Dead Things

There have already been some pretty good proposals in this thread, so is there a certain framework you are working with for each round, TASOS? Or do you want round proposals from scratch? Well, in any case, here are some more round proposals for your consideration... Round 1: 486 - Stage 1: SuperPi 1M 5x86 + X5 - Stage 2: SuperPi 1M 486-only - Stage 3: 3DMark99 Max Round 2: Socket 4 - Stage 1: PiFast - Stage 2: SuperPi 32M - Stage 3: Aquamark Round 3: Socket 7 - Stage 1: Non-Intel or AMD CPU frequency - Stage 2: Intel-only PCMark 04 - Stage 3: wPrime 1024M full-out (K6-2/K6-3 & multi-socket OK) Round 4: Socket 423 - Stage 1: RIMM memory frequency - Stage 2: 3DMark 01SE w/ GeForce2 or Radeon 7000 - Stage 3: HWBOT Prime Round 5: Socket 754 - Stage 1: "Athlon" PCMark 05 - Stage 2: "Turion/Sempron" Cinebench R15 - Stage 3: 3DMark 05 w/ Radeon 9000

Sorry for chiming in so late on this. Wondered if there might be merit in looking at specific cores in some of these cases? Dempsey is a far cry from Harpertown on S771, for example, so each might be deserving of its own stage - not to mention the myriad of cores in between. Barcelona/Istanbul on S1207, MC/AD on G34, Sledge/Italy on S940 - also good examples where one realistically cannot compete against the other, hence maybe deserving of a unique stage. I wouldn't necessarily wanna get locked into only ever benching one set of chips for each platform but instead having a chance to investigate a number of different generations on each. I mean not always - but some of the time. Thoughts?

I fully support the notion of limiting a possible 486 stage to exclude AMD DX5, otherwise that's the chip everyone will use. Kinda boring. But whatever - I'd be just as happy to bench mine again. Love the idea of S4 and some of the other vintage cores being suggested like Klamath and Tbird. I really like where this is going. I think websmile is starting to get a bit anxious about finalizing things, so I'll forgo any further suggestions. Looking forward to it!

Why not? This is akin to being willfully ignorant of how people have actually been building computers for home use. For simplicity's sake, let's only look at the case of S1366 Xeons. Before SB-E was a thing, if you wanted 6C/12T without having to sell your firstborn, you went Xeon. In the real world, limiting S1366 comps to 970/980X/990X is actually favouring industry players compared to allowing Westmere Xeons because those chips were so much more expensive than their Xeon equivalents - even back then! I'm sorry, but this is really just a very narrow-minded viewpoint - a one-rule-fits-all approach. I thought with the allowance of S939 Opterons in the Team Cup that HWBOT was starting to realize this.

Yes. Yes I do. Was just hoping to use something as innocuous as an X5680 on a RIIIE. Oh well.

Xeon allowed?

I don't think we have to go sub-optimal to come up with stages that we don't all feel have been benched to death. Think about it... When was the last time you played with your Socket 4 gear? When was your last DP Socket 8 sub? Heck, even 386 can do SuperPi and we do have a whole month! I think there are still lots of different/unusual avenues left to explore without having to enforce sub-optimal setups. edit - For example, I take no issue with benches like mem freq and maxmemm read on things like EDO and Rambus - but to force us to use those on benches for which they would be sub-optimal seems less interesting to me.

Are the Team Cup results final and official yet, or still waiting?

It's a neat idea, but I honestly don't know how interested I would be in going out and spending more money on platforms I already have better equipment for, you know? I'm not one of those guys who has an endless supply of boards - I've got pretty much one per socket in most cases. So this sorta design would probably rule me out. And that's totally fine if it's what the majority would prefer to do!

When I first heard of the "each stage has one sub per league" idea, I immediately thought to myself, well that doesn't work for the smaller teams who may not have people in certain leagues. Hardware Canucks, for example, has no extreme benchers, and some of the big teams have no enthusiast/novice/rookie benchers. But I though on it some more, and I think this idea aligns perfectly with the whole purpose of the Team Cup. If your team is lacking in extreme benchers, then the Team Cup will encourage you to buy a pot and source some LN2 - mission accomplished. If your team is lacking in enthusiast benchers, then the Team Cup will encourage you to recruit members who are new to OC - mission accomplished. Even though it would technically hurt my own team, the more I think about this idea, the more I like it.

It's a laptop. Lotsa laptops have 1280*720 or 1366*768 resolutions that make it impossible to leave the render completely uncovered in a screenie. Websmile was very helpful to me earlier in the comp in learning how to deal with such issues. Let's all take a breather, okay? No reason for inflammatory posts.

PENGUINS WITH GUNSing great post WW! I made this for someone on my team originally, but you've earned it too... It's the hammer-in-a-pillow-case technique for breaking up DICE.

The Team Cup has always been a success in terms of participation, even during those years when there weren't any prizes at all. I'd honestly be surprised if there were any among us who were "in it for the prizes," so to speak. Thanks at least in part to the Team Cup, I've been able to recruit three new members to our tiny team since July, in addition to eliciting participation from a few long-dormant team members. That, to me, is the whole point of this thing.

While this standpoint generally makes sense, I do think pre-Sandy UP & DP Xeons represent an exception, similar to how S939 Opterons were oft-used as desktop parts. S771 adapters for S775 and LGA1366 Xeons (whether in SR-2 or in UP board like RIIIE) were frequently used for desktop parts - so it would be fun to play with these platforms again. And I don't think either necessarily gives an advantage to industry players because they were enthusiast-focused platforms, and not server-focused.

I like what havli & TASOS have suggested so far! Can I suggest 3DM05 instead of '03? It seems comps don't let us run it anymore. I like the Cloud Gate suggestion, though - don't get to play with that much either. Why non-Intel chipsets only for S370? I think a few of us are fond of the i815 chipset for Tualatin. S939 we already did this year, and it's also part of the TC. Can we maybe do S754 instead? I'd also love a chance to play with some Socket 8 or 604 stuff - those boxes have remained closed for far too long!

I kinda figured it out. I rebooted my submission machine, tried again and it worked. I don't know what went wrong originally, but the reboot seemed to fix whatever ailed it.

Pic says 1.61v lol! Intense bud, very (n)ice score!

I'll PM you the submission screen. It's a modern, Haswell-era laptop that only has a 1366x768 resolution yielding a 427 KB datafile. So I don't think either hardware age or file size are the issue.

Datafiles upload no problem. It is only upon clicking "Submit Benchmark Result" that the following error is returned: No client version given, required version: 1.2.0, 2.0.0 I am using version 2.0.0, by the way. Thanks in advance!

Or not...

Sorry for dumb question... How do you rescale the Cinebench image smaller? When I try to reduce the window size, it just cuts off the image.

Whereabouts are you located? edit - Where within Canada, that is.

Yeah, I understand classifying the AMD cards can be tricky. Thanks anyway!

Sorry, another question... Possible to add HD6670 (Turks XT) to Stage 4.5? I know it won't be highly competitive, but my team is small and we don't have a tonne of hardware.

I'll let greater authorities help you with your specific inquiries. Just wanted to chime in quickly and say the procedural stuff is totally intimidating at first, but you really do get the hang of it pretty quickly. Keep pushing!