TRG

I've had the same problem, only in IE7 and only on this forum. See my topic about superpi and pifast in the same subforum.

I was thinking. When I'm benching superpi 1M or Pifast on a heavily overclocked Pentium 3, it takes between 1 and 3 minutes to get the job done. This is quite some time to keep your OC stable. But when benching on a new i5 670 LN2 cooled system, these times go down to as little as a few seconds. This way the record is more getting the allure of a suicide screenshot than a real benchmark Of course, there are still superpi 32M and wPrime1024M available, which helps a lot. These two are now down to ~5 and ~1 minutes, respectively. But eventually they will also go down quite a bit. The discussion points that I want to make: - Is a benchmark such as Pifast still relevant for modern CPU's? - Is the challenge of getting the CPU stable still real for such short bench times? Or is it getting more and more a good shot of good luck and hoping that you get a 'stable' moment while benching? - Are the current set of CPU specific benches future proof? - Are there alternative benches that can induce a more intense load on the modern CPU architectures? Oh yeah, and remember. In 50 years, when graphite is the main resource material for CPU's (up to 1 THz), the silicium age will be known as the stone age of electronics See my attachment for a quick bench envelope over the last years (based on pentium release dates and topscores) EDIT: For some reason I'm missing part of the beginning of my post when looking at it on the forums, but while editing and previewing it looks fine? IE issue? EDIT2: My post looks fine in Firefox, but I'm still missing the first part in IE. Renderfault? EDIT3: Correction: wPrime1024M is down to 1m20s with the new 980

extremely regretting all the hardware that I have ever sold before I participated in HWBOT

Hi, I'm not sure If I got the right forum, but I wanted to mention something about the new script for showing images on the site. In firefox it seems to work quite decent (altough a bit more slow than other scripts I've seen on various sites), but in internet explorer (not sure which version) its extremely slow and sluggish. Seems like something is wrong, my whole windows XP OS is hampered by using it.

Very well done!

I've been following this 'seperate AMD and INTEL' discussion, and I strongly disagree. The current lead of INTEL in some benchmarks is only a realistic reflection of the current architectures from both companies. Don't forget INTEL is much bigger than AMD, so AMD is still doing one hell of a job. With the introduction of the Athlon64, AMD was taking lots of first spots (Athlon FX anyone?), only with the introduction of C2D the balance has tipped a bit too much in favour of INTEL. The good thing is that you don't know what future will bring. AMD is capable of releasing ground breaking chipdesigns every year, and hopefully it will happen this year instead of next year. But this competition process takes lots of years, and hence at the moment it seems that INTEL has been holding top positions for too long, but that's not true. In the GPU department AMD is doing a VERY good job. If we would split AMD and INTEL up, than this should also be done in the GPU department for the same reasons between AMD and NVIDIA. And I don't see any reason for that. Splitting AMD and INTEL up is like introducing a F1 competition for Ferrari only and one for Mercedes only. It just doesn't make sense, they are both cars. Nobody is complaining that Ferrari is taking all the points every year right? (I don't know for sure what the actual F1 history is). Every competition has losers and winners. Even ABBA knew that. Compensating the lower part of the ranking list equals destroying the concept of competition. It would be funny if I would re-read this thread in 4 years, when some killer AMD cpu is breaking 3s superPI 1M for the first time ever PS: Taking the first spot in some heavily populated Pentium 3 CPU category, after days of trying and tweaking, gives me MUCH MORE SATISFACTION than receiving 10 times as much boints with quickly benching my non-tweaked brand-new 2000 euro uber-computer-system. Who cares about boints in such a situation? I got that goddamned golden cup which is difficult to take from me. My easy new-system boints will be forgotten and dissapear over time... PS2: Dont think I'm a intel fanboy just because I happen to bench lot's of P3's lately. I garantuee that 5 out of my 7 computersystem from the last decade were AMD based.

[x] YES I think that a 2 point minimum for a golden cup is fair enough. It means that with an unpopular piece of hardware you can get a quick 8-10 points by running most of the benchmarks and populating position 1. To my opinion 8 points is quite significant. I also think it's a pity that the hardware junkie award is gone, especially because I _just_ earned it before rev3. Why not just adding those awards to the current list of achievements, maybe with a special colour so that you have an 'early HWBOT days achievement' in your profile (which will be cool in a few years ).

I think it's still too early to make bold statements, but I have a few remarks/observation: 1. I thought the hwbot was about collecting data from all hardware, but now in rev3 we are more or less discouraging the bench of old hardware? For you information: I love wandering through the bots database and comparing old hardware from the old days.. 2. When hardware is not popular at this moment, and older than lets say 1 month, with rev3 it will probably never become popular anymore because no one is willing to bench it anymore? 3. I have lots of old stuff laying around that wants to be benched, but running SuperPI32M and wPrime1024M on a heavily overclocked Pentium 3 system is now an investment of 5-8 hours of work for what: 0.2 boints? Even on popular Pentium 3 hardware not everybody is benching SuperPI32M and wPrime1024M because they take over 1.5 hours to complete, hence resulting in even less boints and motivation to still do so.. 4. Is it really necessary to take away points on one place and adding them on another? I think that a multiplier for popular hardware would have the same effect in concept, without changing any rev2 legacy. 5. No matter what rev3 does, I applause the hwbot team for trying to shape up the hwbot concept and daring to innovate. But don't forget, hwbot was and still is just a mysql database. And it's partly successful because of it's biggest data-fillers. Don't neglect them!

The link to my blog on my profile page is not working anymore, it says 13/12 P!!! OC project null instead of giving a working link. My profile page: http://hwbot.org/community/user/trg?tab=profile

So does this mean that we're going to lose some hardware points in v3 (at least, that is what I understood from the v3 featurelist -> total submissions converted to total participants).

Is the same story going on as mentioned in the first post? Or has HWBOT introduced new methods for calculating points?

I didn't take a ramdisk into account, and I agree that the speeds are huge. Maybe PCMARK could help in displaying the HDD adapter through a patch, I guess that HWBOT is surely providing them with increased license sales for PCMARK.

I understand the problem with HDD's in arrays having too much impact on the final score. But my feeling tells me that it is not as bad as limiting the hardware for this kind of test. Every benchmark has its sweet spot for good results, and at the moment a SSD array will do the trick for PCMARK. In a few years other solutions will do the trick, or maybe some new GPU parallel architecture will pull off the same effect. In other words: it's unpredictable. But nobody would accept something like: you can overclock your CPU only untill 8 GHz, higher than that is not fair because only few other people will achieve that... HWBOT is about xtreme hardware COMBINED with good OC skills! People investing lots of money will always have an advantage, but the expensive character is also one of the (difficult to achieve) charms of overclocking. People can think that it is easy to buy for 3000 euros of SSD's, but you must also be mad and extreme to hook that 3000 euro array up to a unstable overclocked system with tons of voltmods

Ok, just wanted to check. I just thought it was a remarkable thing that the exact same CPU speeds where achieved on different CPU's in the same benchsession.

I have the strong feeling that I have stumbled upon the sharing of hardware by the same team, resulting in almost similar scores in the same timeframe. I may be a coincidence, but according to the rules this shouldn't be allowed if true. I would appreciate it if some mod could have a look over here: http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/pentium_3_celeron_1.0a_ghz_tualatin The guys from OCClub are posting the similar results (validated in the same three hour window). Some example: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=606597 http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=606510 Everything in those two validations is the same, except for the RAM used.