1Day

Rub it in rub it in :D I like it Pieter. :celebration: Things are getting interesting at the sharp end of the competition :battle:.

Arrow through my heart - nice one for a first shot Pieter - I have been trying like crazy to break 9 mins and no success more than 150 runs so far. Here you go on your first run and break my heart. :D LOL damn I really need to learn how to bench 32 mil.

Now that is what I call a good 32M run. Nice one Sam.

You are so kidding me Sam - way to go Simply outstanding.

um Dino is this in the right side of the competition? Your CPU is at 4GHz?

Some of us are even benching with the stock Intel cooler. And only one working stick of ram

So when are you going to push it?

Most of the benchers on this forum have a pretty good idea what is the ultimate 32Mil bench @ 4000MHz, with the perfect rams so basically if there is a result that is just too good to be true, then it most probably is not true.

To determine quality from a statistical base you first have to attempt a qualitative description of quality. Once you have reached agreement or accord rather on what quality is in memory then you can begin to define quantitative parameters that reflect that quality. So begin with anecdotal evidence, what rams do people claim or say are quality rams. Take a sample of those rams and break their submitted data down into measurable's. Initially all measurable's I guess would be needed. Then compare and contrast that raw data against ram that is not considered quality. See what the differences are and you have a possible means of differentiation. Not perfect at all but it is a starting point. Motherboard I suspect will be harder to quantify than rams.

I know Massman it is a Catch22 situation in many ways. Rule of thumb is fewer rules makes better competition for more participants. I as a result of fewer rules there will be fewer policing actions that need to be carried out, and that is certainly for the better. Hardware sharing has been a problem and will continue to be aproblem untill one of two things happen. The first is what would be best I guess. A foolproof rock solid mechanism that is able to uniquely identify each piece of hardware used with a particular bench bench. How to do this I have no idea of course. But we can dream. The second is more inevitable I think. Just get rid of that sharing rule. Yes there will be a surge of people climbing up the rankings because of sharing of hardware (prime top end stuff) but I do think it will normalise and will not prejudice as many bencher s as you think. I think far more average bencher's are currently disadvantaged within the current rubric used. But that is life, equity is nice but not practical and not possible in any competitive environment. The added bonus of less work needed by results moderators, who are all ready stretched. Plus the de-criminalisation of good bencher s who have crossed that line. All round I think it would be a better set up if sharing as a issue was just removed. If the team contest is restricted to one result per hardware item, and individual benching is not restricted by hardware sharing then yes there will be some who share hardware. But have faith and rely on the more venial side of human nature, just as we can not rely on the better side of human nature to do the ethical or right thing. Here is an example. Is Bob going to lend James his kit so that James can go ahead of him in the individual rankings. Maybe he will. But I can promise you there are many Bobs that will find that state of affairs irksome and not acceptable. And the feeding frenzy of hardware sharing is only going to happen in the initial stage I think. Benching is competitive. Team competition is huge. I would suggest for many benching teams it is bigger than the individual league. Very few 'normal' bencher s believe that they can compete against the top 5 or 10 bencher's who head the current standings. Sponsored kit and access to resources being a major reason for that perception. Look those guys have earned all the perks that they get no mistake about that. For most of us we compete against people using the same kit as which we have. Most of the 5000 plus members of HWBOTS benching league do not use exotic cooling beyond a bit of water and every now and then some Dry Ice. They bench because they like doing it. Or is it as you suggest they bench just to push points for the team? You mentioned the current points algorithm and I would like to just say this. I do understand that the bots algorithm is geared in a particular way, but it is an algorithm and as such can be reworked and will be reworked as the HWBOT continues to evolve. Nothing is static Massman you know that. Benching is growing and we all (those in the sport) want it to continue growing. And as the environment evolves so to does the way it is managed. One of the most pleasant parts of benching is surely the getting together of mates who have a common interest and have a benching session while enjoying a couple of drinks. More and more it is this collective gathering that marks benching as a fun thing to do. And people bring there hardware and it is natural and I will argue right to share kit in that settings. We want benching to grow. Social gatherings and group bench sessions are certainly helping with that growth. It is a way for new people to see and learn from those with more experience. The plus's of group bench sessions are quite obvious, currently the downside is the stigma of sharing hardware if you are going to submit to HWBOT.

Massman you have just said it is impossible to police CPU sharing, so this rebuttal is rather contradictory. Either it is somethign that can be monitored or it is not. Please make up your mind. And so what if hardware is shared within a team, (like it is not happening now right:D) your reply assumes that it would be one team would have the only CPU or GPU that could do those kinds of numbers? Not. I reckon each and every team would have kit that was similar in performance, statistically HWBOT bares that out. The top 20 scores in all single CPU based benchmarks are within very insignificant frequency differentials. If all shared as you suggest they would, then the result would be that the hardware alone is removed as being the sole reason some people are top 20 and others are top 2000. If all have access to the same standard of kit then it is the benching ability that would reign supreme and not just who has the better kit. Or have I missed something? Edit: Actually I have. HWBOT is a hardware bot not a benching bot. It is a data base of hardware not of benching. Just read the history thing on the front page. That tosses out my thoughts.

If the issue is as Massman suggests; policing hardware being an impossible task, then lets just scrap the whole sharing rule thing completely. Lets find other means of managing benching. What is the main reason for the prohibition on shared hardware, is it as I think the team competitions as the issue? At present if people benching from one team with top end hardware shared and then submit results this boosts the overall team points. Well that is easily sorted. Each team is allowed one result per hardware class - obviously the best result per hardware item. Best 06 with a HD4870 counts for the team, and so on. Let the individuals borrow hardware all they like and bench it. At the end of the day those who are better bencher's will still rise to the top of the league regardless.

I actually think that you are correct. I think there is a post about RB being away on holiday some place here on the forum. As far as I know he is the only one that can change the software, sorry Just Learnin'

Respect guys :ws::ws:

demiurg in the first example you are correct it is not valid but if you look at the second example that submission has a verification link, which is sufficient proof in its own right. Therefore the second example is valid. I hope that clears up any confusion.

May I make a suggestion use the submit score option available with wPrime - it can be found bottom right of the application. That will automatically submit your score and requires no other input from you, when prompted at the hwbot.org page enter your user-name and password this you will only have to do once. For you additional information the screen-shot as presented in this post and in your original submission are not sufficient for a suitable submission. You need to include in your screen shot two instances of a open CPU-Z one with the clock speed of the CPU and the other with the tab of the ram timings open. Neither of these are present currently. So even if you where able to submit the result would be blocked in all probability. As I originally suggested it is best to simply run the application and once a result has been obtained submit the result via the built in submit option. Enjoy your benching.

demiurg you guys fight hard and you fight fair it is an honourable battle and the better team will win. Let it always be so.

knopflerbruce we (Hwbot) are in the process of putting together a comprehensive set of guideline/rules, so thank you for bringing the issue of a photograph as proof for a CPU-Z submission to the fore, it is duly noted and will be incorporated into the guide. Regards

Oh dear guys please just all calm down and take a few deep breaths. To who ever is currently first in the league well done because as all who bench know it takes lots of hard work and effort by all team members to achieve that position. Right from the team member who has only point two of a point right up to Hall of Fame bencher's who have many hundreds of points. (Or Boints more accurately). All have contributed to what is a team effort and as such all share in the highs of success and of course the corresponding lows as there can only ever be one "First Placed" team. Let us all display the sportsmanship and maturity that is expected of us, many new bencher's who join hwbot daily excited about the sport of benching are reading these words and having their impressions of what bencher's are like moulded by these words. Let us not set the wrong impression about this forum and the sport of benching.

Fixed

I echo your sentiments eva2000 let us hope that the whole team is able to return and compete...soon. But talk about an impressive return that MM can bench.

I applaud your time spent and the effort that goes with it. Bravo to all of you at the top.

am I allowed to use that wonderful quote as my sig?

I suspect a working solution would be that team scores are only derived from a specified number (and listed) set of team members. Like in team sports - so many active players in the game and unlike most team sports unspecified number of substitutes. That is inclusive of collective benching sessions. In other words any team score would only be made up of a pre determined number of team member submissions, be it the complete team collective benching as one group, groups of the team pooling equipment and benching together or individuals benching alone. What the ideal number would be is up to the moderation and admin staff to deciede. Each team captain would have to nominate which "members" are to be included in the team listings. The desiginated team caption can change team members as and when she/he sees fit. Much like any sporting event, substituting players in and out of the game. Once in your results are then inlcuded into the totals accruing for the team total if you as a member are substituted out of the game (so to speak) your results are removed from the totals accruing for that team. But of course the individual results will still remain and accrue individual points but not team points. The coding is not to difficult I would suspect and designated team captain can either edit team lists them self (the option I would suggest) or pm mod staff to do so.

Nice pots I like the mass at the bottom - look like they will be good for both LN2 and Dry Ice nice stuff.