similar to MVP in how it changes results by 25% or more, and it isn't similar to how MVP skips a bunch of the benchmark rendering - but by being diligent about pausing at the right times and pushing it right on the edge of stability, pause might yield a slight improvement. Minimal though, it just controls the affect of heat on stability really.

So I dunno. I think it can be considered problematic. I think blocking the board entirely sends a message against innovation though as well, and thats kind of problematic too.

The solution could be simple - updated firmware for the OCKey that disables pause. But still no way to know if someone is using it or not.


+1 with Mr. Imog, also - well written definition of the problem in the original article :)

Indonesia Ipullz says:

I think this is no big problem, because nothing affect result to bencmark..

Iran Don_Corleone says:

I think it should be banned unless all mb vendors enable such option. you can divide a heavy and long benchmark (like heaven o wprime 1024M) to smaller periods and it could give ocer some few mhz and thats what could change the score. Imagine a heaven xtreme benchmarke divided to 5sec periods. Pretty funny and yet easy :-D The real problem is this: how to detect a result with this mb??

United States OC Nub says:

Thats ridiculous.

Lets just tell manufacturers not to come out with any new features, we are happy the way things are. If you choose to be innovative, please share all your knowledge with the other manufacturers to make thing's "fair" for us here at HWBOT.

Canada Vinster says:

jurek said: bsod prediction... now... this would be even more breakingthrough then lucid virtu mvp ;)

guys You have to listen to yourself... pure sci-fi


BSOD is a windows function. I just brought it up because if one knew how, could stop the BSOD from happening and trigger the pause function instead.

just speaking out-loud really.

Vin

United States [GF]Duke says:

Don_Corleone - Matrix R&D said: I think it should be banned unless all mb vendors enable such option.
you can divide a heavy and long benchmark (like heaven o wprime 1024M) to smaller periods and it could give ocer some few mhz and thats what could change the score. Imagine a heaven xtreme benchmarke divided to 5sec periods. Pretty funny and yet easy :-D
The real problem is this: how to detect a result with this mb??


Well then go get yourself one and hit the ranking with it. Whats the problem? It's not like only a few people can get the board. It's retail. Unlike ES chips.

Iran Don_Corleone says:

'[GF]Duke said: Well then go get yourself one and hit the ranking with it. Whats the problem? It's not like only a few people can get the board. It's retail. Unlike ES chips.


So everyone should use this board... Nice deal ;)

Australia JJJC says:

Don_Corleone - Matrix R&D said: So everyone should use this board... Nice deal ;)


If you consider this feature to be an asset, then yeah you should go and buy it. I don't see how that is an issue, it's not some hidden feature that's wrapped up under NDA, it's easily available to anybody who wants it.

IMO extreme afterburner is far more of an advantage than this. Software that's under NDA, not available to everybody even if you own the card and surely offers much more of a gain than a pause function on a motherboard that may or may not allow you to run 20mhz higher than before.

#I don't have an issue with extreme afterburner just to air that out. It was purely an example. :)

Poland jurek says:

i have an idea... lets ban extreme afterburner instead! yea!

Australia JJJC says:

jurek said: i have an idea... lets ban extreme afterburner instead! yea!


That wasn't my implication.... :rolleyes:

Iran Amateurs says:

jjjc said: If you consider this feature to be an asset, then yeah you should go and buy it. I don't see how that is an issue, it's not some hidden feature that's wrapped up under NDA, it's easily available to anybody who wants it.

IMO extreme afterburner is far more of an advantage than this. Software that's under NDA, not available to everybody even if you own the card and surely offers much more of a gain than a pause function on a motherboard that may or may not allow you to run 20mhz higher than before.

#I don't have an issue with extreme afterburner just to air that out. It was purely an example. :)


+1 . Now that I read posts again, I think it shouldn't be ban. Think about time when first mobo came out with OC button , Guys could change the frequency in fly mode. If community would banned that mobo, any company wouldn't prefer to expand OC feature.
There is no problem with what Asus done, If other brands can do it, so they should step up and add this feature. If they can not or they don't have the knowledge so , yes I'll buy MVE and tell every body to buy that for OC. This is the award for Asus ...

Iran Don_Corleone says:

Without ABE you can hardmod vga yourself, show me how to pause system with hardmod i really need that

Norway knopflerbruce says:

It's definately POSSIBLE to create a pause function on your own.

Canada Vinster says:

knopflerbruce said: It's definately POSSIBLE to create a pause function on your own.


I was thinking of that once this thread started... would breaking power to the clock crystal work? I might have a board to try that with. I just hope I don't make the connection too susceptible to noise.

Vin

United States Splave says:

flux capacitor mod

Please log in or register to comment.

Leave a Reply: (BBCODE allowed: [B], [QUOTE], [I], [URL], [IMG],...)