I.M.O.G.

By the way, we usually run a copy or another app, to keep the xp startup under 220.

Read the rules for pcm05. XP start up is limited to 220. The other tests don't have artificial limits. You can debate if this is a fair rule, but no point arguing with other members who are trying to inform you... Contact staff to complain about their rules.

MSI 580 Lightning. Never benched on LN2/Air, stock condition. $225

Sold!

1 150L Dewar (tank) - *Tested* - Vacuum is good (it holds cold well, walls don't sweat/frost). This was my primary dewar for the past year or two, and it works great. Heatware Feedback is 35-0-0: click here This is the 3rd unit of this exact same model I have sold. One was sold to Janus67, the other was sold to icebob... This is my personal dewar and has been filled with over 2000L over the past year or so. It holds very well. Description and Price: 1 150L Dewar (tank) $400 + shipping ================================================ Shipping: Shipping Methods:Freight (200lbs, 20"w x 58"h)[*]Local pickup encouraged, shipping cost could be $200-$500 (or more) Payment Methods (in order of preference): Paypal USPS Money Order Cash

Ya, people may be less likely to fill in all the fields... That is a downside. I often fill in more than I need to, to help myself later so I remember what I did and how. It also may not be ideal to sort of trick people into filling it all out. Maybe achievements or other motivators can be used to encourage filling in as much detail as possible, and bring more attention to why supplying the data is useful. I dunno. Would be cool if there are other ways to get that data. I think the pre-populate fields logic was a major step forward. Making new submissions easier for newbs probably isn't that big of a deal, but could be a good thing if it gets more people hooked.

The most common challenge I see for new members is filling out the new submission form. It is overwhelming, there are dozens of fields that can be filled in and its not painfully clear which ones are optional and which are required. In reality, there are only a few required fields. Submitting would be more accessible to new people if they were presented with the required fields in its own section at the top of the new submission page, and then optional fields were below in their own section.

Sold for $250 shipped at KPC.

Thanks for the updates. Glad I'm not the only one. Hopefully someone will find out what dependency we're missing.

Pending on KPC.

Good job Mike!

I am not goodguy matt in Ohio on ebay. I'm imogocf there - this is only listed on forums.

$300 shipped international.

I agree sometimes, but probably not most times. I think if we could figure out how to also account for who you beat, this situation could be improved. If you are 1 out of 10, a lot of the time its a bunch of noobs who aren't sure what they are doing. But other times, there is contention for top ranks against one or two other skilled players in the same ranking. If you beat someone else with a lot of gold cups, maybe you should get some bonus points. (Goes back to my idea of not just how many you beat, but also who you beat) Mainly, where I agree with you for example, is that what you do very often by taking golds in low competition categories is often more challenging than taking 40th on an 8800 GPU. Yet, 40th on an 8800 only takes some cold and a modern CPU, and it awards almost the same number of points as you get for 22nd. It isn't hard to do that on an 8800, probably less hard than taking some gold cups. But I don't see a better solution for that, which is straightforward.

I don't think we are penalizing alternative routes, just rewarding oddball setups with fewer points - there are a ton of leagues, rankings, and rewards that can be sought after... If the only reason people are benching certain things is to get the 60 globals, then motivations are in the wrong place. This only seems like a penalty, because by unexpected side effects of the old algorithm, it provided ways to exploit massive points which weren't intended - edge/odd cases hadn't been taken into consideration previously. This makes sure there is a reward, but also that the reward isn't totally out to lunch. Percentage overclock is no good. It would be great if benchmark security were at a higher level, and if monitoring/recording were integrated in the benches, but we don't have any of that. This isn't realistic due to the limitations of screenshots and cpuz being the fundamental method of verification... Easy to change frequency for screenshots. Also frequency doesn't account for efficiency, also an important element of skill.