Rasparthe

That is quite possibly the greatest anti sandbagging idea I have heard yet. Its not perfect since the guy in #1 gets the luxury of backup scores but still I think its the best idea I've heard to date if HWBOT is serious about anti-sandbagging (which I'm still not convinced they should be) +1 from me.

I completely understand the idea behind the stage and why it was done. I even applaud the fact that HWBOT is so committed to getting the word out about overclocking but I still don't believe it belongs in a competition like this. Not because it isn't a great idea and important for the overclocking scene but because you are eliminating teams from the competition because they can't take part in Stage 4. For some teams its not even because they just don't want to bother, I would imagine there are teams that just are unable to compete in the stage. In my opinion its different than not being able to simply find a piece of hardware because of the organization/time/money needed to participate in the stage. The point structure might be partly to blame, by not participating you are losing as much of 10% of your total score. It makes for non-level playing field since it gives preference for the bigger teams with infrastructure to put on events. Every team should be able to compete and have a chance at grabbing the points without a huge amount of investment. Especially when the investment isn't even in the hardware needed for the stage. Again I like the idea and perhaps HWBOT should put some prizes up just for event submissions but for a stage in one of the major competitions it seems out of place. Maybe a reduced point total so the bigger teams don't get as much of an unfair advantage over smaller or more geographically diverse teams.

I do like the idea of this stage but I don't think it has a place in a major competition like this. Perhaps on its own as a non-point stage for prizes or something but in its current form it is a failure. Only 7 teams actually put up scores in the stage and some teams not even for both substages, that is less than 10% participation rate. By including this stage, it effectively eliminates from the competition any team that isn't able to organize, can't afford, or isn't geographically situated to put on an event for the stage. Again, I respect the idea of the stage and what was trying to be accomplished by it, but to eliminate 90% of the teams based on something that doesn't have to do with overclocking skill/hardware/ability doesn't seem the greatest idea. Just my two cents, on this stage now that its over.

Extra 2 points is an extra two points!

Nice score, although probably won't stand long, I think your efficiency needs work

Well deserved, very nice score

Likely all the bad subs have been removed (illegal hardware, bad SS, etc)

LOL! Well not balancing, but hot glued them there. The mods got in the way of laying it flat and I needed something like a stand to keep them from getting crushed and ruining my horrible soldering. Marker lids were close at hand....

Yes, but OVP popped off before I could max it out should be more to come if I can find the time to resolder and make another run.

Ahh crap... I thought you packed the video card you sent me in baking soda....

I cannot understand how this thread has so many people agreeing with the idea that if you simply put a score first you should receive more points. Its incredible, I cannot think of one hobby, competition, sport that would give precedence to a record holder simply because they did it first. I would like to hear of one if someone can think of it. I would have thought the only discussion would be how the points get allocated. The Olympics determine ties during qualifying heats as follows: "A tie among athletes in different heats for a ranking or qualifying position is handled by: Considering the actual times recorded by the athletes who tied to 1/1000th of a second. If a tie has been determined for a ranking position, the tie shall be broken by a draw. If a tie has been determined for a qualifying position for a subsequent round, the athletes who tied shall be placed in the next round. If all who tied cannot be placed in the subsequent round, lots shall be drawn to determine who shall be placed in the next round." Surprisingly, no mention of which person ran first. Even a random draw system is more fair than going by who simply did the time first.

Wow, killer chip! 6Ghz here we come! Nice score

Well, then inform me. I think it would be incredibly interesting for everyone involved to hear exactly what the requirements are to keep HWBOT healthy. I personally think there are a good many systemic problems with HWBOT and many good reasons why it has trouble attracting new Pros (maybe Massman can answer when the last time an application was accepted to turn Pro, not forced by ES but application, again my ignorance showing). Those are also only my opinions, but I have a business background and can't help applying it to my hobby, its a professional hazard. I don't think I would count my tirade as criticism since I do agree with your position. I just don't believe my opinion is so overriding that I won't listen to someone that's entire job is to grow HWBOT. On this you are totally correct. But I do care about HWBOT and I care if HWBOT moves so far in a direction that doesn't provide the kind of enviroment needed to foster new and upcoming talent. But I will take your advice and leave enough alone, since as they say, I don't have any skin in the game....

Holy Crap?!? HWBOT allows multi-user accounts?!? You have to use 7 guys to submit in the Pro League just to make it into the Top 10? Your right, I take it all back. Pro League is in perfect shape, keep it! If Team.AU takes #1 spot then I guess someone with 10 guys would be needed to make a run in Pro League... Wait.. this is sounding more and more like a Pro Cup. Odd...

Your right, don't know any of you guys at all, just pulling from your pages on HWBOT. Perhaps you submit scores under another name? No idea. I'm completely on the outside looking in from the position of a guy who has zero desire to be a Pro Overclocker and therefore don't follow the league. I do have incredible respect for Knopflerbruce (which is why I threw him in there) and a bunch of other guys but none of them happen to be Pro Overclockers. Which of course, speaks volumes, at least to me.

First off, I want to put out there that I don't particularly agree with the scrapping of the Pro League because I'm sure that is about the only thing I agree with the majority of this thread about. I thought that I would just try to avoid this thread since I'm not in the Pro League and didn't have any desire to be in the Pro League, but after reading some of the latest comments I couldn't resist. I think that most of those "pros" browbeating and trying to bulldoze their old way of thinking back into status quo need a reality check. If every last of the 77 Pro League members suddenly got up and quit today, do you know what would happen to HWBOT? Nothing. If every member of one of the three leagues (not counting Hardware Masters) suddenly quit which would damage HWBOT the most? Pro? All 77 of 20838 members of HWBOT? This is the number one reason why HWBOT has trouble recruiting/attracting new blood to overclocking. A heavy focus on what 0.003% of the population desires, a systemic problem deep within the psyche of HWBOT. But that is a discussion for another thread. You can see it here, 50% of the key followers? Really? A handful of the "pros" are upset because of the new format and suddenly because they are the loudest, barking the most, squeak more than anyone else, "everyone" is upset. Sorry to inform you but the majority don't really care what happens to the Pro League. Look at the poll, an event that, as so many have predicted will be the end of HWBOT, managed to garner 71 votes. WOW, overwhelming. The loudest protests from guys like Dinos22 (last submissions - 109 days ago, 138 days, 165 days ago), Uncle Fester (163 days ago, 242 days ago), phil (47 days ago, 57 days ago), bob(nz) (86 days, 97 days), hipro5 (No new activity...?). These are the community guys that Massman should rely on to give advice on how to keep HWBOT current and growing? If I was him I would be much more interested in what guy like mtech (14 subs in last 31 days - #1 in XOC) or Dead Things (13 subs in last 31 days - #1 in Enthusiast) or Knopflerbruce (19 subs in the last 31 days) or hell even PedroC1999 (at the time of this writing the latest guy with 1st submission achievement) because it would be interesting to see what someone that has just joined thinks the Pro League should be about. A "community" that is pretty close to non participating arguing about how cutting a league will suddenly cause no one to participate. Seems a bit rich. If you believe that Massman has the best interests of HWBOT at heart, if you believe he is intelligent and done extensive thinking, research, and talking with a variety of parties about this change, (including vendors) then how can you not give it a chance? As I said at the start of this tirade, I don't believe that removing the Pro League was correct because it takes away something important from those that have taken the plunge to lift themselves above XOC. Leaving guys in limbo without ranking at all, even worse, in my opinion. Still, I can see what Massman is trying to do with this move, trying to use the "Pro" status as a lure for new blood to move up and make a name for themselves. I don't know if the execution was the best but time will tell. And Massman, never apologize for leading when your the leader. Believe in your path if you honestly believe that you have the time/research/investigation that points you in this direction. Look above on how I agree with that definition of community. The first Cup hasn't even run its course yet. If it proves to not meet the all the goals you have then you can apologize, take your lumps like man and own up to it. Until then there is no need to apologize. Just my two cents as a 'fake?' overclocker. Flame on, flame on.

Great score, good to see the super secret D 970 kicking ass!

@ Rbauss - Your entire rant boils down to that Pro Cup should only include benchmarks and hardware that you like and currently own. Expand your horizons a little, excelling in areas that you are not familiar with, that is the real meaning of being a Pro. And don't worry, Intel SR2 isn't the platform to use to win the Cinebench stage.

I'm glad you added the "Who cares" option, got my vote. Although I don't really think any OCer should sit in Limbo, so really my vote is for: "Who cares about Pro League". Good luck guys, glad to finally see some passion out of that section of HWBOT.

And I yours, I had not thought on the idea that they are split by vendor making the larger than normal number of categories. I appreciate the insight and since I have no power to make a decision on the matter either I hope we have both provided a good picture of the situation for those that can. Cheers!

I don't think your comparison to video cards is completely accurate. In my opinion, the comparison I made in my original post to processors is better. I do see your point about the boards being split by vendor and it making an artificially high number of categories within the one benchmark. I still think its the accurate way to go because their is so much completely different features to boards, even those among the same chipset. Why did they tighten those VGA rules? I wasn't inside the room with those that made the decision but I suspect that it had alot to do with the fact that an MSI card XYZ was in most ways the same as Asus card XYZ. Sure some were binned better and so forth or had this feature or that feature but when it came down to nuts and bolts they were pretty much the same. It isn't the same for motherboards, with wild variations inside the same chipset in some cases. The entire point of having categories is to make sure that hardware is compared against hardware that is comparable. Lumping all boards together inside one chipset does not do this. Advocating for this to happen is the exact same as pushing to have Celeron D (Prescott-256) chips (for example) all put together in the same category. They are all the same core, some probably even came from the same silicon, but arranged by binning by Intel. Therefore there should only be a Northwood skt 478 category or one SandyBridge category. Why would you want to put a DFI P35 T2RS in the same category as a Foxconn P35AX-S? It runs against the very reason to have comparable hardware against comparable hardware, the only thing they have in common is the same chipset. The only thing a Celeron D 310 has in common with Celeron D 345 is the Prescott 256 core. I think you are the most wrong with this statement. Motherboards have only one benchmark, just reference clock. Even if you went out and found 100 motherboards (which is enough of a challenge, in all my hardware hoarding I've only managed 62) that no one had bothered to put up you would end up with 520 TPP. Unless your getting those boards for free you are likely much better off finding 100 CPUs and running the 10 benchmarks available to CPUs. Even at stock, an Athlon 700 Pluto valid (for example) gives out 4.3 TPP, running a Celeron s478 310 at stock nets you approx 2 TPP per benchmark, or 20 TPP in total and far greater than the 5.2 TPP from motherboards. There are only 12 motherboards that even give more than 2 hardware points. 12! And I think you are missing the greatest reason, they are a great entry device for people with either very limited or no budget that still want to feel like they are contributing to a team. Most hardcore overclockers don't bother with reference clock points, or use boards that are pretty heavily contested (if there is such a thing) but the guy starting out, using an abandoned computer he found in his basement does. There are very, very, very limited avenues for new overclockers to explore cheaply as it is and changing this up will quash one of them. As always, its just my opinion on the matter and as I stated before I could probably be convinced to either ban OEM/non-retail boards or lump them by chipset although I would still probably like to leave it alone given the choice.

The e8600 is definitely a different case and I don't even mind that it is that way. It makes a natural progression from people benching e8600 because it isn't worth anything to other chips. I see the same with motherboards, right now because the reference clock is worth some points guys are grinding points out of motherboards. Why is that bad? Eventually the amount of free/stock points in motherboards will make it less worth it and getting those points will become harder and harder and people will move to something else. The same natural progression. Why is gaining points grinding motherboard reference clocks so evil? Its hardly ludicrous, I mean an entire piece of hardware for 5 points? That guy stealing 10-20 junk boards, still needs to have both the chips and the RAM to run those boards and take the time to load O/S and work it to get the points. That guy with rare CPU will have done the benches on air, and phase and LN2 and have the chip sold on eBay before the thief got through all 20 boards. But really my major objection is just why HWBOT and, it seems a good many benchers in general, want everyone to gather points in the exact same way. There seems a calculated and enthusiastic rush make sure that everyone only benches popular chips and GPUs and does it subzero. If you do not wish to bench those you are punished by making sure there is no points in it, or in this case to combine a bunch of scores and make your investment in time and money worth less. Punishment for not getting with the program and overclocking something more popular. Of course, I have the same objection to this new calculation for exotic chips, another example of trying to make sure everyone gets with the program. Two great examples of places that enthusiast (air) benchers can still make some points soon to be destroyed. If it comes down to it, if motherboards should be grouped by chipset, chips and gpus should be grouped by core. Its pretty much the same argument and everyone with points in say Celeron D 310 CPUz would have their points combined with those that have points with Celeron D 340 CPUz. In the end, if both of these alternative methods are so easy there should be no reason why you or any other overclocker can't compete and grab the same points for themselves. Its not real overclocking after all and would take minimal effort to grab all those free points. My opinion doesn't mean that I believe the system has no flaws. Laptop motherboards are somewhat problematic, even identifying them sometimes. I can concede that perhaps a system that doesn't award points to OEM boards, or perhaps groups anything that wasn't available retail gets grouped into chipset categories might work and perhaps even solve some of the complaints about motherboard thieves that grab loads of junk boards.

I can kind of see where your coming from, a 10 year score that stands should be recognized, but what a month, what about a day, what about an hour? Should a guy that submitted a score an hour earlier than someone deserve the extra 10 points simply because he didn't go grab that dinner the way the second guy did. The reason I do not agree with your argument is scores get beaten all the time and you lose points because your score wasn't good enough. Same should apply for ties, if the first guy had applied himself better, binned more chips, pushed harder there wouldn't have been a tie. Now there is, and everyone should be awarded the same points. The same argument you apply to the second guy "stealing" points should also be applied to the first guy. I voted for 2.

Whats easy about motherboard reference clocks anyway? I know it takes me sometimes 3 or 4 hours before I give up on a random free board I get. Hell I've spent 2 hours trying to eek out .01Mhz more on a board without OC features through various software clock generator programs to try and take first place. I've been beaten by others doing the same. Does that mean its poor overclocking? I applaud everyone of those guys grinding out TPP on odd hardware, at least its not another 7970/3770k setup. Why is there always such a giant push to make sure everyone gains points the same way. Some overclockers really enjoy trying to make the most points using the very least amount of cash. Its not for everyone, not as glorious as 7Ghz 3770k but why trample the guys doing that? As a sidebar on it, it gives motivation for people to fill the database with the more uncommon motherboards, which I like for research purposes. Its a much better bet that a mobo doesn't have OC features if the motherboard valid is done at stock. And finally, like Genieben said above, I think its much more appalling the way a 6000Mhz valid for e8600 gives you 0.1 points.

Many thanks!