havli

Yeah, something like that would be nice to see. Maybe selectable chart of user points / HW points / global points / submissions count over time... etc. That is of course in case the data are actually available in the database.

Thank you for the testing (I'm all day at work today, so I don't have access to the source code of x265 bench) So far it seems the fix could be rather simple - to use the same kind of time measurement for score as the one which indicates "elapsed time". This value is already inside the benchmark and most likely with precision good enough to calculate the score (the elapsed time is truncated to 1s precision for display purposes). Possibly there are other ways, which I will also consider, of course everything will be tested using at least windows 7/8/10 and several hardware platforms to make sure it works. Obviously using the x265 encoder's internal time (and thus) fps measuring function wasn't a good choice. Using this alternative method of time measuring would however kill the purpose of pause button... as it would make the score much lower. Btw - overkill results should be always slower than regular single instance run depending on the overkill mode. For example if 100 fps @ regular takes 20s, then 100 fps @ 2x overkill would be ~40s, 100 fps @ 3x overkill = ~60s... etc.

Yes, it seems the elapsed time is correct even on the cheated x265 scores - most likely different method is used to measure this time and the actual score time (which is then translated to fps). I will investigate this as soon as I can. I hope it will be possible to fix this vulnerability. I've started to work on update of the x265 benchmark few days ago, it seems there are more problems to solve that I originally thought... this one is extremely serious. I'm sorry such a big issue made it to the live version. During development I've put a lot of effort to make this benchmark as secure as possible (there are many anti-tampering measures in place)... but maybe the most obvious security hole slipped through and been here for the whole time. This time I must do even more thorough testing before the next version goes live.

At least one of them does unlock havli`s 3DMark Vantage - Performance score: 24297 marks with a Radeon HD 6950 Or GPU-Z claims it is unlocked. I've already bought it like this and didn't test how it performs with stock bios. Anyway 1GB models are indeed rare to unlock, so 2GB are better choice.

From the file size it seems HWBP is using png compression, so the file size can get rather big... especially when saving competition scores with complicated background (like this one). 3.8MB score uploads just fine here, while 6.8MB does not.... so the limit is somewhere in between. Updated version sounds like a good idea if the developer is still active. In that case I can provide some hints what would be nice to fix. Nothing game-breaking, just few GUI-related things that are a little annoying. I've run into similar problems while developing x265 and they are solved there (I hope ).

Of course it is about OC, skill and fun... but who decides what is fun to bench and what is not? People who bench their stuff of course, and whether it is server HW or not depends on their taste. WRs are dominated by servers and always has been (obviously, it is the best available x86 HW). Maybe in the past it wasn't that obviout because IIRC HWBOT only had one benchmark suitable for such machines - wPrime 1024M. Now there are cinebenches and other MT benchmarks where servers occupy WRs.... because simply they are the best. Industry is still here because they care the most about the shiny OC events and newsflashes - where only desktop HW is used (and it is perfectly ok)... but server HW still has the place on top, noone talks about that in media but it is there and always were. Since 2010 (when I joined) amount of members here increased from maybe 30000 to > 110000 now, and all the time servers were here. Like I said I think what is pushing people away from overclocking are not servers or the HW occupying top scores... it very well may be Intel's restrictive policy concerning overclocking lowend and mainstream CPUs. If all of them were unlocked, many people would appreciate that and started using them here. Banning subzero was only hypothetical of course - no way it could be enforced. If something sends hwbot to the graveyard, it will be technical issues, coding errors and such (there are bugs that hasn't been fixed for years)... not people and their preference of HW to bench on. Obviously (some) top OCers have everything gifted - how else they could post scores of ES CPUs at launch or even before? Noone except them has access to this kind of stuff. How about Gigabyte SOC LN2 boards, sometimes ES DDR4 sticks, etc? They do it as a job, of course they get all the equipment needed. I don't care how they started - they get stuff for free now. Banning 1366 Xeon is non-deserved advantage for people refusing to see the wider picture. It is like banning Mercedes engines in F1 races, because other teams fear they could lose to them.

Yes, I remember the old global points system. It is much more fair today. I can imagine those 5 people with unlimited server power. They would own all multicore WR, sure. But how different is that from lets say top 50 people in the Elite League? Some of them also have more or less unlimited resources.... which implies they would hold the WRs. Not with server HW, no... but with super binned $1700 10-core 6950X in the past and soon $2000 18-core 7980XE. Is it really so much different? I don't think so - for mere mortal overclocker top spots are always out of reach and it doesn't matter which HW in on the first place at the moment. There are so many ranking you can compete in that everyone finds the one which fits his needs the most. But out of those 110000 people very few can hit the first place in their league, global ranking or WR. In short - I believe noone of the "lower 100000 people" care what HW is currently dominating the rankings because they realize it is out of their reach anyway. They overclock and benchmark things because they like it, not because they wish to be the OC king. If you say server HW is killing all the fun and pushing regular people away because they can't compete.... I say let's ban LN2/DICE for the very same reason. Even sub-average LN2 score is far better than anyone can reach with air or water... and for this reason people are leaving. See how absurd this sounds? In fact people are not leaving even if they know they have no chance to get points/cups/etc - for example x265 i5 6600k ranking HWBOT x265 Benchmark - 1080p overclocking records @ HWBOT There are 30 scores of 0.1 points (not so long ago there were no points at all) with no chance of scoring any HW/global/WR points (it is i5) and yet people still bench it.

@websmile I still don't understand why so much hate for "server" CPUs. Isn't the whole point of HWBOT to attract as many people to our overclocking and benchmarking hobby as possible? Just let people decide what to bech, for regular submission at least. Removing all server HW would shake up all rankings a lot, even HW masters - which in my opinion is the most valuable ranking because it requirest most dedication to benchmarking. not just some cheap 20 HW + 15 GL best scores + some comp points. Prices of i7 will never fall lower than Xeons - which is exactly the reason not to buy it. My budget is limited and naturally I will choose what is best price/perf/general usefulness. I don't like to throw money out of the window for no reason.

Of course I won't compete here... it is kinda difficult when I don't have the HW for it Engineering samples are different issue (not available to buy officially) and I completely agree with current rules. HWBOT may be consumer HW platform... and yet most WRs are held by server class CPUs.

Personally for me competing with server farms or LN2 cooled Core i7 Extreme makes no difference... as I can beat neither of them. There are people who have free access to servers and also people with free access to good amount of binned i7 and LN2... difference is not that big. I'm sure there are much more people feeling discriminated by banning all Xeons instead of banning only the big ones. Btw - there are no "big guns" Xeons on 1366 socket. Obviously you want desktop-only competitions. So I propose to use both desktop CPUs and Xeons similar to them. "Small" Xeons are very easy to get, affordable and perfectly balanced performance-wise with their desktop counterparts. So, what is the problem? It seems to me this rule is purely based on marketing basis - person X won competition Y using Xeon Z doesn't sound cool enough. What about AMD? Same treatment as Xeons - "desktop comparable" Opterons allowed, bigger ones not. Btw - why exactly are 939 opterons for TC17 allowed and everything else "server grade" banned? Looks like double standard to me. Since this is s1366 competition topic - let's hold onto that - what is difference is between 1366 4/6-core Xeons vs 4/6-core i7? And what difference is between 1/2-core s939 A64 and 1/2-core s939 Opteron 1xx? Early Opterons were famous overclokers and broke many records back in the day... while 1366 xeons werent famous at all... so most likely this is the reason. I believe the rules should be based on logic, not feelings and name of the CPU in question.

What bad experience you have then? Because I had no issues at all - it is the same silicon, same board, same RAM, same everything except writing on the IHS and name in CPU-Z. "low pointers and useless therefore" is a matter of perspective. I can get more points from obscure Xeon then I ever will using i7 920... because quite simply Xeon is (almost) guaranteed 1-2 points + cup / score. On the other hand benching i7 on ambient cooling (I'm not a fan of subzero) results in rank 400 of 650 and 0.1 points / score most of the time. Also I don't resell CPUs, everything I buy remains mine for my collection and available for future rebench when needed. So I think you understand 5 xeons instead of one i7 is much better option.... Anyway here we are discussing competitions, so points are not important, only the score is. I understand dual-socket boards and/or huge multicore Xeons kill the fun for i7 users, as they can't reach score that high no matter how hard they try. But... I really see no reason why single socket MB + Xeon based on following logic couldn't be used: 1366 = 6C/12T fastest i7 / 6C/12T fastest Xeon -> allowed all i7 + all Xeons up to 6 cores 2011 = 6C/12T fastest i7 / 8C/16T fastest Xeon -> -> allowed all i7 + all Xeons up to 6 cores 2011V3 = 10C/20T fastest i7 / 22C/44T fastest Xeon -> -> allowed all i7 + all Xeons up to 10 cores etc...

Banning Xeon is the best way to kill this competition for many people. i7 970 = $120, Xeon X5650 = $25... I guess plenty of people (me included) simply won't pay 5x as much for exactly the same CPU only because it is called i7.

Most likely something is missing in your special win7 install. I never had this problem in windows 7 and neither anywhere else. But I never use modded OS, so it must be the reason.

How exactly the ranking algorithm works? For example the situation is as following: 3DMark01 GTX 200 (3 GPUs) person1 -> submits 110k with GTX 280 (day 1) person1 -> submits 115k with GTX 285 (day 2) person2 -> submits 105k with GTX 260 216 (day 3) person3 -> submits 120k with GTX 285 (day 4) -------------------- So after day 2 we have one score contributing to the stage which is 115k with GTX 285... 38333 total score. After day 3 we have 115k (GTX 285) + 105k (GTX 260 216)..... 73333 total score. But what happens after day 4? The logical approach would be 120k (GTX 285) + 110k (GTX 280) + 105k (GTX 260 216).... 111666 points total. Question is, does it really work this way?

It seems you are having two problems: 1. The x265 Benchmark package is compressed using rar5 format, which is not compatible with older versions of Winrar. 2. With 99.999% chance a false positive detection by your AV software. I'm afraid there is no solution to this other than either add an exception to your AV to ignore "HWBOTx265Benchmark.exe" (if possible) or use a different AV software.

@cagej I don't think this monitoring issue is such a big deal. Until this ROG competition, noone has ever used it... Without the monitoring module the benchmark is working just fine and that is 99.99% use case. Development of the 2.0.0 version wasn't easy and took a lot of time, most likely much more than all the users in total have spent running x265 with monitoring on to this day. Don't forget that except some new 3Dmarks and XTU, other HWBOT benchmarks don't support realtime monitoring / tools for LCC at all. Yes, the x265 monitoring feature is far from perfect... but this to be expected as, you know... there is a difference betwen Futuremark / Intel and one guy who is developing the x265 benchmark in his free time after work and gets exactly nothing for it. Most likely there will be an update in the future (no ETA), but I can't guarantee all these new CPUs will be supported for ambient / LCC competitions. Everything depends on the Open Hardware Monitor development. It is open source project but performing the needed adjustments myself is beyond my reach so I must wait when (if) new version supporting Ryzen / Skylake-X / etc. become available and then I can use it.

I think you should run desktop at 1024x768 @ 99Hz... and then 3dmark will use this mode also. Otherwise is just defalts to one of the predefined modes (which are all 60Hz).

Hmm, 178k @ 60Hz and 185k @ 144Hz using GTX 1070 and 3dm03... so nothing ground breaking but it works somewhat. Which is weird, cause there is no logical reason for connection between fps and refresh (when running vsync off), 3dmark must be bugged somehow.

How much difference does the hirefresh make?

In this case, VIA should be better - assuming it supports 1/2 AGP divider. Unfortunately BE6 and PIII 700 are the best things I have for Slot 1.

It might, but also depends on CPU and MB. RFM is more sensitive to high AGP clock, that's why I had to run only at 124 MHz FSB... the CPU itself is stable even at 140.

Thank you... I'm not sure I still remember how to get R128p working properly though It has been a long time sice I benched these GPUs last time. This round will be interesting.

Great run... GF2 Ultra is the real killer

Yeah, it is working now - thank you.

Great run! Are there some special mods needed to get SLI running in XP when using 7700K? I was trying 2x GTX 260 and there is no option to activate SLI... even with the latest XP drivers. On the other hand the same happens in win7 unless I use the unofficial patch, so this might be just some VGA BIOS incompatibility.