Bobnova
-
Posts
515 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Bobnova
-
-
While i wait for copy cat hwbot site to pop up to give this site some competition... here is a different approach to this "team ranking situation" just in case anyone else out there is listening:
Leave community rankings just as they are and stop referring to them as team rankings. Community rankings is more appropriate as that is what they are.
Create a team ranking system which consists of an actual team. Real teams have a limited amount of players (soccer, football, rugby, hockey etc.).... start there.
I propose 8 members per team as japan seems to doing well with this number. 15-20 members seems a bit too much. A larger community with lots of members will have internal goal to compete within itself to try and make it to first string...
Meanwhile if they aren't first string, they still contribute to the community.Leave it to the team captain to choose who he/she wishes to be on his/her team.
Here is another thought...
Now that we have a real team with an exact amount of players, it would only make sense that we have an exact amount of hardware (instead of all hardware ever created) that is eligible for points!
Create of list of eligible hardware (100 pieces? 200 pieces?), why not start with the most popular for now.. there is no need to include your entire database for team points.
To keep it interesting, modify your list of eligible hardware every quarter to include new hardware, remove old hardware, or even add really old hardware which would probably force the team captain to revise his/her team.
:battle:
I like this.
-
That flavor sounds good to me too.
-
I like OC Champion's League, personally.
Plus it fits really nicely with my pet system.
-
I voted 25, i figure that's probably about $40 or so, which i can do.
Much past that and it starts eating into my dry ice fund, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I think a large part of why people are so up in arms about corporate sponsors is that there have been some excellent examples of sponsors running the business.
Semiaccurate (guess!) and fudzilla (flip side of the semiaccute coin) are excellent examples.
Given those examples i can totally understand why people are afraid of HWB taking on major corporate sponsorship.
-
On the splitting of the leagues:
Am i the only one who actually likes competing against the top10/20/50 despite having cheap hardware?
I take great delight in the fact that I've posted higher HW scores then a couple of the top guys i know personally. Both of whom would be in UFL. I, of course, am far from UFL material (no gtx here, juuust got my first 920).
Same goes for air/water cooling vs extreme, and dice vs ln2. I love beating LN2 on dice. On air/water i loved beating SS and low end dice.
Will the hardware and the global points be separate for XOL and UFL? Or will UFL submissions still show up on the overall hardware rankings?
What about a ranking system that mirrors euro football? Top X people in XOL every X months get promoted to UFL, and the bottom X of UFL get dumped down again?
How much hardware are the manufacturers willing to cough up? If being in the UFL automatically gives perks, a stratification system like this could work really well.
You could even take it further, if you wanted. Have UFL (premiership), XOL (Football League Championship), AOL(lol... Football League One). It'd take a while to get from AOL to UFL even with high end hardware and massive skill, but is that an issue?
I'd do seperate "global" type points for each league.
The Hardware Boints i would leave exactly as they are, covering every league. AOL people's 980x submissions right along with UFL submissions.
If the UFL is small enough it could be demanded that there be video of every run, including a shot of the GPU/CPU during setup. Livestream allow saving entire multi-hour videos, and because they're sitting on livestream's server they cannot be edited to swap other cards into place.
Downside would be that some poor guy has to check all the videos, and it's more of a pain for the bencher as well.
Please excuse confusion and rambling on my part, i'm short on sleep, have a head cold, and have two young kids. And cats. And lots of other excuses.
Final note: I think that moving in the direction rev4 moves in could be a very positive thing, given enough communication and common sense on the parts of ALL parties involved (users, staff, manufacturers, in no special order).
Wild accusations and name calling render no positive results for anybody.
-
The problem i have with the proposed team rankings is that the CPUs that give good points are few in number.
E8xxx, e6600, q6600, i7 920, and that's really about it.
The other CPUs just aren't worth much. I would be much more positive about the new rankings if the points calculation for less popular hardware was changed, as it is you have to be top3 to top5 to get good points until there are 200-300 submissions for a benchmark.
That makes it extremely hard if you're on anything but LN2 with whatever motherboard that chip loves, and/or if your chip isn't a golden sort of thing.
If the points tapered off more slowly, the new team format would work a lot better.
I still don't like it, but i can see the point of it at least.
-
One thing i would really like to see on the ambient/extreme cooling split.
Rather then only the best score count and the other getting zero points, what about each person having an Extreme rating and an Ambient rating?
-
Hwbot is a overclocking league where people submit overclock results, these results are compared to results with identical hardware and the result is AWARDED points based on its standing both with that hardware and in the benchmark overall. The reward is the excitement you get from a smoking result and how many points you get for the work you have done as it compares to other's results. As soon as you remove the recognition for a job well done from peers and especially teammates, you will loose the support of the community. We will chose our team/family over the bot, I guarantee it. Implement this revision and see what happens.
Individuals would still be rewarded. The TEAM wouldn't be rewarded with points, but YOU would.
EDIT:
To be fair about the sponsor thing, I would almost certainly aim to get cash to pay for the site and/or my efforts too. Doesn't mean that i like that it happens, but i would do the same thing.
-
Even then, good luck qualifying here in the US! Maybe if you can afford to fly 3k miles, happen to know someone in the office or are already in the top20.
There is no way in hell i could qualify from where i am right now, i'd have a much better chance of qualifying if i lived in a small country with a regional office.
If non-sponsor competitions counted then at least i could hit a local(ish) competition and get some comp. points that way. As it is i'm out of luck.
-
It will make HW sharing a personal thing and not a team thing, but that change doesn't stop a top tier binned gpu from going through the top guys on a team for their individual benefit.
The team concept goes deeper then just the team's points, as a team the team members help each other out.
I don't see this stopping HW sharing at all. More over, I don't see that the team rankings are even all that important, certainly not nearly as important as the individual rankings are.
I can see the general idea, force people to dig out obscure cards/cpus instead of trying to find a golden e6600 and 920 cpus, but IMO all this plan does is force the team members to be much more selfish.
-
So no, if it's not a gbt/msi/adata comp it won't count.
Thing is, we don't necessarily need new features added constantly.
I understand not wanting to be a pay site, and i understand that this sort of thing costs money to run.
Despite that, this is HWBot, not GigaMSIDataBOT, isn't it? I'm rather strongly opposed to this changing from By Overclocks For Overclockers to By Manufacturers For Marketing.
If that means no development beyond what people donate in their spare time, so be it.
(EDIT: Reading massman's post above, i guess i'm in the minority here, be realistic people!)
I like #2, i think that is an excellent plan. Especially if there are CPU type limits imposed too (say, i7 920/930.950, something attainable).
EDIT:
Having contemplated it, I think I would prefer to spend a couple bucks a month on a HWBot subscription then to have the sort of manufacturer lockdown implied above.
-
I'd love to know whether we'll get HWBot points from Asus or other non-sponsor competitions.
I like the idea of getting points from them, if it's all major competitions, and not just ones thrown by sponsors.
I would hate to see HWBot commercialized to the point where if you don't use a sponsor's board you're out of luck.
-
Split cooling methods is cool, though dubiously enforcable.
The team only getting one score for a given piece of hardware sucks. It's going to make it a lot harder to recruit newbies to teams.
Right now we can tell them, honestly, that every .1 they submit helps us. With the new setup it doesn't, odds are they will never benefit the team. The four hours i spent last night would be totally useless from a team perspective because i'm not the fastest 920 on the team.
Yes, i enjoyed doing it. Yes it helped my personal total. But one of the things i really like about benching is the TEAM aspect, we're all benching for a common cause.
With the new rules our newest gung-ho member's 30odd hours of benching would be useless for the team. It'd be a lot harder to get excited about his results if they're pointless (literally).
I propose that the rule be applied only to GPUs an not CPUs. There are far more GPUs in existence then CPUs, and sharing a gtx480 that can hit 1400 is going to make a larger dent then sharing a 980x that can hit 6.7 IMO, 2d has a lot more tweaking (3d01 excluded) in addition to the raw clocks.
-
lol
Where do you come up with this stuff?
-
I love OCing and benching, it's fun!
I also enjoy competing at it, but that's really just an added bonus after a day of benching.
It's great fun to sit down and start putting scores in and discover you managed a 3rd or somesuch.
I will admit that i've spent time trying to hunt down my idol/mentors when i've seen that they have used the same hardware. Beating them is even more fun!
But when it comes down to it, i'd still OC and bench and run extreme cooling even if there wasn't anyone else to compare to.
-
I say go by what's on the box. The rated frequency doesn't really matter much for HWBot anyway, if you can't OC past the turbo frequency you're doing it wrong.
-
Something like the wrapper on Heaven comes to mind, have it constantly polling CPUz during tests.
The clock limit means to me that the enthusiast class is going to be mainly a test of how well you can cheat without being detected.
-
Personally, I think that HWBot should work on securing the benchmarks from cheating before they start chasing after the golden samples.
How many golden 2d CPUs are actually creative cheats? I bet there are a few, at least.
It seems to me that the proposed system makes it way more profitable to cheat, and no easier to prevent cheating at all.
-
The biggest issue I see is that of turning down clocks to the acceptable limit after running a bench, it won't be that difficult to find the hidden mhz limit in the 2d benches, spi1m and wp32 especially.
It looks to me like another situation like that which exists with pifast right now, the only way to detect a cheat is to look at how it compares to other scores, which in turn means that if the cheat is kept low (say 1-5%, just enough for a gold) it's essentially undetectable.
Only thing I can think of would be a CPUz wrapper like your Heaven wrapper, it runs and monitors CPUz (and/or gpuz) and the benchmark, and then reports back with what it saw.
-
That's pretty much what I figured. I couldn't think of a better way, but I was hoping you could.
Guess i'll have to go buy myself a GPU pot!
I'm all for this BTW, I think it's an excellent idea.
-
What about those of us who run extreme cpu cooling but non-extreme gpu cooling?
Unless I'm missing something, we get hosed.
Admittedly I can't get especially pissed about that considering that this looks like it has a chance of making air/water and normal retail hardware productive.
-
I definitely liked that i got .1 when i started benching (not long ago, really). Now i don't care especially much about that result range, but that is to be expected, the .1 isn't there for me anyway.
.1 global i'm still pumped about, it's worth a few places here in the 300s.
The concept of only the best result for a given piece of hardware counting for the team would make it quite difficult for newbie types to help the team. Not an issue at all for PURE and other elite teams, but on OCF one of our recruiting methods is that everybody who joins up is helping.
If limiting the team gain for given hardware is the goal, a better (though yet again more complicated) way IMO would be to put a cap on the amount of points a team can earn from a single part. Put the limit at the max the hardware can be worth, whatever a gold cup is worth. If i have a e6600 good for a bronze and 33 boints and i sell it to a team mate, he can only get the difference between my 33 and the max of 49.7. If he then sells it to someone else they get none (or maybe a maximum of 5?). If i lose my bronze and drop to 22 points the second guy gets more, and the third gets whatever are left over.
Alternatively you could do it so that each successive team member with an E6600 gets half the score ahead of them.
I got 33, next lowest person can only get 16.5 or less, person after him can only get 8.25 or less.
Changing the team hardware thing has the opportunity to shake the teams up hugely, it benefits teams with a lot of misc. hardware hugely, teams like PURE that have a ton of globals would have a huge drop in points.
Third option: Just restrict globals, treat the team's globals like a single persons, they get globals only from the best submission for each bench.
EDIT:
Anyway, i think the minimum of .1 boints is important for newbies, it makes it possible to gain ranks even with junk hardware, and the first .2 they get is every bit as exciting as the first .1 would have been back when there wasn't a minimum.
Once they don't care about .1s anymore they're already hooked
-
I like the idea of adding dx11 Heaven.
I'm assuming that something has been done about dx10.1 cards and such. Running Heaven right now i can select dx11 from the dropdown box and run it just fine on my 4890. Obviously it's a bit lacking in tesselation though!.
Anybody seriously working on globals has dx11 cards, there's really only one bench that doesn't already require a dx11 capable card to get anywhere and that is 3d01.
It'd be nice to have another non-FM 3d benchmark too, plus i like Heaven a lot better then the idea of a sponsored FM benchmark. Way too easy for the sponsors thing to get out of hand and start influencing scores IMO.
-
You can't prove or disprove that someone is getting sponsorship any more easily then you can prove or disprove that a CPU or GPU is an ES.
Either way it can be (easily) hidden by people that care enough. I think it's pretty obvious that the companies care enough.
Even with video, you can't be sure you're watching the right video, and who says the chip doesn't have a different, retail, heatspreader glued on?
FYI:
I can barely read the text on my e5200, ceramique and IC Diamond have polished it right off.
PCMark05 and disk speeds and ramdisks and such
in Benchmark software
Posted
If there is a 220mb/s limit on the XP load test, why are software ramdrives still illegal?
This makes no sense to me.
The rule started before anything could even get close to that number so it made sense.
Now though with SSDs having to be limited to get under the cap, why are software ramdisks still illegal?