I.M.O.G.

If I go here: http://hwbot.org/team/overclockers.com/#Members It says Optytrooper is the biggest contributor with 975 points. Since this is the team page, it doesn't make much sense to list the top contributor according to User Points (UP/10 count for the team)... It seems top contributors on the team page should have TPP displayed instead (or TPP + UP/10), in which case it would say optytrooper has contributed 2100 or 2200 points to the team. On a similar note, when it lists the top 5 contributors in the current month, it lists them according to Userpoints I believe. Since this is displayed on the team page as well, it would make more sense to me to list them according to TPP, or TPP + UP/10. Basically, since Rev4 doesn't count UP for much of anything other than personal totals, maybe the team member page is due for an update to reflect the more important numbers - TPP.

How was the boil off at those volts Juan? On bulldozer, boil off seems the same as deneb/thuban at less than 1.8v or so. Above that and boil off at idle is similar to deneb/thuban under load. Curious if you notice a big difference at 2.3v compared to 1.8 or less on the chip.

Thanks guys! Gonna take 3x next. Still seeking parts for 1x. Just got the CPU for 3x though.

lol! Nice work Juan!

Thanks Right on. Took me a little time to understand where the real points are. BTW: x8 PCM05 players - seek shelter.

Eh, not sure I'm going 7970. Will be plenty of people on my team with them putting up good scores, and they are pricey. Got my mind set on doing 1st with this chip as well (not to mention the only way I know to get 150 is buying a full computer and harvesting the CPU)... I'm in the market for a good htref mobo and ddr2 memory. I'm limited by this CIVE currently, but with just a fem hundred mhz more, and I've done better WPR subtest, I can do 1st.

Ya, looks like I screwed up the screenshot and didn't have results displayed - details are in futuremark link - 218 xp startup.

Great work Nick! Congrats!

Not sure, but this may be related... I keep posting visitor messages on your profile, then deleting them.

Nice work Codeman!

Way to go Nick!

Instructions for changing drives? That is a tweak which is mentioned but never described as far as I've found, and I've looked into it fairly well. When the benchmark window loses focus the benchmark aborts, so it would seem the change would need to be scripted or maybe hotkeyed - there is a trick to changing drives on the fly which isn't well known. I will have to keep working on it, or keep struggling to pull down xp startup, unless someone cares to share? Seeing as how its only a workaround for the cap, it would be really nice if someone well informed has a tip for changing drives on the fly.

+1!

Congrats ftw! thanks for seeing this tthru massman and a great giveaway!

Skill is a terrible term to describe what it takes to compete here. Some people use skill to describe only competing by maximizing frequencies, others use it to describe familiarity with a benchmark, still others use it to describe those who can perform their own hardware modifications - "skill" is a terrible term because each person determines for themselves what they truly consider skill, while they don't agree with what other people call "skill". "Skill" on hwbot has always been about familiarity with the benchmarks, familiarity with the hardware, and special tweaks that maximize scores. There isn't a whole lot of skill in Overclocking itself, its just practice with and understanding of the hardware. I've gotten some pretty mean scores, but it isn't skill, my teammates have helped me a lot, and I've bumbled around the settings long enough to get the best out of what hardware I have. I think the term "skill" should be used less often. Why not update the rules to only permit hardware that Christian owns? It leaves plenty of hardware to select from, and he could verify that its actually available for regular purchase.

+1 Konakona, that was pretty well said. I agree on his last point. We could all run stock settings, or only permit changing frequencies - but then that isn't a competition as we'd all post relatively the same scores if we just match the other guy's settings. HWBot by nature is founded on tweaking/familiarity with benchmarks - that is where we compete. Every benchmark has tweaks, even the simplest like sp1m, pifast, or wp32. In my view, PCmark05 has roughly the same amount of holes in comparison to 3D01 - the main difference is 3D01 was popular because it became a classic 3D benchmark, and PCMark05 is not as popular because it is a bit unusual in that it isn't ruled by processor/GPU speed. Both have some rather considerable tweaks and there is a lot of planning and strategy that goes into maximizing a run. Good clean fun for those who honestly want to compete and not cheat. I think the ability of a benchmark to be run effectively should be judged primarily by the top 20 submissions in that benchmark. If you have a bunch of people in the top 20 that are obviously gaming the benchmark, the benchmark is broken... I DO NOT SEE THAT on pcmark05. So I'm not sure why this discussion has gone as far as it has. The current PCM05 rules, in light of Kona's comments, are working and rankings are not gamed heavily in the top 20 - maybe some lower rankings go unreported or unresolved. The top places in pcmark05 are mostly split by mtech and stevero currently however, using raid ssds or raid hardware ramdrives, and it goes to show the power of strong storage in the benchmark. I think that is the reason the vote clearly shows PCM05 should be kept. Full Disclosure: I just invested nearly 2K in a storage setup to compete in PCM05, so maybe I'm bias, however I've looked at the rankings extensively and my conclusion is that top scores can be taken with public knowledge tweaks using current generation CPU, GPU, and storage. You don't have to know every hocus pocus tweak to compete well in the benchmark, if you use the right hardware, and can max its performance, you will do well! (Watch for my submissions when I return home from CES) I think another big part of why people perceive a problem with PCM05 is because it is so storage driven, and storage is one of the few technologies that has exploded in its advancement in the past couple years in the presence of SSDs and improved caching techniques... Some seem to think this is in some way unfair.

Do you mean the subforums rather than threads? They can be automatically marked as read, these are the options an admin can select from: 1) Inactivity/Cookie Based - once a user has been inactive for a certain amount of time (the value of the cookie timeout option) all threads and forums are considered read. Individual threads are marked as read within a session via cookies. This option is how all versions of vBulletin before 3.5 functioned. 2) Database (no automatic forum marking) - this option uses the database to store thread and forum read times. This allows accurate read markers to be kept indefinitely. However, in order for a forum to be marked read when all threads are read, the user must view the list of threads for that forum. This option is more space and processor intensive than inactivity-based marking. 3) Database (automatic forum marking) - this option is the same as a previous option, but forums are automatically marked as read when the last new thread is read. This is the most usable option for end users, but most processor intensive. For the subforums to be automatically marked, option 3 would need to be configured.

Right-O. Read threads are handled horribly by default in vbulletin, but most everyone is used to it because most forums use the default. With the default cookie based handling, you can "view new posts" and you'd still see threads which you just read a minute ago. You can also be subscribed to a thread, but it doesn't show as new when you go to usercp - you have to go to the subscriptions list to see if it has been updated. With the database based handling, when you "view new posts" you'll only see threads you haven't read, or threads that that have been active since the last time you read them. When you go to usercp, you will always see your new subscribed threads there, until you actually read them. With the default, it is unpredictable when things will be marked as read automatically - if you access the site then leave without reading anything, everything will be marked as read a few hours after you leave. With the database option, things are only marked read when you actually read them, or when you click "mark forums read" under the quicklinks menu. One catch: We use today's posts on OC, which shows search.php?do=getdaily results - everything from the past 24 hours. Most sites use new posts by default, which shows search.php?do=getnew results - everything the member hasn't yet read, regardless of if its 2 hours old or 10 days old.

This problem almost solves itself.

Great score! WOW on the virus scan result.

Yup, Hokie is right on. Thanks for making the change so quick!

I often miss updates to threads on HWBot, because unread threads are automatically marked as read a few hours after I visit the site - this is a normal function of vBulletin when it uses cookie based thread marking. When database based thread marking is enabled, threads are only marked as read after they are actually read - this makes it simpler to be sure you don't miss updates. Database based marking can affect performance - on Overclockers forums, there was no performance impact when I switched them over to database based marking. Dunno if it makes sense for you guys to do here, but I thought I'd suggest it, as its really worked nicely on Overclockers.

Great, thanks for the update!

Could you provide a version in XCF format? Or any vector friendly format for GIMP? Working on some new OCF icon usage, and having good base images to work off of help. I'd be interested in the logo, as well as your robot mascot in vector formats if possible.

Cool article, thanks. Good read. Not sure about the first graphs showing single core performance - it seems more logical to me to show single thread performance rather than single core performance. Showing single thread performance cuts out the HT/multicore evolution of strategy for both sides, as that perspective is covered sufficiently in the second graph. By dropping the Bulldozer down to one core, it eliminates an important factor - AMD's strategic decision to include more cores at less cost. In the meantime the first graph includes Intel's strategic decision to include virtualized threading - that is an important factor as well. A more meaningful comparison would handicap both chips equally. Not a big deal, but I think at a glance the graphs could be misleading for those who don't stop to think about what is being shown. In the future for an article including this sort of comparison, it would be cool to see HT disabled for a true single threaded performance comparison. The important data including the outcome of their architecture strategy is shown sufficiently in the default runs and scores. Compliments on the article again, a lot of work and cool results. I just wanted to offer feedback to lend my perspective.