Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

mickulty

Members
  • Content Count

    409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

mickulty last won the day on May 17

mickulty had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

143 Excellent

About mickulty

  • Rank
    grunt bot

Converted

  • Location
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was reading Sandy/Ivy/Haswell/Skylake/Coffeelake as one each. So like 3770K+4770K+6700K+9900K yes, G4400+G5420+6700K+9900K no.
  2. Because no-one has broadwell and if kaby was in there too the best hardware would be three near-identical platforms and haswell?
  3. Is this meant to be V1 = V2, or are we expecting comet lake before the comp opens?
  4. Prediction: team US gets more optimal hardware but doesn't bother LN2'ing the phenoms, team AU LN2s everything and takes the stage.
  5. that sounds like a lot of fun to me, it's always nice to see stages that allow plenty of 'unoptimal' hardware to participate (eg am3 athlon x2)
  6. Damn, I spoiled the stream for myself by checking hwbot first. Hell of a score man, so close to WR.
  7. Screenshot-based validation in general is not ideal and depends on how much trust you want to have, but geekbench already has a mechanism for online validation as well, the same as UL benchmarks do. Screenshot of result+cpu-z cpu+cpu-z mem(+gpu-z gpu) alongside a datafile or validation link seems to me a very consistent, accessible way to do things. GPUPI and x265 do this already, UL benchmarks effectively do this for high ranked or windows 8/10 scores, benchmate does this too. Geekbench could certainly do the same without having to be run from benchmate. Benchmate is fantastic as a way to make sure the legacy benchmarks people love can carry on - benchmarks like wprime where there's literally no validation at all other than one number in the screenshot. Hopefully there's no need for it with a living, actively maintained benchmark like Geekbench and instead there can be co-operation towards a situation where Geekbench works without a wrapper.
  8. No need for this, surely? Just require a new version going forwards? The community is pretty good, it's not like there's huge numbers of suspect results to worry about.
  9. This makes sense. Sorting it out like this would be a perfect solution and would make the question of benchmate a non-issue - if geekbench is reasonably secure then there's no need for a launcher/wrapper/whatever. I can see how it's easy to confuse "hasn't magically realised something needs doing" with "doesn't care". I'm sorry for my lack of faith - clearly you do care.
  10. What evidence would you offer to show that you are taking these issues seriously? As someone who doesn't follow every minute detail of every ongoing piece of software development, all I know is that geekbench 3 and 4 are not approved for use on windows 8 and 10, even with a result validation link. Do hwbot mods have that wrong? I would love to be able to get legitimate results running geekbench on later operating systems *without* a wrapper, in fact I'm sure everyone would love that if possible.
×
×
  • Create New...