IanCutress

I was saying that to Scott's misrepresentation to diminishing returns on performance without the qualifier on hardware to which he was referring.

Nope, I write code I deal in performance first I have written a couple of benchmarks (not on HWBot) that act like this, to see where L2/L3 cache plays a role as you increase problem set sizes. Sometimes it's better to test this way in order to maximise throughput and minimise out-to-memory transfers, and you get an overall peak value at the end. I change my problem set sizes over time as well. If anyone has ever looked at n-body calculations, the complexity of a problem rises as a square of the number of bodies in a simulation. At some point your memory requirements will be more than L2, more than L3, and then require looking back to main memory. Keeping out of main memory is a lot quicker in simulation steps. Or a good coder can hide that latency

Law of diminishing returns in the context of code applies to performance. You mean to apply it to hardware stress, which is valid but confusing without an additional qualifier in your phrasing.

Well it depends if performance decreases over time. Law of diminishing returns doesn't apply: the time to do a calculation should stay the same, as you don't need to throw more power to keep a game running at 30fps indefinitely. (3D analogy for 2D benchmark, but yeah same principle applies). But as we know with older 3D stuff like Aq, fresh boot does it best. Also each bit of the benchmark could be calculating something different. This is where L1/L2/L3 caches come in, and the benchmark keeps ramping up the P95 size until it overflows L3 cache. It's going to affect different CPUs at different times. But in XTU's case it seems to be doing the same calculation over time and finding the peak score.

OK guys there are two ways to calculate a score in a benchmark: 1) Run through sequence. Calculations per second overall is score. Like overall frames per second. 2) Run through sequence bits, calculate per second in each bit, score is the peak in each bit over all bits. Like peak frames per second. XTU clearly does number two. So technically you can still get a higher score further down the benchmark, it has to beat the peak bits (peak FPS) at the beginning to register.

Yup I know, that much is obvious. It's a small land of unqualified statements here where the ref only reveals the goalposts at various points after the kickoff when you've already started building the team! To this extent though, you need one of the following here that creates a new name: http://www.cpu-world.com/info/AMD/Recommended_graphics_cards_for_AMD_dual-graphics.html

Massman has essentially stated that hybrid setups that do not change the name in gpuz will nnot qualify for the hybrid part of the contest. You need to go back to llano to get an apu that qualifies for that round.

Only if it makes a new name in GPU-Z. Chances are the 7xxxD/7xxxG processors do not.

Le sigh. That wasn't stated at any point. AMD considers 7xxxD combinations as hybrid. Please adjust the words in the contest to state your 'clarification'.

The 6xxxD hybrids get a new name, the 7xxxD hybrids do not. So I guess 7xxxD crossfire?

No Competition Background for Country Cup.

It didn't work on quad cores and up last time I used it.

This is what happens when people get that pop up window and just accept 'participate' after submitting.

Yeah, that wasn't expressed clearly at all. What you mean is: Any Pentium/Celeron part must be a member of a family that includes an i3 part. So anything based on Nehalem architecture and up (Arrandale, Clarkdale), but not Wolfdale.

It's just a bonded silicone, nothing fancy like a lotus epoxy.

That is an odd restriction - imo any i5 for stage three should be allowed, any generation. Though it's obvious some > others. The stage has limitations set to Core i3/i3 Mobile only right now, but any that are labelled Pentium by ark.intel.com should be ok on the rules as written in text. All in this link for Legacy Pentiums: http://ark.intel.com/products/family/78132/Legacy-Intel-Pentium-Processor/desktop

Working with old computers

I initially read that as 'lots of twerking'. Bonus points for all submissions with photos/videos of twerking.

That was discussed on the forum with no conclusion, but almost all results for the benchmark are one instance.

Dread to think what the backup score is. Is 2K going to be possible on 6x ?

Team account? Who are members of the team and do they have individual accounts? There was an issue a few years back: if you're going to make a team account then you should turn off the individual scores and not submit new ones on them

POW

The mathematics works, but there are two issues: 1) The % mark is a bit misleading and not technically accurate. It's not a unit that carries on after multiplication of a scalar quantity. +54.34% means nothing in that regard, as it's not +54.34 percent of anything. 54.34 points would make more sense. 2) Super Pi: SniperOz = 423.441 / 311.703 = 135.85% Zzolio = 423.441 / 314.141 = 134.79% You're changing the denominator, meaning that moving from 315 seconds to 314 seconds has less effect than 310 to 309: e.g. 423.441 / 315 = 134.425% e.g. 423.441 / 314 = 134.854% difference = 0.429% 0.429% of what? you've changed the denominator e.g. 423.441 / 310 = 136.594% e.g. 423.441 / 309 = 137.036% difference = 0.442% 0.442% of what? you've changed the denominator It works when counting up, line in Cinebench: e.g. 10.00 / 8.93 = 111.982% e.g. 10.10 / 8.93 = 113.102% difference = 1.12% 1.12% of what? 1.12% of 8.93 e.g. 11.00 / 8.93 = 123.180% e.g. 11.10 / 8.93 = 124.300% difference = 1.12% 1.12% of what? 1.12% of 8.93 Bottom line: The way of calculating the Spi results means the faster your result, the exponentially better your % is. Next time perhaps. Or maybe it's better that the one who is in the lead deserves earning more overall points for their 1st. (Another reason the points system in F1 has changed over the past decade, so 1st places are more significant.)

This doesn't make sense looking at the numbers. Final score for SniperOz = 54.34+28.65+58.25 = 141.24, meaning 100% on each SniperOz's scores: Final score for Zzolio = 53.92+29.25+54.6 = 137.77, meaning 100% on each Zzolio's scores: There's something wrong with the maths - people are being compared to different scores and the % are all wrong. They're not even near the numbers you quoted. It follows all the way down the leaderboard - people are being compared against different numbers. More than welcome for someone to correct my maths if they think I'm wrong.

But a 1st+1st+6th lost to 5th+9th+1st. Any way you slice it, that's just a little odd. If Alva had dived the last benchmark and had 10th then I'd understand, and as Cine was only 20% you could argue that the second round was more 1st vs 4.5th. I appreciate that the way it was run is more compelling viewing (harder to predict, etc), and pulling nothing away from T0lsty because he had to show the skill and push the gear to get where he was. Anyone looking at the positioning, or new people to the scene not understanding how it works, is going to think 'wtf'. I know I did - I only caught the tail end of the results. Kind of odd they didn't select: Spi 32m: 7min Cine: 9.00 3D FS: 10000 Why not round numbers? I bet if you stuck these numbers in, someone would swap a place. In b4 'these are the rules, either work with or work without'. That's true, no harm in discussing/debating the merits, even if pointless/no impact