ThePromisedLAN

I'm on lunch break so I'll respond to more people when I have a chance later. For now though you are still comparing apples to oranges. This comp is basically doing a core to core performance, but how they are calculating it is giving hyper threading an advantage. Look at 6700k and 6600k single core performance and it's really close, close enough to the point that a highly overclocked 6600k is at a disadvantage compared to a stock 6700k, which really makes no sense.

If I'm beat out by fair scores so be it. If core for core someone beats me than congrats to them. But currently due to how hyper threading is scored it's not a true core to core comparison. I'm not complaining cause I'm losing, if I had a low end processor and had no chance of winning I wouldn't try and get the scores changed so I had a chance. What I will do is try and get the scores changed if someone had an unfair advantage and I felt like I've been cheated out of the scores I deserve.

I still don't fully understand your 1070 to 1080 comparison in this case, it doesn't really fit. An i7 is better than it's corresponding i5 due to mainly it's hyper threading. When you look at it in single core performance it's a really close fight. I get what you are saying. And yes, in some cases there will be times when the most expensive hardware is going to put you at the top. There is already a scoring system in to make it more of a fair fight (dividing score by number of cores) it just didn't end up being the fair game it should be. A title like that helps pull people in, gets this seen and it worked. And I really only had one post where I showed an attitude, most of it depends how you read into it. Is it the best system possible? No. Can it be made better? Yes. If putting in our input at users can make it better why would you not speak up? If i feel something is unfair in my mind I speak up about it, and I'm either wrong and someone explains it better to me, or I'm right and I get things moving towards a better change.

Thank you Thank you And is there a problem with that? I felt the scoring wasn't fair so I spoke up about it to try and make things fair.

You seem to be missing the whole point of this. A scoring system was put in to even the playing field, the scores are divided by number of cores, giving lower core cpus a chance against higher core cpus and brings it more into a overclocking game. The only problem is they are not taking hyper threading into account so a four core hyper threaded i7 is being scored like a four core cpu even with the added performance of hyper threading, while a four core i5 is only working with its four cores and thats it. To give you a better idea of where my problem with this scoring is let me use my current situation as an example. I have a 6600k clocked at 4.9GHz. It is currently being beat by a stock 6700k (not even boost clock, but the stock 4GHz). One core vs one core the 4.9GHz 6600k should destroy the 6700k, but because of the hyper threading increasing the performance but not taken into account when evening out the score based on cores it is gaining a huge advantage. This isn't a "complaining that a 1070 is slower than a 1080" problem, its a problem that they are trying to make it a core for core overclocking competition, yet ignoring a huge performance gain that is making the playing field completely uneven. Take a moment and read the comments, massman even recognizes the hyper threading as a legitimate problem, although they don't seem to be willing to even attempt to make it balanced.

Im sorry to sound rude about this but that is really stupid if you ask me. You should make a competition as fair as you can for everyone or don't do it at all. Disable hyper threading and divide scores by all cores, that balances it out for everyone even for core i5. I got an email about a competition limited to only msi boards, I check it out and the prizes look nice, by the overclocks people were getting I should do good so I entered, but because of hyper threading I got screwed over. So now after asking for a fair fight im told you cant do that because its too hard and I should enter a different competition instead. I shouldnt have to enter another competition if I want a fair fight, it should be fair to begin with. You tell me its too hard to balance it out for everyone yet if you disallow hyper threading (we are all overclockers, we should know how to do that rather easily) and continue to divide by all cores it will still balance the playing field. I expected a competition that is being done in partnership with msi, gskill, and intel to be a more fair fight all around.

That is true, but there has to be some way to factor it in to make it somewhat fair. Or better yet just have it so hyper threading isn't allowed. This would be perfectly fine if hyper threading gave a very small advantage, like only a few percent, but isn't it somewhere around a 40% gain? It is literally making a stock 6700k better than a jackpot find in the silicon lottery 6600k. I completely understand it is hard to deal with hyper threading in this case, but what is the point in even adding a scoring system to balance it out when it gives some a huge lead and others a disadvantage? From what I have seen the only processor with a chance of winning is the 6700k, they instantly shoot to the top. All I want is a fair game.

This scoring system is looking worse and worse the more I look at it. A 6700k running at STOCK speeds is beating out my 6600k that is at 4.9GHz. The fact that they are ignoring hyper threading and dividing scores by the amount of physical cores is screwing over some processors. I understand it is hard to factor in hyper threading, but if you are willing to add a system to even the playing field than it should actually even the playing field rather than send every 6700k to the top scores without them even trying. Im pretty sure all but one or two 6700k processors are in the top 15, with the entire top 10 being 6700k processors. That is just messed up, and it needs to change.

I understand that, I was just really confused when I started looking at scores and seeing the i7 6700k chips far above the rest.

Understandable, but it kinda defeats the whole purpose of dividing the score by cores to even the playing field if they still get an advantage. It seems to me that there is really no point in entering without having an i7. All the 6700k entries are at the top, and it doesnt look like there is any way to pass them, which is a shame considering my 4.9ghz 6600k cant even beat a 4.5ghz 6700k

So how is an i7 getting treated score wise? Is it getting treated by its four physical cores or based on its eight threads? Seems like an i7 has a bit of an unfair advantage if it is getting treated like a quad core when it is using all eight threads, unless its only using those four cores and I'm just dumb and not noticing that Would be nice to figure out what is going on though.