I.M.O.G.

Upgraded LN2 hauler: [attach]1217[/attach]

Got my email about the prize. Thanks Gigabyte!

Look at the account, "dejo's daughter". It has 0 points and all submissions were either deleted or merged with dejo's account. That was disallowed because it "looked" too suspicious, even though it was a legitimate father/daughter team... I know this beyond a shadow of a doubt, and despite it being done within the rules of HWBot, it was PROHIBITED because it looked too suspicious. This is more than appearances... There is only one logical explanation given post #33. You were submitting runs on the the same components under two accounts. If you didn't want to keep track of which run belonged to who, you should have just submitted them all under 1 account. You claim these runs were on separate hardware, however you weren't even saving results in separate folders to keep track. One of you should have your account merged, then no more harassment, and its legal to submit results like this from a group session. Easier that way than keeping track of which parts belong to which person.

Nice run. Looks about right for Virus scan to me, given your storage config compared to mine and stevero's. We're all in the same ballpark - single core is tough. Put a lot of work into replicating el gappo's result in virus scan, but never could get it going using onboard. Thats the way to go - there's an updated raidrom bios out there, hacked by a user on the rog forums. You may want to look into that. Didn't get me anywhere, but may work better for you.

Gen usage isn't outside the realm of possibility. Would need more details on the storage configuration... from the pics, he is pretty well stocked in that department. Not much to debate with the mistake on XP startup tho.

@Yamunsa: This was the latest official statement I am aware of - http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=161873&postcount=145

I'm one of the new pcmark05 faces. I started submitting PCM05 in January... I saw a lot of high points with less activity/competition. At that time, a lot of 1st place scores weren't at very strong CPU clocks so I also knew I could run faster chips, and I could do well if I knew the benchmark well, and had good storage. So I bought storage, and figured out how to run it well. Stevero and I went back and forth quite a bit in a couple categories, and a couple other guys were submitting really good scores... I think all the new 1st place scores worth a lot of points was like blood in the water, brought out the sharks.

Nice work Steve. @Sofos1990: Areca 1880

sp1m, you can delete your submission from the top right of the page, then resubmit.

A 2nd vote for 1 more mhz. Nice job Steve!

Thanks. Coldest are you keeping the UD7? I'm giving mine away to my team, since they loaned me the Gigabyte board to take part. It'd be kinda cool if every winner is passing the goods on.

If its permitted and allowed now, then loses support after a year or two... I don't have a point in this question, I'm just trying to figure out what this could mean. But if it loses support when will the records set on MVP be broken? I wonder if it could do weird things to the global points, where in 3 or 4 years we have much more powerful hardware, but to compete for any top 3D globals we're still falling back to older MVP hardware. Dunno if that makes a difference, however I like the motivation to run newer and more expensive hardware to see what it can do... If new more powerful stuff is less rewarding to benchmark due to MVP, that could be a negative to some people I guess. I don't have a firm position one way or another. In post #158 I shared some other thoughts I had, and rereading it I guess it sounds like I support MVP in a separate rankings. For similar reasons to why Futuremark is looking into detecting if MVP is active I suppose.

I agree that turning the standings around is a bad argument for disallowing MVP. Scores achieved with MVP are not directly comparable to scores without it, and the advantage of MVP is purely a technology based development that applies across multiple benchmarks. Its advantage is not tied to knowledge or supported by learning, and its a clear demarcation point. For that reason, I think it seems logical to separate the rankings for MVP based results. If we want to keep competing with traditional high end CPU/GPU combos, which is the most popular category currently, it seems separate rankings are the only way to remain competitive and draw valid hardware comparisons. That leaves only 3 meaningful logical differences I can immediately identify from PCM05. First, is that PCM05 tweaks are tied to research, knowledge, and familiarity with the benchmark - these are good things to reward in a community founded on tweaking benchmarks. Second, there was no clear demarcation point with PCM05, tweaks were researched and evolved, and the rules evolved with them (few would argue the rules evolved perfectly, but rules were made in a best effort sense to keep it as interesting as possible). Third, tweaks in PCM05 are not platform specific - they apply across any mobo/cpu/storage setup, and there isn't one element that independently dominates all rankings... Each tweak in PCM05 has stretched the envelope for whats possible for total scores on a given hardware setup, but no single tweak, chip or piece of hardware have put relatively weak rigs in top spots. PCM05 tweaks make whatever hardware you have score better.If you want a top spot, everything must work together almost perfectly. I think the comparison to PCM05 is a relevant one. OS and software tweaks have grown PCM05 scores incrementally over time regardless of CPU and GPU - it has learning and improving benchmark scores at it core. MVP is a disruptive instance of technology that independently renders scores not directly comparable, which is only supported on certain platforms - it has nothing to do with learning, though it does improve scores. I think MVP is an easier judgement call to make, because the situation appears different enough... HWBot is about competing against people with similar hardware who know how to run benchmarks well.

It would be cool if there was a page on hwbot where only announcements like this were made - like hwbot policy milestones page, it helps to keep track of what the current rules are, and keep track of pertinent issues that affect the community. Currently, the best list we have is "find all posts by massman". Takes a lot of digging or monitoring of the forum to keep up, and often times issues like this don't actually lead to a rule change immediately... But they might weeks or months down the road. I'm not interested enough to follow the forum every day to catch a random thread or post like this, but I would follow a page dedicated to announcing hwbot's stance on issues like this that can impact the rules or interpretation of the rules.

Download this and install to ensure Systeminfo is installed correctly: http://www.3dmark.com/support/systeminfo-updates/ If systeminfo is listed under add/remove programs, you may want to uninstall it first, before installing that version you download.

Nice run!

Maybe 2 week window at the start of the comp that does not count points, only tracks rankings. After that window is up, points awarded each day - people could sandbag for the first 2 weeks that way, but then everyone would have motivation to post as soon as possible after that. Not a perfect solution, but could be cool. Still would probably want two conditions for ending the contest - a final end date if the competition is very close, and a blow out end point if its mathematically impossible for anyone to come back by the final end date. It's more complicated, but would be cool. Congrats to the winners by the way, impressive scores.

Ya, I don't mind winners at last minute, but I like it better with more competition before the very end.

Ya, he has a few good solutions. I like the king of the hill idea... you get more points the longer you hold top ranking. Like first place gets 5 points every day they are first, 2nd 4pts/day, 3rd 3pts/day, etc. Encourages people to submit early and compete not just at the end. The contest would end after four weeks, or after at least 2weeks if someone had a lead of 50 points in first or something. Not a perfect idea, requires recoding the point system for comps, but it could be interesting... right now the comp winners only compete at the end. Its the smart way to play with current comp rules.

OPTIMUS PRIME VOICE: Sandbaggers assemble! Lol

Sorry to hear that. I lost my 8120 as well. At least they died putting up some good scores, the way good chips are meant to die.

Massman said Noon CET (CET is UTC +1), which is 17.5 hours from now by my math. Competition timer says 29 hours from now. There's only one answer... New anti-sandbagger tactic by massman. Confuse everyone over the end time! :beer:

I've spent 12 hours on a single PCMark05 submission in the past, so your results are rocking.

Froxic: Nice submissions! Its good practice to look at the top 5 submissions in any category you are competing in, and look at their submission and screenshot to compare what they are doing to what you are doing. Details like the number of threads/cores and other useful information is usually apparent as a trend here.

Glad its still alive. I expect there's a faster hex score coming in wp32 yet. Really hard for the quads to compete at the top of that one, but for thuban the current wp32 scores are very beatable if there's more ln2 guys yet to submit.