IanCutress

effort * difficulty =!= instant points Part of the game is identifying where the points are then challenging that record. Not just 'I put 200hrs and $$$ into single card and get less points than someone who ran 4 cards'. If you want to run single card, it's up to you. If you've got access to 2x6990, then it's up to you as well.

Locked Multi?

Bug. Take http://hwbot.org/benchmark/unigine_heaven_-_basic_preset_(dx9)/rankings?hardwareTypeId=videocard_1279&cores=4 If I select 2x GPU, it for some reason also selects Air cooling only If I select 4x GPU, it for some reason also selects TEC cooling only

Not really pushing anything. 1.4 V, Intel Liquid Cooler.

A lot of people are still confused about TPP. How to get it, how it's calculated etc. Please split the 'TPP' into two: Team Power Points (TPPHW): If you are number one for the team in the specific hardware category Team Power Points (TPPGL): If you are number one for the team in the benchmark Thus TPP = TPPHW + TPPGL And please add these values to the submission page where we look at the bench, so people know which of their scores are earning TPP. It's also hard to find the TPPHW on all my scores, if I have any at all. I have to individually check each one in the HW list to see if it is number one. The 'Team Rankings -> Sort by team' shows people who earn TPPGL, but there's nowhere on my personal page to show TPP HW. On another note, TPPGL is still a bit screwy. You only earn TPPGL if your best score for a bench is also number one in the team for that hardware. E.g. if your best SPi score is number two in your team for the HW, nada. But if your second best score is 1st on your team for other HW, also nada.

Did anything happen? Take 3D05 on 1x GPU. http://hwbot.org/benchmark/3dmark05/#cores=1|interval=50|rankBy=teams PURE has the top 2 TPPGL with a 3D05+1x480 and 3D05+1x580 (made by different people). Is it changed now so that if one person on their own has the best 480 and best 580 scores, both count for the team?

Simply put, it's how the program works. It's a GUI based on a command line program. The GUI doesn't detect what the processor can do, only the command line can. And sometimes (not always), it's not the most up to date instruction set that gets the best score. So the program runs through them all to find that score. It's true it can be adapted, but this benchmark wasn't made specifically for the overclocking community. What I assume is that with everyone that runs it, it provides spine points on graphs for all the different instruction sets, architectures, and overclocks. Benchmarks made for overclocking are invariably synthetic (let's use all the processor has to offer), whereas this is an example of something real world, which may not use everything, and thus some architectures are better suited to it than others. However, the GUI could probably be updated for manual selection of scores and stuff, but it would require reinterpretation of the official website to accept those scores (which may or may not be what the creator wants).

Ticket ID: 1393 Priority: Low So, any non-black edition Llano proc doesn\'t have an adjustable multiplier. You can only adjust the frequency. However, if a motherboard software allows you to adjust that multi, without it happening in reality, CPU-Z will report the total speed as the new multi x frequency.\r\n\r\nPeople are being sneaky by not putting this multi too high and still submitting results. Take http://hwbot.org/submission/2199852_kairi_zeroblade_cpu_frequency_a6_3650_4635_mhz on an A6-3650 (multi 26x). He has it at 115 MHz, but 40x multi, even though the system is running at 26x115 in reality.\r\n\r\nI\'m looking at my CPUZ with 47x140 to give 6.6G (http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2012814). I know I can\'t submit this, but having these other people submitting scores like that is infuriating.\r\n\r\nI suggest: have a flag on each proc which tells the system if it allows multiplier overclock. If it does, allow people to enter the overall speed, as it is now. If it doesn\'t, then only let people put in the 100 MHz freqency, and the system does the multiplication.\r\n\r\n(BTW, I have reported this guys result, but I can\'t be bothered going through every Llano submission looking for idiots like this.)

Nice one Kenny!

Sure thing - I know things are hectic, but reassuring requests are being tracked. Good luck with the office and the little one.

Monthly bump, just to make sure it might be on the radar.

Looking good, for CPU-Z at least!

Ticket ID: 1361 Priority: Low Z68ATX-A-E: http://www.zotacusa.com/intel-lga-1155-z68-mini-itx-z68itx-a-e.html\r\n\r\nZ68ATX-B-E: http://www.zotacusa.com/intel-lga-1155-z68-supreme-mini-itx-z68itx-b-e.html

Congrats, awesome result

Normal competitions (c.f. sport, Formula 1) will look at who has the most 1st places in the rounds, then the most 2nd places, and so on.

Any further internal discussion regarding an API? If it's XML or JSON, not fussed Just want to create a bevvy of team tools that tell us what to bench!

This is why I refuse to give scores out in reviews, and I haven't given an award out this year. Awards should be for the premium product which is perfect in every aspect, AND beat all their competitors in every aspect as well - price, performance, warranty, extras, support, comparison to other products. In my eyes, 5/10 should be average, where 7/10 is an awesome score, and very rarely should anything get above 7. The problem is that people tend to give scores in the 5-10 range - so a really crap product STILL gets 5/10. What does the manufacturer have to do to get worse? Take a massive dump on it? It all comes back to Kane and Lynch on Gamespot. K&L publishers spend $million on Gamespot advertising - their reviewer gives it 6/10 and gets fired because the advertising was pulled. In reality, 6/10 should be a great game. For most reviews now, I just look at the score out of 10 and then subtract five, then that's the score out of five.

There's no need to inject sarcasm in an attempt to undermine participation. It's more the fact that I now know my score is more useless than before, probably last, and it completely wasted my time doing the testing and run(s) involved. No-one likes to see moving goalposts at any stage of a competition, especially one sponsored by a multi-national and hosted on the main website of a sport/hobby. Perhaps next time I will make a personal note to never accept rules finalised until the last day of competition, then participate.

No fair, can't change the rules mid comp! I did my runs at 50x because those were the rules. Part of me feels cheated.

Suggestion: Where it says 'today's top benchmark scores', have a button so you can see your teams best scores the past 24hrs too? Like back in rev3? Just quicker than navigating to the team page, which atm is acting quite slow, especially when you select the members tab. Another request: A graph of submissions per day for the team. So one day there might be 20 submissions, the next 2, then after a group bench session, 200? See what days of the week scores are uploaded etc, or how quickly before contest deadlines.

Thanks It's not even top level RAM, but Llano is great for this stuff Hypers don't work so well.

Can't submit results: A VERIFICATION LINK IS REQUIRED. - YOUR SUBMISSION DOES NOT COMPLY TO THIS RULE VERIFICATION URL MUST MATCH PATTERN: NULL

http://hwbot.org/benchmark/memory_clock/ List is oddly ordered? 2nd in the list has 1000 Mhz, but obv doesn't get points.

Going from the cups on the right hand side of the profile, the link going to http://hwbot.org/article/help_hardwarecups doesn't go anywhere. Also, when are achievements updated daily? Might be worth sticking that somewhere on the user achievements page.

Please wait until the Llano dual GPU type categories are added!