Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Hyperhorn

V.I.P.
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    397

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Hyperhorn

    Hyperhorn - GeForce GTX 580 @ 835/1070MHz - 28952 marks 3DMark Vantage - Performance

    in Result Discussions

    Posted

    Yes, the one and only SR-2. It´s very impressive just to look at the huge box actually, not even talking about the ammeter. Hats off, Evga for creating this unique high-end-mainboard!

    But as you know I´m not much into 3D. Actually I´m a bit disappointed that you can achieve ~15 points for such a single sluggish score. That`s just some kind of injury award for putting a wacky expensive system together. :o Unfortunately hwboints will never be able to tell you about how much effort somebody has spent for a result, so that´s not a big deal for me. I´ll try to get >30k @ air atleast, so I´ll beat your personal best Vantage score for now. :P

    Nick.ua - Sempron 140 @ 5980MHz - 24sec 390ms wPrime 32m

    in Result Discussions

    Posted

    Same goes for these Wprime results:

    http://hwbot.org/community/submission/993901_nick.ua_wprime_1024m_core_2_e8500_3.17ghz_6min_52sec_421ms'>http://hwbot.org/community/submission/993901_nick.ua_wprime_1024m_core_2_e8500_3.17ghz_6min_52sec_421ms

    http://hwbot.org/community/submission/993901_nick.ua_wprime_1024m_core_2_e8500_3.17ghz_6min_52sec_421ms

    http://hwbot.org/community/submission/979245_nick.ua_wprime_1024m_sempron_140_13min_32sec_62ms

    (Found by Freakezoit, credit to him)

     

    Funny, eh? It's for sure a unknown bug which affects 1024M runs only (not 32M runs), which can be PITA@LN2. ;)

    Hyperhorn - Mobility Radeon HD 5650 @ 615/920MHz - 126481 marks Aquamark

    in Result Discussions

    Posted

    The CPU is not overclocked, according to my knowledge I would have to hardmod the clock generator. What you see on the screenshot is just the highest multiplier available when turbo mode is activated (=default). That's the reason for several validations and single-threaded benchmark runs done with i5-520M @ 2926,x MHz: http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_520m?tab=2drankings

    HWBOT Rev.4 - The Plan.

    in HWBOT Rev.4

    Posted

    @Hwbot staff: I´m pretty sure you´re rolling your eyes about some comments here, but no matter how annoying it seems, please keep in mind that if people are fighting for something it also means they appreciate or even love it.

    @Folks: Fighting in a metaphorical sense is ok, fighting in the strict sense of the word not. ;)

     

    @Hwbot staff (again): If you say hardware sharing is a major problem, do you mean the amount of reported scores due to hardware sharing claims is borderline (not able to check quantity-wise) or do you mean the cases where you removed scores because of hardware sharing are way too much (for a healthy competition) or do you mean that the results YOU think are based on hardware sharing, but can´t prove it are spreaded too much?

     

    A thing I´m really confused about: Why do you try to make something like hardware sharing which is hard to control non-beneficial, if you try to found a new league which is based so much on trust only? I see a major problem regarding non-aircooled setups, but pics including aircooling only and downclocking for screenshots. In the past I heard from staff members, that own cooling categories/leagues will not be succesful, because you can´t control it. I can also remember you refused the idea of a lowclock/fixed-clock competition category/league, because down-clocking is so easy. (reminder: Super Pi 32M @ H55 mini-itx - allegations were there, just a few weeks ago) While I´m a big fan of fixed-clock competitions I think you had a valid point here. Ok, I know maybe we shouldn´t care about it because it is the beginner`s league, but I have a feeling that just because of this reason (WR scores are watched by thousands, 38th best score in a hardware category obviously by a few - and those might not have the experience to detect weird things) it will be less controllable. ...and if somebody deserves a by-the-book-competition then who else, but the beginners? Also what do you think about stricter punishments for UFL (and/or XOL) members?

     

    Quote of an older text I wrote about it, but never recieved feedback (Notice "Pros" means UFL (and/or XOL) members now):

    Given the new circumstances around Futuremark´s Lords of Overclocking competition I´ve asked myself if it could be a good idea to tighten the punishment for the pro members compared to the rest of the users if they perform a massive irregularity. I´m not saying a bigger punishment is a better solution in relation to the kind/time period of punishment, but I have a feeling that we should discharge those in their duties, who consider themselves "pros". If you´re at that stage you should know how to act professionally not only with your OC setups, but also with your responsibility to the guys who may be looking up to you and trust you. I know that some of the newcomers can´t estimate what they´re doing by moving some pixels on a screenshot or sharing results, that it can break friendships and dissapoint many people, so I wouldn´t extend the ban period for those. But if you´re a pro you usually follow what´s going on in the OC scene, who did this and that, why person X is banned and you might even know many guys from live events, hardware expos and so on - plus you´re usually using subzero cooling and expirienced enough to be able to win well-known competitions to get prizes and so on. Let´s say basically you know what you are doing, if you violate the rules. People on this level try to get review samples, exclusive connections to a manufacturer or even a job based on their ability to push a system to its limit. If you´re violating the rules on this level it will have effects in the real life of yourself or other people, even if it may not be obvious on the first (or even second) look.

     

    I mean the reason why hardware sharing is so attractive nowadays is connected to the rev. 3 scaling based on popularity. As you know I never declared against rev. 3 (but tried to give some input about fine-tuning and issues which might happen, sadly I did not have the problem hardware sharing in mind back then) and I will not do about rev. 4 either, but closing loopholes on one side, but create new ones on the other is a great danger if it might be necessary to push rev. 5 forward to close new (old) loopholes.

    HWBOT Rev.4 - The Plan.

    in HWBOT Rev.4

    Posted · Edited by Hyperhorn

    1. Why are people claiming excessive hardware sharing would benefit the team? I don´t know if I am living in a parallel universe, but as a team capitain of the most active hwbot team all I can say is, that excessive hardware sharing is not an easy way to climb up the ranking, but a very dumb idea whicht might lead to a team ban. So if you want to damage and annihilate a team - go on with sharing and be happy about your "achievement" when the time has come.

     

    2. Why do some guys bring up the example "10 GHz i7-980X + 4x GTX 480 @ 2.000/2.000 MHz will be shared and rule the ranking" (yeah, as you might notice I changed the achievable frequencies to a insolent level, so it´s more frightening, isn´t it?) again and again and again? Does this happen/did it ever happen? Did I miss the super-duper-cherry-picked cheater-team you´re talking about? Can you atleast provide a link to the hwbot news about the ban of such a team or - in case hwbot staff didn`t notice what you clever conspiracy theorists already noticed - provide a dozen of links to the mentioned shared scores based on super-duper-cherry-picked hardware? No? Ok, then please stop inflame people`s opinions with ridiculous horror scenarios ...

     

    3. Live competitions should not have an impact on any Hwbot ranking. Promote it, link to it, upload a tons of pictures, but please do not let it influence the ranking. May I remind you that there are cases of live competitions, where the competition holder wasn´t even able to count the points together and called the wrong winner? Or may I remind you, that there were competitions, where the winner did even offend against official hwbot rules because "it wasn´t against the explicit rules of the competition"? I remember even hwbot staff members offered criticism about it, so please think about it again if external (= supervised by a partner, but not Hwbot!) events should have influence on the hwbot rankings.

     

    4. What about not "making hardware sharing non-beneficial" but "making hardware sharing less beneficial, but still encouraging the grinders on 2nd/3rd/4th etc place"? What do you think about a scalable formula which reduces the points added for the team ranking, but doesn´t work like a binary system (simplified: hero or zero). If the winner contributes all points, could #2 mabye contribute 50 % and #3 25 % etc.? You could even limit the maximal amount, e.g. 1/3 of all points available in the specific hardware category or link the percentage to the points gathered by the team`s #1 in this category. So if your #1 gets 10 points, #2 results can only add 5 points to the team result, but if #1 gets 20 points, #2 can add 10 points already. There are a lot of possibilites here to find a balanced middle course. Hardware sharing is a problem, but as already explained by others it is rather a problem on individual basis not on a team basis (reason included in 1. - read again if necessary)

     

    5. Is it possible to get a own sub-forum for team captains and hwbot staff only? Everytime there´s a new thread about major changes it gets interrupted by offtopic spam or whiners, who seems to not even understand the topic they`re whining about and afterwards it is very difficult to get back to a respectful and constructive discussion. The team captains do represent their team, so they really know what`s going on there. In this sub-forum they could summarize the feedback they get from their team members and act as a speaking trumpet (notice: There are intelligent team members who talk a lot about Hwbot in their own team forums, but are not able to express their thoughts in English - just an example). Plus you could create votings there and the team captains would act like electors of their individual communities/teams: This way you could even ensure that smaller teams attract attention. This does not(!) mean team captains should tell Hwbot staff what to do, but it might solve the problem about less popular votings (team captains have to be interested in all hwbot-related, otherwise they don´t deserve their status) and back-up the staff decissions, especially when it comes to fine tuning issues. Sub-forum can be public (but read-only for non-captains obviously) if the remaining team members want it to be public IMHO.

×
×
  • Create New...