knopflerbruce

The whole top 5 is too much, being rewarded for being last is just stupid. 3/5 is good in some cases, others not. With 2/5 only it will be the top 40%, and 60% with 3/5. IMO it's better to reward 60% than just 40%, as there may be real competition between the top two, which would leave the rest without boints. Sure "bad" scores will be slightly more rewarded in some cases, but I think it's a better "sacrifice" than the other, which won't encourage benching those categories at all.

It's still visible for mods I think as it's not actualyl deleted. Post a link and we'll take a look.

Sounds strange that someone else than a moderator can block the score...

As posted a handful of times already: there are a couple of bugs that affect the hardware boint rankings, plus the complaints are all over the place. Some people think it's all about the money now, and some think $2000 rigs have no future here... it's obvious there are alot of misunderstandings - both of these statements can't be right!

I did it, after this thread was made:p

Lmao, that last one is PURE fail. We were on first spot in the teams ranking - by a MILE, and now we're second... We also had 5 out of the top 11 in the global rankings, now we have 5 of the top 14. I believe we had one more in the top 20 as well, before the change. We don't gain much from this, at all. And FYI there has been very little talk about "omg the system is so unfair, i wanna quit, i dont see the point anymore", and more in the direction of: "what do we have to do to take advantage of this new system?". I must say it's kinda weird if it's the lack of "giving-up" attitude that will lead us to the top...

I must say I don't understand all these complaints about rev. 3 being about $$$. For the millionth time: now you can bench older stuff and get lots of hardware boints in return (compared to before, where you would need a good chip and LN2 to compete in the popular categories), bench a cheaper single-core GPU (instead of a MUCH more expensive x2-GPU, or even worse - quad-GPU setups, which was the case in rev. 2). The only place where we've actually removed boints are for rare hardware, and there are just too many personally related comments that all can be about those (or those CPUs/GPUs would be more popular than they are ). What would be good to know is where you can extract "rev. 3 is for big bucks only" out of the changes, when this was what we focused most on when we made this new revision. As far as I can tell, you need less cash now than before to compete. Maybe more skills, but that's without a doubt a good thing. As long as the "common bencher" also posts scores, the engine will automatically reward those benchmarks with more "slots" that receive boints, too - which will benefit the air/water benchers alot. The increase in number of boint-receiving results in general is insane, so it will be easier to get a little bit of boints than before.

There was also posted a replicable superpi 32m score that was WAY out of line. So... we must remove anything except PiFast, CPUZ and AM3:p

There are a few bugs around... SOME of the low boint issues may be because of that. 50% of a hardware category will receive more than 0.1 boints, if the system works properly. Don't come here and tell me that half of the results are made on sub-zero cooling! In fact, air and water cooling benchers are the ones we thought about when we made the new rules... before only top 20 got boints, no matter if there were 10 or 1000 results, now that number is increased for most categories. There are MORE hardware boints to fight for than ever before, but of course you can't expect to be generously rewarded if you don't show some skill as well... Overclock the crap out of whatever you have, and see how high it goes.

Could be a bug, I found some similar stuff in the A64 rankings. Is it a category for an old CPU or GPU? And I mean more than 0.1, yes (like 0.2 and above )

If bugged scores are enough to remove a benchmark, we need to kick the whole FM series from HWBot:p If the bug is obvious, it's no problem.

If you look at the same rank, that's not true. The best 50% get HW boints, so 7th and 12th should get the same 0.1 boints, but 5th will give a bit more.

As long as people haven't been benching "rev 3 style" yet, I don't think it's a good thing to start complaining to soon. It's a different approach, and naturally the ranks may be a bit weird in the beginning, until people start benching in January;) Edit: 1000 posts before 2010:D

14 boints for running alot of stuff at stock was too much. And I know what I'm talking about, as I did get alot of cups by benching VERY unpopular stuff. IMO 1.5 for being first when there is no competition is far from being too little... Plus, there was nearly no difference between 1st and 3rd when you had few results in rev. 2. In all competitions where you're given points for your results, you always get much more for being 1st than for the others, even if you compete with 100 others. I can't imagine anyone been given 75% of the winner's boints when they ended up being 3rd out of 4 participants, or something like that. Edit: everyone had a chance to see the test server, and to make suggestions for this revision. Those who hate this revision and never posted their thoughts when the test server was online etc should remember that until rev. 4, and not make the same mistake again

Exactly. It takes an effort to be first, and that should be rewarded. Receiving 75% of the reward the best result gets when you're #5 out of 10 is far from fair. Perhaps a better approach would be to reward by comparing the results to the average, or something... if you're 20% better than 2nd place (and even more to the rest), then you should get a much higher reward than if you're just 2ms better in some test. That would be rev. 4 material, though...

http://www.hwbot.org/listResults.do?cpuModelId=256&applicationId=3&filterUser=true&filterBlocked=true&limit=100 ~55 scores from different users, still just 3 boints for the top spot.

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=878680&tab=info - no verification links... My guess is that this score was done using the checksum validation, but that info isn't visible anywhere;) Also, there is a bug in the wPrime 1024m tricore rank - alot of unlocked CPUs are there, but when I try to moderate them I realize that they are already identified as quads by the engine, so they shouldn't really be there at all... This is not an issue with the 32m tricore ranking. btw.

If that's the case, maybe you can unblock my blocked GF6800 score? Always wondered how a score that's 9/10 can get blocked because of missing resolution:p link: http://hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=690179 On topic: IMO that score shouldn't be blocked if it's not better than what you'd expect from an untweaked, similar system. However, someone once told me that mods should be expected to follow the rules much more strictly than other members... can't remember who that was, maybe Massman?

If the performance differs from the 512mb version, there will be made a new category, if not - just post in the 512mb one.

It's a tgood idea to add the ES categories, too - but they won't get much boints if there are no retails they can compete with:p

If it works on i7, it doesn't on K10. And i'm not even sure the right option is avaliable either.

This benchmark hasn't been as thoroughly tested as superpi32m for example, so there may be some clever tweaks that alot of people don't know about.

If the general crew attitude is that paying for this kind of service is no big deal, then maybe we can include PCMark Vantage as a boint-giving benchmark?

If you're lucky, 3.4GHz stable.

If I were you I'd kill some Dell employees instead, they're the ones to really blame for this.