Bobnova

Seems kind of odd to me. On less popular HW last place HTPP is 1.8 points.

How are the individual members ranked? For instance, if I'm on a team with other people, why would my ranking be different than the rankings of the other people on my team?

Two. Three submissions in total so far.

I was thinking something very similar while driving into town earlier. I think I'd set the fade at ~10% per month.. So first 12 months: 100% points 13th: 90% 14th: 80% etc. 21st: 10% 22nd: 0%, bye bye points. By the 2y mark nobody is likely to care, there aren't that many games (FPS anyway) that make it that long. In any event a rolling This New Game Gives Points For Benchmark Results would probably go a long way towards gathering more interest.

Absolutely! Engineers use calculators and web browsers don't have 'em. Y'all have more important things to use the brainpower on after all. Now if you design bridges I'd like to know which ones

Should have pushed harder then! You won't ever get less points than the next step down from that tie though. It's an average of the points for those tied people, not splitting the single set of points from the position they're tied with.

Lol so we're trusting that pros never cheat? EDIT: So on rankings, after the first iteration are the teams dissolved? How are the rankings calculated with regards to that?

Maybe the ten year score guy should try harder now that he has all the extra experience and software development? Surely he can beat his old, slow software, score easily enough! Personally I like the averaging it out version. The newcomer to a spot wasn't good enough to beat the previous score, but the previous score doesn't beat the new one, either.

Did Cinebench get patched for security while I wasn't looking?

How's that being policed?

Is three months really not enough time to run five benchmarks? If there're five of you that's a benchmark each, not bad. I agree 100% on the money part though, seems pretty obvious to me. There's definitely a community here, it just doesn't have anything to do with running the operation. There's a community despite the constant rule changes and random decisions and reversals, not because of it. Maybe I'm too new (came in on R3), but I've never seen this as a community project, it's always looked like the Massman Show - Featuring Random Overclockers (And The Companies That Pay To Be Featured) to me.

The more I think about it the more interesting this idea is to me. As a very part time LN2 bencher I can wait until the hardware for a pro comp is attainable (or IB, which I have), have one (1) session or maybe two (2) sessions and spend some actual time with each benchmark, and maybe end up with a decent pro league ranking. This goes double if I team up with someone that has a good BD for CPUz, and someone that has SB-E for WP1024 and such. With the current system I have no chance in hell of making even a vaguely sort of decent ranking in the pro league, I don't have binning type money, live in a tiny area of the US where PC stores say "lolno" and in the US manufacturers are awash in people who want handouts for benching, they don't even respond to requests, let alone sending hardware. I see the new comp setup as giving me and people like me a better chance at a pro league ranking and some recognition. For the people who actually have tons of time and actually have tons of money/parts/sponsorship it's terrible, it does something to level the playing field. I don't see how anybody could expect the current leaders to react positively to making their job harder! Lastly, I think re-using old scores is silly at best. It's a three month comp! What is it y'all usually say about the byzantine HW requirements for Team Cups and such? "You have plenty of time!", I think. This year's team cup has horrendously complicated requirements for HW and a staggering amount of benching team, and we have to do everything including buying the HW, binning stuff, etc. in 3 months. Surely the Pros can find time in three months to run five benchmarks on three platforms! (1-AMD, 2-IB, 3-SB-E if it's single-CPU only, servers/SR-X otherwise), 4-SB-E or IB, 5-SB-E or IB) When has HWBot had static rules that everybody liked? Only when they're changing If they aren't changing, everybody hates the rules.

Rendering textures is park of the benchmark too, go talk to LOD in Vantage and such, you "Nvidia people".

Keeping it simple makes far more sense to me. So either ban it in everything and wipe the current 3d11/heaven scores out or allow it in 3d12

It just got real. Thanks for sharing, I know what I'm doing to my 8800s now.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me to allow LOD and Tess adjustments in every bench except 3dmark. Definitely more confusing for new people. The valid-stuff-only thing would be a major PITA when it comes to drivers too, it takes futuremark ages to approve drivers.

Ha that can happen even if there is an official decision right now

I got my reported 3dmark no-tess result marked as "checked" by a moderator. That's good enough for me.

Of course we do!

Pretty much impossible for me personally. I live in a tiny area. Thankfully OCF has people in some Big Places.

I doubt tess disabling will end up illegal in one bench and legal in others, and it's far too late to ban it across the board.

What contest here hasn't resulted in LN2 use? Even the low / fixed clock stuff goes to LN2! (On the ram, often) Might be LN2 time for you Or at least DIce. It's fun! If I had a MSI board (or GPU...) I'd take a whack.

Trying the new benchbot and new Java, just started the bench. As I type the above I just got the first update! Looks like it's working. Further updates as events warrant. Thanks guys! EDIT: http://hwbot.org/submission/2353479_ I like this benchmark, giving a link to use for people SSHing into CLI is awesome.

There's 25 days left, the LN2 folks will show up in another 24 days or so

So..... delete and resubmit?