I.M.O.G.

I haven't heard anything yet Christian. Guessing massman is waiting to confirm the prize before notifying a winner.

Nice, that is a good solution. Spam is such a waste of time for forums. I use a Honey Pot - there are fields on the registration form hidden via CSS (most any non-text based browser supports CSS), but automated registration bots use command line tools that don't process CSS - they see and fill out the hidden fields all the time, so we give them error messages.

Before this month is out, if I were you, I would integrate a prominent donation system like the one used on heatware.com. Basically, a "top donation" box like the one they have in the top left sidebar, with a link that takes people directly to a hwbot donation page. Not saying that solves economic challenges, but for those who appreciate some things they have seen happening, it wouldn't force them to go searching for how to contribute monetarily. HeatWare doesn't do that much for its users, but still plenty of people pitch in some extra change just because they appreciate the service.

Got it, thanks. I admire the pace of development here by the way. Nice to see, and hope you guys can keep it up.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I did something to have a signature image in my profile. It has since not been updated and looks like crap, and I no longer can find a way to update it or create a new one. I can go to edit signature and remove the crappy signature I have now. Just can't create a new one - is that feature missing for now, or am I missing the feature? Thanks.

I think you were commenting off the cuff here, and hadn't thought this through until the end - To prohibit people from frantically scrambling for 4th place with lower submissions, only higher submissions should be ranked in the competition. Until the last second, all 4 top teams would be manipulating their submissions to be higher than 5 and lower than 3rd. Worse yet, if we go by the last result submitted for the ranking, while the top teams are wrestling over 4th place by constantly resubmitting scores, another team is submitting random scores of their own, making it nearly impossible to tell what the true ranking is, and at the last minute they too attempt to sniper 4th at the last minute. So basically, the way the rules are now are better than using the "last" result in the ranking. If only higher scores are permitted, each team's only option to win is going up, and we're all here for higher scores and winning. As is, like you said this doesn't stop anyone from sandbagging, but it makes it a bit more complicated.

Thanks for the tip. I will put it to good use. Overclockers.com has arguably the safest and most difficult to access classified trading section on the internet. I'm comfortable worrying about that without your help. Thanks though.

Thanks for the comment Frederik, and others. The ideas are only half baked and could use tweaking, but I'm glad they got my basic idea across and made some sense. The current competition format doesn't really develop a sense of urgency until the last couple days... I think option 2 could help start that sense of urgency early. I'd be excited to take part and kick ass early on.

I hope my moderators aren't reading this... I give them extra punishment every chance I get. If you are consistent with your mistreatment, they begin to think that is the way its supposed to be!

AmericanNightmare: Whining is not competing. It's just whining. No reason for it bud. Man up and move on, or move out. Our team doesn't need a bitchfest, not what we're about. Props again on the win!

I'll be the first to congratulate Christian and ocaholics on the HWBot OC Challenge for November - that was a really impressive showing! Well done. That win highlights the strength of strategy also - sandbagging scores until the last minute is a good strategic move. By not letting your best scores be known until the last minute, no one has time to react and take a run at them before the contest is over. OC Forums has used it in competitions in the past, as have other teams as well. Suggestion? Eliminate the strategic advantage of sandbagging scores until the end of a competition. Why? As I've read from Massman in the past, the spirit of HWBot is competition and pushing the limit - we can all readily see and appreciate that everyday. It's about putting your best result out there and saying "come and get it"! By eliminating the strategic advantage of sandbagging, it would encourage greater competition and everyone has to push harder. That's what its all about. In the current final scores take all format - everyone submitting scores before the very end has a good spirit, but its a dumb move strategically. If you want to win, why show your cards early letting the competition know what they have to beat? How? There are a few options to eliminate the sandbagging strategic advantage. I would implement a 7 day grace period after a competition kicks off, where submissions are open, but the boints timer doesn't start. After the 7 day grace period, start the boint timer: 1. Award the winner of team competitions based on who holds 1st place the longest Example: The competition runs for 30 days. After the 7 day grace period, the boint timer starts increasing for teams in the lead using a multiplier. For 1st place the boint timer increases by 2X, 2nd place 1.5X, 3rd place 1X, 4th place .75X, 5th place .5X - all other teams gain nothing. As teams gain and lose position their multiplier is adjusted, and the competition ends once the 30 days is up, or once it becomes impossible to catch up to the leading team in the time remaining for the contest. 2. Award the winner for who holds first place for X number of days total Example: The competition has no end date. Each team has a boint timer for the amount of time they spend in 1st place. After the 7 day grace period, the first team to hold 1st place for a total of 10 days wins. Team X may start off in 1st for 3 days, team Y takes them over and holds it for 5 days, team Z takes over and holds it for 1 day, then Team X takes over and holds it for 7 days - team X has defended 1st place for a total of 10 days, and they are the winners of the contest. 3. Any other idea you can think of Example: Like idea 1 and 2, the contest rules are made in a way to require everyone to submit their best scores early, challenging other teams to "come and get it"! I think the current system is fun, simple, and it works. This is just a suggestion - however, I do think if the competition rules are reworked, it could encourage more competition and better support the spirit of pushing the limits.

Right back at you - nice scores!

Thanks guys. No WR for me! This is my second Bulldozer chip, the first was an FX-6100, and I hit my goal - I just wanted to see 8GHz. Once I run the other 2D benches on what I have now, I'll be selling them off and moving on to something new. Probably done with BD, at least until more submissions are made to make some other BD models worth more boints to the team.

Wow, nice run!

Living in Rootstown, OH to be exact. This is a good chip, luck of the draw from Microcenter.

Good job Angry.

It's due time vaseline gets the credit it deserves.

Nice job splat, hadn't seen this until now. Good run.

There is nothing that seems suspicious about this. Voltage, settings, and cooling all look about right for a CPUz valid. OCF, as a team we only need to answer to the HWBOT judges. We don't have to answer to whiners. Always plenty of those on HWBot.

I don't think there is any basis upon which to suggest or believe that. It looks like the core parking issue has been well documented across the internet since October 2009, for example: http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?high=&m=1852473 Like you, I would like to think Microsoft would patch something like this - but they haven't and I don't know if that is because they don't consider it a bug, or maybe it saves power, or maybe they don't care. Dunno, but after it being a known issue for over 2 years, I wouldn't expect them to release a fix for it.

The most important part of a review: Is it verifiable? In science, that is the key to testing and proving things - can the results be reproduced/verified? In reviews, if you say how the test was performed and what the result was - anyone using the same platform should have all the information necessary to reproduce similar results, verifying the accuracy of your results. If you are tweaking the default OS install in order to modify the results you achieve in a review, this should be clearly stated in the review. If it is, you are good to go. Many people are not aware of tweaks like this which optimize for multi-threaded extraction/compression performance under HT. If Windows hasn't released a fix to actually resolve the reported bug, I'd suggest that the performance results given from manually tweaking the registry could give most people the wrong impression about the performance they are likely to see from the processor in their system at home... Unless they are willing to edit the registry as you describe in your review. Do you know of any power usage impact? The change disables core parking, which is described here as a power saving feature.

Nice run mad222.

More voltage doesn't help. I'll take it to 2.2V to be sure once I get more LN2, but I'm fairly certain this chip is topped out - I've already had it to 2.1V.

Thanks guys. Might still go for better on an fx-8150 - at this point though its just luck of the draw with finding the right CPU.

Thanks for mentioning it Hokie. For those with the fetish, vaseline pr0n: http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7014438&postcount=27