Hardlimit test bank

[cobito]

@xevipiu The measured speed is always at full load of a single core.

PD: Version 1.1 is about to come out of the oven.

[cobito]

Well gentlemen, version 1.1.0 is now available. In broad terms, it now detects the brand and model of the motherboard, some details of the RAM in addition to having expanded the information of the processor. The detection of frequency in the program has also been improved although it is still measured since the one displayed does not always coincide with the real one.

The detection of physical cores is still problematic in old models but that of threads is correct (here without any problems). In addition, the frequency of the memory is not detected with total precision, so those who have a small OC will probably not see the real frequency.

In principle, the blocks in test#4 should disappear and the maximum execution time of all tests should be less than two and a half minutes.

There have also been changes in the page that shows the results where now the hardware on which the test suite has been executed appears. Here is an example.

The amount of changes is enormous (although apparently they are not too many), so the failures must be there. As always, I appreciate it when you inform me of the strange things you see.

[krampak]

I like that now the final result comes out when the test is finished. By the way, this has been happening for a while but I hadn't commented on it, the texts overlap from 4 threads when it goes from "waiting" to "test":

Mmmm it won't let me paste an image (before it was automatically uploaded when pasting) have you changed something?

[cobito]

@krampak You should be able to paste like before and also drag images. I will look into it anyway.

I haven't done much testing with more than 4 threads but I think I know what you mean. There may be some major interface changes coming up soon so I'll leave that on hold to see what I decide.

[Xevipiu]

Los modernos tambien

[krampak]

I have no way with the newly formatted HP's (Windows 10 Pro), now with an i5 7500 the ratio never reaches me 0.98 or 0.99, it stays at 0.95 or 0.96. Only Windows Defender is installed which comes with Windows but I have deactivated the real-time protection, I don't know what to do

[Xevipiu]

Disable everything from the logs

[cobito]

@xevipiu What's wrong? The frequency measurement has an error < 3% and if we trust what cpuz says, the error in your case is 1.4%.

@krampak in the task manager do you see any process consuming CPU while the benchmark is running?

[krampak]

@cobito Yes, the Defender's antimalware... even though I have real-time scanning disabled, when it gets to the fourth test, it triggers for a few seconds, I don't know why.

[cobito]

@krampak a few days ago I was reading about this and the problem is widespread among small software development companies. I will study the possibility of signing the program that they say improves the situation.

I will also see if the limit of 0.97 is too strict.

[cobito]

It seems that the program as a whole is detected as a trojan in some antivirus. But the main problem is with Windows Defender. @krampak I am going to report the false positives to Microsoft but they are asking for the "detection name" that is found in the Windows Defender history. If you have it, can you pass it on to me?

I am going to install Windows 10 so that I can do tests on my own.

[cobito]

The new Hardlimit signatures are now available, where individual results of each test have been removed and only the totals have been left. In addition, additional hardware information as well as the ranking position is shown.

If you finish first, second or third in single and/or multi-threaded, a gold, silver or bronze medal will appear next to the ranking.

[cobito]

I've been investigating the issue with antivirus software. On virustotal, sometimes there are more detections and sometimes fewer (the day before yesterday there were 8 and today 11).

I've tested Windows 10 and indeed the "Antimalware Service Executable" process belonging to Windows Defender is a headache. However, Windows Defender itself finds all the test suite components as harmless. I've read that it's normal for that process to consume a lot of CPU normally, running any program so I can't do much about it.

I imagine that this problem can be reproduced with other test suites. The issue is that in HLBM there are "too many" mechanisms to detect if the test has been performed under adequate conditions, which other programs in the field don't have and that's why they apparently don't have a problem.

I've also checked that when the test suite is run for the second time, the malware detector is much less aggressive.

The reason its activity is seen in test 4 is not because of test 4 itself, but because after running that test, "hlbm-detect" is launched, which is meant to detect the system's hardware. It's a very different process from "hlbm-core" and that's probably why it wants to analyze it. However, this wouldn't affect the results since at that point, the test suite itself has finished.

I understand that in Windows 10 it's going to be difficult to reach the 0.97 (0.5) MMT ratio so in the next revision of the program, the Windows version will be added to the rest of the information sent. In case it's Windows 10, the requirements to consider a result valid will be lowered.

Until then I can't do anything more. It's a problem of Windows 10 and its implementation of Windows defender, not of HLBM or a false positive.

[krampak]

Perfect @cobito, good job!

[cobito]

Version 2.0 of the hub is now available. The changes are mainly aesthetic. The goal has been to make it look as much like the forum layout as possible. It is now also compatible with mobile devices.

In terms of functionality, the search fields now suggest processor models. Only 5 suggestions are shown so you won't see anything until the search is narrowed down to that.

Finally, a brief description is shown on the model tab. The description is still in an early stage of development.

Home

Example CPU tab

Example comparison

Example result

Once again, there have been a lot of internal changes, so you know where to look for any bugs.

[Namiga]

I like it much more now.
Thank you very much.

[Yorus]

It looks good, more integrated with the rest of the web. Let's see if I update my results with the new "cucumber" from the house.

[Fassou]

@cobito said in Hardlimit test bank:

Once again, there have been a lot of internal changes, so for any failure you already know.

At https://bm.hardlimit.com/cpu.php?cpumodel=Intel(R)-Core(TM)-i7-5500U-CPU-@-2.40GHz-198356 you get a micro like "error op t3= 0. Please, report"

I came by one of the links you posted, but I can't remember which one

[cobito]

@Namiga Thanks. Those comments help to continue...

@yorus Well, now the important thing is to collect as many results as possible. The next goal will be to give compatibility to old Windows and if I'm lucky, even to make a live-usb that runs all modes automatically without having to boot the PC's operating system.

@Fassou Look, I had it noted down from the beginning. It's already been fixed.

[krampak]

@cobito Do you have any idea why I can't pass the test1 within the ratio for the i7-6700 in mode 1 and 2? I have repeated other modes and they come out well, but I have never been able to validate modes 1 and 2 to 0.50 as far as I can see. I will try again later.