Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

HWBOT Rev7.1 Proposed change: minimum points even below cutoff


Message added by richba5tard

APPROVED - implemented on test server

Implement minimum points change in rev 7.1  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. Implement minimum points change in rev 7.1


This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

First suggested change for rev7.1 is to give minimum points to your best submissions, even if they are below the 90/50/75% cutoff compared to the best score.

 

rev+7.1+a.png

Min = minimum points if score above cutoff

MinBC = minimum points if score below cutoff

 

Reasoning:

- people who are cooling with air/water now often receive 0 points, even if their submission was good air/watercooling

- if there is a very large gap between wr and the others, very few people receive points

- less incentive to submit mediocre overclocking results

 

Suggestion:

- min 2/2/0.5 bp/gl/hw points if > cutoff

- min 1/1/0.2 points for any participation in the ranking < cutoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What about the idea both Strunkenbold and I suggested (along with possibly others), with having both a % cutoff and a min. number of point earning submissions cutoff (which may be based on a % of total submissions for that benchmark).

 

Which would help avoid gpugpi 1b issues with the titan v being so far ahead?

 

Also I'm not sure what this means, so will people who previously would have got 0 would now get 0.2 just for subbing any score?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the idea both Strunkenbold and I suggested (along with possibly others), with having both a % cutoff and a min. number of point earning submissions cutoff (which may be based on a % of total submissions for that benchmark).

Also interesting approach, although harder to properly implement and explain.

 

Which would help avoid gpugpi 1b issues with the titan v being so far ahead?

 

Also I'm not sure what this means, so will people who previously would have got 0 would now get 0.2 just for subbing any score?

 

Correct, but the app multiplier still stands. So apps which don't award full points, get less min points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Also interesting approach, although harder to properly implement and explain.

Could either do it as an OR system, so either down to 75% or x% of submissions whichever comes first, or could need both to be TRUE, just an idea :)

 

Correct, but the app multiplier still stands. So apps which don't award full points, get less min points.

Fair enough, interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking adjustments should be made based on CPU family and how well they overclock. Going through the more popular 775, 2 core, points are more or less dead in the SS cooling range at present in the categories I checked. AM3 I won't say the same thing out right but do have some fairly good water sitting in second place with no points to a LN2 sub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the idea of changing the cutoff percentages that was mentioned in the other thread?

 

Like I said in the other thread, 60% cutoff for globals and hardware would be great... In many pieces of hardware if you dont have at least DICE you get 0 points with 75% cutoff, having a lower cutoff would give possibility to have some extra HW points for people who cant afford last hardware and get globals. Also with the 50% globals cutoff, some near stock scores give globals which make no sense.

 

Also, I think something should be done with locked hardware... Locked notebooks and XMP XTU on locked CPUs are giving way much hardware points without even overclocking anything, just clicking run...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of having points is to make it competitive. This does nothing towards that, and is impossible for noobs to understand (I don't understand it either).

 

Also, many benchmarks don't give the right amount of points compared to the pdf. Seems there are different constants used for some benchmarks. Like 3D03 is OP and some others, while some are lower than they should be, like 01 and aqua. Why? Is it supposed to be this way?

Edited by Rauf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to propose something that many people won't like: Scores with under 10% OC? Not allowed. Locked notebooks? Not allowed.

 

Here are some example scores to show why I propose this:

 

#200 on a locked notebook (1st scores are also @ stock) = 26.6 pts http://hwbot.org/submission/2893251_selbstzünder_xtu_core_i5_4200u_304_marks

 

#200 i3-6100 XTU with XMP mems and stock CPU (Just booted PC @ default and clicked run) = 22.7 pts

http://hwbot.org/submission/3643246_humberto.oliveira.92_xtu_core_i3_6100_639_marks

 

I'm not talking about #1 scores but #200 score... HWBOT is about overclocking, and there is no overclock in this scores...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is like deleting half of the scores... not going to happen. Tweaking the OS and benchmarks is also part of the game and requires some skill, even if overclocking is not possible.

 

I know, but only, exagerating, 5% do that, the other 95% just boot and clicks run, and get lot more points that scores that really had effort...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for my English. But I see the problem now on the other side. With the expectation that none of the processors in which the maximum acceleration of the ceiling does not exceed 10 - 70%. s 939 - s754 - s1155 non-K ...... The problem with those processors who are over 80% and 200% of the nominal value. You can make 2 formulas ? for the ones who are poorly looking to acceleration what we have now and for others to access a greater percentage of 25% ? If it is possible that we will collect a list of those processors which require changes to the calculation formula.

 

will not work one formula is valid when the ceiling of dispersal among different processor families. Plus results 0 points replace 0.1

 

No problem

Athlon (Venice, s939)

Athlon (Newcastle, s754)

Celeron (Willamette 478)

Core i5 2400

Core i5 4690K

 

problem

Celeron D 336 (2,80GHz, s775)

Celeron D 325J (2,533GHz, s775)

Celeron D 347 775

Athlon II X2 250

Phenom II X2 555 BE

Edited by alexmaj467
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think that there are too many "lame OCs" on the bot, I also think that deleting all 10% as a one size fits all fix for that isn't the way to go. For example on locked lga 1155 there is a lot of effort just to hit 10% oc, on g470 I had to bin 4 chips, and it definitely is a real OC not like the stereotypical 1151 locked xtu "oc". Binning is important on these cpus, also you're up against the limits of the IMC and questions like "should I run 109.8 bclk but be forced to use a lower mem divider or 109 and use the higher divider?" come up. I think that if such a cutoff were added it would likely be based only on core percentage of OC, which doesn't take into account pushing the crap out of mem or in the case of certain "cpu" benchmarks the gpu. Similarly on gpu there are many benches where cpu is just as important as gpu so you may not push the gpu, or in the case of intel gma, may not even be able to at all push the gpu. In that case it is about cpu and mem OC. However that would show up as a "lame" oc even though it took a lot of effort and was pushed to the max. If something is implemented like this it has to be cpu per cpu basis. For example on i3 6100 less than 2.9% gtfo while on lga 775 less than 10% u suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Crew

Well even with this minimum points feature, the problem of "stealing" points for anyone else once you upload your 130% score is still there. I think people will find this very demotivating.

I voted against this as it solves nothing. Being 4th place in ranking of 20, worth 0,2 pts because the man 1st did something super spectacular still feels bad.

The rankings in rev7 are way too dynamic. In the past you lost maybe 1-2 points if you went some places down in a ranking. Today theres the threat you loose all your points. You actually just can solve this with bringing a static element like the proposed fixed points for places 1 to 50.

 

A quick fix would be more like setting the cap to 50% for hardware rankings.

Global points cap must be set a little higher like 60-70%, because my personal feeling is that a 4,4Ghz CPU-Z verification shouldnt be worth obtaining global points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well even with this minimum points feature, the problem of "stealing" points for anyone else once you upload your 130% score is still there. I think people will find this very demotivating.

I voted against this as it solves nothing. Being 4th place in ranking of 20, worth 0,2 pts because the man 1st did something super spectacular still feels bad.

Complete agreement.

Too bad we can't re-vote.

 

It would be better not formulas wrote and the fact that all who have 0 points get 0.2. This was clearer.

 

I am for a solution to the problem but not this way , some hardware does not require the solution,other of a part requires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...