Directx 10 test fails at 1680 x 1050

[khayman]

I understand. A bug not yet fixed, even with Windows 10 (btw, I've reverted to W8.1 in the meantime), and if we're gonna wait for them to rectify this problem, we'll likely grow a white beard before they do, lol.
Yesterday, just for kicks, I took out my "old" Samsung 850 pro and installed W8.1 on it, minus 250 ish updates (including Office's though), and ran PT: Direct 2D scored 41!!! with frame rates from 40 to 50.... I was amazed; the overall score was just under 6250 which is very close to my SM951's (6412, ran today: D2D = 15.3) which is 3 times as fast as the 850 pro.
They could at least tell us which update is causing the bug...

Ok, I've gone through the trouble of uninstalling each and every windows related update since I installed my OS and, lo and behold, everything works now...
Here's a pasted copy of my results' exported text: sweet!

PassMark(R) PerformanceTest 8.0 (http://www.passmark.com)
Results generated on: 28 August 2015




Benchmark Results


Test Name: I7-4790K
CPU - Integer Math: 23022.6
CPU - Floating Point Math: 10011.8
CPU - Prime Numbers: 45.7
CPU - Extended Instructions (SSE): 64.3
CPU - Compression: 17730.6
CPU - Encryption: 2468.9
CPU - Physics: 796.4
CPU - Sorting: 10149.1
CPU - Single Threaded: 2825.8
Graphics 2D - Simple Vectors: 42.5
Graphics 2D - Complex Vectors: 214.0
Graphics 2D - Fonts and Text: 395.4
Graphics 2D - Windows Interface: 228.6
Graphics 2D - Image Filters: 1279.2
Graphics 2D - Image Rendering: 1284.4
Graphics 2D - Direct 2D: 41.9
Graphics 3D - DirectX 9 Simple: 468.7
Graphics 3D - DirectX 9 Complex: 144.5
Graphics 3D - DirectX 10: 80.0
Graphics 3D - DirectX 11: 121.2
Graphics 3D - DirectCompute: 3319.1
Memory - Database Operations: 122.3
Memory - Read Cached: 35487.6
Memory - Read Uncached: 20030.0
Memory - Write: 13811.4
Memory - Available RAM: 31313.7
Memory - Latency: 19.3
Memory - Threaded: 32639.5
Disk - Sequential Read: 1960.3
Disk - Sequential Write: 1066.3
Disk - Random Seek + RW: 740.9
CPU Mark: 13172.7
2D Graphics Mark: 1256.2
Memory Mark: 3606.8
Disk Mark: 13625.2
3D Graphics Mark: 6598.2
PassMark Rating: 7105.6


Operating System: Windows 8.1 Professional Edition build 9600 (64-bit)
CPU Type: Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz
Number of CPUs: 1
Cores per CPU: 4
Hyperthreading: Enabled
Motherboard: Z97 Extreme6
Memory: 32GB DDR3 SDRAM
Videocard: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
Hard Drive: SAMSUNG MZHPV256HDGL-00000 (256GB)
Hard Drive: ST2000DL003-9VT166 (2TB)

[khayman]

I understand. A bug not yet fixed, even with Windows 10 (btw, I've reverted to W8.1 in the meantime), and if we're gonna wait for them to rectify this problem, we'll likely grow a white beard before they do, lol.
Yesterday, just for kicks, I took out my "old" Samsung 850 pro and installed W8.1 on it, minus 250 ish updates (including Office's though), and ran PT: Direct 2D scored 41!!! with frame rates from 40 to 50.... I was amazed; the overall score was just under 6250 which is very close to my SM951's (6412, ran today: D2D = 15.3) which is 3 times as fast as the 850 pro.
They could at least tell us which update is causing the bug...

[Tim (PassMark)]

Microsoft have confirmed the Direct2D slow down is a windows bug.

[khayman]

Nevermind; I've decided to uninstall Performance Test: I'll wait for the next edition!

[khayman]

Yes, long tests will give better results in general (less margin for error).

The folder used shouldn't matter much (unless you have 3rd party software, like Anti-virus programs, watching and scanning files in specific folders).

Still nothing on the Direct 2D test; I can't tell what the problem is. As I've already said, there's been a slight improvement since I installed Windows 10 but it's still very far from where it used to be: former results were over 36, now I get 19.9 (16.2 with W8.1). I really hope somebody comes up with a solution here... it's very frustrating.

[David (PassMark)]

Yes, long tests will give better results in general (less margin for error).

The folder used shouldn't matter much (unless you have 3rd party software, like Anti-virus programs, watching and scanning files in specific folders).

[khayman]

Ok, I can confirm that Windows 10 has solved the Directx 10 problem; however, the Direct 2d one still persists. To be honest, there is a slight improvement but the result is still nowhere near where it's supposed to be.

Also, the SSD speed readings are still off, way off.
Edit: I went into Edit/Preferences...drive under test I shifted from "user appdata" to C local drive then "test duration" anything but short will do the trick and, lastly, "number of iterations" I did 2 instead of 1; this seems to have solved the hdd problem.

[David (PassMark)]

We don't really know the cause of the issue. But thanks for the follow up.

[khayman]

We are aware of a issue with the Direct2D test in Win8. It looks like a operating system bug as far as we can tell.

If you go into the Windows control panel and change the monitor's resolution, does the video card / monitor combination that you have support 1680 x 1050?

Ok, I can confirm that Windows 10 has solved the Directx 10 problem; however, the Direct 2d one still persists. To be honest, there is a slight improvement but the result is still nowhere near where it's supposed to be.

[khayman]

We are aware of a issue with the Direct2D test in Win8. It looks like a operating system bug as far as we can tell.

If you go into the Windows control panel and change the monitor's resolution, does the video card / monitor combination that you have support 1680 x 1050?

Yes, it does.

[David (PassMark)]

We are aware of a issue with the Direct2D test in Win8. It looks like a operating system bug as far as we can tell.

If you go into the Windows control panel and change the monitor's resolution, does the video card / monitor combination that you have support 1680 x 1050?

[khayman]

One other thing: my monitor is actually a tv and it's connected via hdmi cable....

I've tried switching monitors but it doesn't make any difference.
And there's another problem:the direct 2d test is also very inconsistent; I've tried various different gpu settings but the results are ambiguous and I'm unable to pinpoint the exact reason why that occurs. I think this software simply doesn't like my hardware.

[khayman]

One other thing: my monitor is actually a tv and it's connected via hdmi cable....

[khayman]

Resolution is the recommended at 1920 x 1080.
As far as the hard disk goes, the SM951 comes from a different branch of Samsung's and they do not provide the Magician software; so no caching.

What resolution are you running your monitor at (while on the Windows desktop)?

Samsung was shipping RAM caching software with their hard drives, do you have that installed? As that certainly messes with the results. Even when we ask the O/S for no caching, it gets cached anyway and you end up measuring the RAM speed.

[David (PassMark)]

What resolution are you running your monitor at (while on the Windows desktop)?

Samsung was shipping RAM caching software with their hard drives, do you have that installed? As that certainly messes with the results. Even when we ask the O/S for no caching, it gets cached anyway and you end up measuring the RAM speed.