Method

ATT has been rolling out 2.5 and 5gb internet for a little while now, and as I live in Dallas, I'm able to get their 5Gb internet. They provided me with a BGW320-500 modem that has a fiber line going into it, and 4 RJ45 lan ports. 3 of the lan ports are 1Gb, and the 4th is 5Gb. Connecting that 5Gb link directly to my motherboards 2.5Gb port, I can get full 2.5Gb up and down. I figured rather than find some maybe crappy 5Gb rj45 card to put in my machine, I would instead upgrade my local network to 10gig. So I ordered the following: 2x SFP+ cables from "10Gtek" 2x Mellanox ConnectX-3 (from ebay) 1x Ipolex RJ45 transceiver (for the 5Gb connection from the modem) 1x CRS305-1G-4S+IN Mikrotik switch Connected all of this up and ran a speed test. I can get the full 5Gb download speed, but the upload speed is _abysmal_ at less than 1Gb. I thought maybe this was the switch or maybe the cards/cables so I ran iperf between my nas and my desktop, and saw much better speeds: Connecting to host 192.168.1.79, port 5201 [ 4] local 192.168.1.216 port 56866 connected to 192.168.1.79 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 1.07 GBytes 9.19 Gbits/sec [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 1.07 GBytes 9.16 Gbits/sec [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 1.06 GBytes 9.12 Gbits/sec [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 1.06 GBytes 9.14 Gbits/sec [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 1.04 GBytes 8.91 Gbits/sec [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 1.01 GBytes 8.68 Gbits/sec [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 1.05 GBytes 9.00 Gbits/sec [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 1.07 GBytes 9.17 Gbits/sec [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 1.05 GBytes 8.99 Gbits/sec [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 1.05 GBytes 9.03 Gbits/sec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 10.5 GBytes 9.04 Gbits/sec sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 10.5 GBytes 9.04 Gbits/sec receiver iperf Done. There is no ip filtering on the switch, it is _literally_ just a dumb switch at the moment, nothing is active on it. Looking at the ATT modem's interface, I can see that is says that 5Gb connection is connected at 5Gb. However, in the switch's software (winbox), it says it's connected at 10Gb. The thinking here then is that it isn't negotiating 5Gb properly. There is no way to "hard code" the interface to 5Gb. So, maybe a problem with the transceiver? I've just ordered a MikroTik S+RJ10 so we'll see how that fairs. I suspect this kind of setup might become more common as people try to take advantage of 5Gb internet? Am I maybe missing something in my setup that might perform better? Any other thoughts people might have?

After more testing and playing more games, it does appear my FE crashes with no manual overclock. MSI afterburner is set to 0 across the board, and I can consistently crash in COD multiplayer after about 5 minutes. GPU temp really doesn't go up much, maybe 60c, so I think it does boost very close to 2ghz and eventually crashes. Setting -50 in Afterburner seems to keep the gpu at 1950mhz and so far has been stable.

EVGA precision seems to be giving me trouble. Getting _terrible_ 3dmark scores even with it just open and defaulted. Afterburner however got me to 2040 Mhz and I was able to be stable with it and got this score: https://www.3dmark.com/pr/336660 +50 core, +500 memory It seems the moment I hit 2055 mhz, I crash.

Memory overclock seems to do great. +600 no issues. +45 on core clock seems stable. +50 however seems to bring it above 2ghz (cooling permitted) and timespy benchmark crashes pretty consistently. I've seen all the stuff on the power delivery possibly being a culprit for AIB's, but I have founders edition. Maybe a driver issue? I'm definitely on latest with clean install. Any thoughts? Edit: I have a 1000watt G2 powersupply, so I'm certain its not that.

Why the hell do you guys not use adblock for wan show? Aren't you inadvertently helping those ads reach more people?

I've just put out an update that brings up a small Compare bar at the bottom when you compare benchmarks that aren't your own. This should make it a lot easier to create those comparisons. Here's what it looks like:

Ok folks, I've been working on a massive new update to CompareBench. Most of it is a visual overhaul. The dashboard now looks like this: And the site follows that general theme throughout. Some small but important fixes/featuresets have been added such as being able to change your display now. There's also CPU product pages, as an early way to show that we'll be implementing product pages for most of the components that make up a "build". We've also completely overhauled how you add a new benchmark profile. Rather than one confusing form to fill out, you'll be presented with a step-by-step process which should make things a lot more simple. Give it a go, tell me what you think! If you run into any issues definitely post them here, otherwise you can reach me in our Discord (link in the OP)

Following other users is a great idea! As for changing username, features like that are coming. That's part of the "navigation fixes" in milestone 1.

I've put together a pretty basic roadmap for this project. What do you guys think? It's also available at https://comparebench.com/roadmap

I've updated benchmark profile creation to accept the CPUZ html export instead of the CPUZ validation file. This is live, so now benchmark creation is near instant. I still need to update the benchmark profile page itself once you create one as it's looking for cpuz information that isnt there (like Storage) but that's just UI. So technically, as of right now, benchmark and comparison creation is working 100% the way it should be.

Search is a little wonky at the moment, but also, there's only a handful of results anyway. Everything you see on that page is the entire list of public benchmarks.

I can increase password limit, figured 15 would be long enough but, welp. As for proper profile system, totally. Technically you can't even log out lol. The arrow next to name is supposed to drop down but that isn't working. /logout works but no button to actually push that front-end wise. I had another project that had that more fleshed out that I've been grabbing bits and pieces from, user profile system is one of those things that's been on the backburner for a while. As a general update also, I'm going to be changing benchmark creation a bit. It'll no longer require a CPU-Z validation url, but instead a CPUZ html export. A couple reasons for this. Requiring a cpuz validation url means that creating benchmarks hinges on that website staying online. Crawling that page is cumbersome, both infrastructurally and logically. The html export can be scraped for data much, much faster, so no waiting around for the cpuz crawler to do its job. I'm also going to be putting up a roadmap page on the site itself, and be posting updates regularly to the twitter account.

Fixed now, surprised this didn't show up sooner. Basically the html file we send to your email, the location for it was incorrect. Try logging in now.

Check out the project. Its fully functional right now, I just need more people on this to get it further along, so I can focus on more infrastructural additions. For all intents and purposes, it _does_ use simple-ish form submissions.

I pretty obviously need more than to just serve up an html file. The frontend needs to actually _do_ something. I don't need a single page, nowhere did I say that. Angular and the like _can_ run as a single page, but they don't have to. This isn't my first rodeo, and I've managed teams before. This is a full project with a roadmap, specific scope and goals.