Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Rasparthe

Members
  • Posts

    553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Rasparthe

  1. Not exactly what I was saying. I don't think anyone should make it to the top spots in the league without doing a mix. I'm saying that currently every benchmark and category is setup equally. The algorithm doesn't distinguish between 2D and 3D. You can use whatever mix you like, 2D only, 3D only, a mix of the two it doesn't matter. It will all be treated equally, the only difference is participation (or if you like better, popularity) which increases the amount of points available. If you start skewing to one side (3D or 2D) artificially you will create a situation that requires you to move further to the side that was inflated to even maintain your current rank. Your current rank will move down unless you moved to the inflated side. This is why the discussion about XTU started. XTU, naturally became popular for whatever the reasons (integration with HWBOT, ease of use, etc) and naturally made 2D benching more enticing. Now the discussion moves to artifically matching that effect in 3D. If its a natural progression, that is fine, its popularity dictating what is worth the most. When you force a points change, you are in effect, requiring someone to move simply because you have artificially skewed the points. In general, not 2D or 3D specifically, HWBOT should not skew the points to one side or the other simply because its "harder", or people feel they are undervalued by the points system. (If you want, I can go on about people that feel undervalued by the point system, you could start with the guys that 'used' to bench exotics, yes, 'used' to). There are plenty of benchmarks that are harder than others, there are 3D benchmarks that are 'fire and forget', there are 2D benchmarks that require a great deal of tweaking (have a look at the 5G SuperPi challenge). Skewing points based on what a segment of the members feel is 'hard' is a recipe for unfairness. Remember the reason that XTU is worth so much. It is worth so much because it is popular. Not because of the point system. You will punish a benchmark for being too popular. Do you see why it looks like entitlement and sour grapes? Essentially, the argument boils down to XTU is so easy and look how hard it is to do "this-thing-I-love-doing" it should be worth more points than XTU. Totally agree with you, they should not make the top spots. But, you shouldn't push them down simply because they don't want to add costs to even MAINTAIN their spot. My point was simply that 3D benchers have the option to do 2D benches without outlaying any more money. They might not have the greatest WR 2D setup but if they are competitive in 3D they will have a very, very good 2D setup or they couldn't be competitive (I know that some benchmarks this is not the case but the majority do require it). Those 3D benchers have the option of doing 2D. They might not because they think they are too easy to bother with, won't sink to the level of a simple 2D bencher, or just too lazy, but they have the option to do the benches with no further investment. Do you see from your statement? 'Just put in a 970 or 980'? A less fortunate bencher that has scraped together a pretty good 2D rig might take exception to 'Just put in a 970 or 980'. This is why it sometimes looks like a bencher's wallet does all the talking. The point is that a mostly 2D bencher doesn't have the option of doing 3D without additional cost. They would have to purchase a competitive 3D card to do those benches. You will have to add cost to your current system in order to compete at that level. Do you see the paradox now? You have artificially moved the rankings towards 3D so that in order to maintain their current position they would have to increase their costs. Remember, this is not a natural flow of people being very interested in 3D benching, the points making it more enticing to invest in 3D gear to keep up. Its not because 3D is an easy benchmark or popular like XTU, you have pushed them into it in order to even stay the same because of artificially skewing the point system. None taken, this is all just my opinion as well and discussion is the way to find a good path forward.
  2. I still do not understand how increasing points, WR or Globals, to 3D in comparison to 2D would be a great idea. Maybe someone can explain it so my simple mind can understand? As far as I can tell this is the logic: Low points for 3D compared to 2D, increase points to 3D, more people will take notice and start to do 3D. Is that essentially correct? I think this is very simplistic remedy that has a lot of more far reaching implications than everyone is happy because 3D is finally getting the recognition it deserves as the pinnacle of overclocking achievement. There is a very systematic reason that 3D is less popular. It costs way more. That is almost the defining factor as to the less participation in 3D, the amount of money that is needed to be competitive in the global scene for 3D is a substantial amount. It is the barrier of entry, for those familiar with such terms. Right now, guys that try to make it up the league ladder can do so running 2D because they are treated equally and there are more ways to hit gobals in 2D (Perhaps this is unfair, or unbalanced, but remember you have to have a very good 2D setup to run 3D competitively so mostly even 3D benchers take lots of 2D globals, it doesn't work vice versa). If you start to give more weight to 3D then you make it more and more likely that someone will HAVE to run competitive 3D GPUs, they will have no choice because running only 2D or maybe mostly 2D will not provide enough points to even surpass guys running H20 subs in 3D. You have effectively pushed them into a decision. Do I put out the cash needed to be competitive, or do I simply quit because I don't have the cash/connections needed to be competitive, you've pushed them up against the barrier of entry. It might seem like a great idea on the surface to make 3D worth more but in the end, I would expect all it would do is hurt the community on the whole as more people just won't bother since the barrier to entry (cost of 3D gear) is way to high. By raising the cost to be competitive you are, again, ensuring that those with the largest wallets/greatest connections will have their spots reserved for them at the top. If you truly, truly want to see 3D being promoted and more scores in the mid-level cards, then you really should be fighting to have the hardware points worth more than the globals. Or at least the potential maximum you can earn in globals (currently 15x167= 2505 potential points) should be equal to the potential maximum in hardware (currently 20x50 = 1000 potential points). There is absolutely no way to earn tops spots currently without globals. Even if you max out all your 20 hardware slots you would (it cannot be understated enough how tough that would be - Dancop only has 8) you would only be in 39th spot in the Extreme League. Think of what that means, an overclocker that manages to hit a gold cup in 20 different MAX categories can barely crack the Top-40 of the league. As a result, this means that mostly no one cares about hardware points, which in turn means no one cares about GPUs, or even CPUs, that don't give them Global points (disclaimer: if you care about your position in league that is). If you can make hardware points meaningful, which means making them worth more in relation to Globals, people will suddenly care a lot more about those mid level cards. Chance of happening? 1%. No one that spent $1000s of dollars on binning 980Ti and other high end gear wants to be surpassed by guys running $20 8800GTs (no matter how much skill and knowledge is needed to zombie mod them) or by guys with $50 775 setups that bought 21 e2160s on eBay for $11. Because I love to beat a dead horse, just get rid of globals in the XOC/EL/Novice/Rookie leagues, and let your overclocking skills in whatever platform you fancy do the talking and setup a PRO league that go all-out Globals wherever they can find them. Sponsors are happy for the promotion of their products in the top league and the regular poor folk can actually be ranked on their skills/knowledge and not (totally) their wallets.
  3. Just says to me that the sooner someone develops a competition server for overclocking that can broadcast hardware monitoring real time as well as realtime benchmark results the sooner this will be come an Esport as well. Its all about the spectators.
  4. 1. Who is going? Will very likely be there as well. Set aside the date anyway, unless something major comes up. 2. World Tour or freestyle only ? Both 3. Who can assist for the OC Workshop ? Yes 4. Transport mode ? Bringing Dewar ? Car, will bring dewar 5. Are you ready to share place / room for sleeping ? Unknown accomodation arrangements
  5. I too don't have all that much issue with the hardware points are distributed currently, only with the potential maximum points an overclockerr is allowed in hardware points. I think it should match your potential max in globals. I think you may be off on the assumption that the value of the points would go down and it will be nothing but easy points for everyone. It may start out that way where easy hardware points exist in some categories but eventually you will have to work at grabbing those easy points, those 'easy' scores get pushed down and lose value as each of these categories gain attention and get more competitive. The cap on points available ensures this (real example have a look at what it takes to get 0.2 HW points in e8600 cpuz category, 6070mhz almost no points for an overclock unattainable for most motherboards). The problem is 3d categories don't see this type of competition because they aren't worth enough. Not because of a bias against 3d but mostly on the nature of adding more costs and added layer of knowledge needed. By artificially inflating the initial points you can only hope it will draw the interest to add more competitive scores. I don't think it's really needed but I can see the reasoning behind such a change. Personally I just don't see this 'imbalance' of 3d that is in the OP, in fact, I would say 3d benchers have the distinct advantage of being able to gather 2d points as well. It doesn't work vice versa. Unless the idea is to reserve the top spots of each league for those with the biggest bank accounts that can afford several $1000 GPU.
  6. Appreciate this, and I know that if it comes from your private stock that it will be what I need! But I Best Offered a couple of boards on eBay and one accepted for a reasonable amount so I'll be in the first round. Now to figure out this little card I got from our friend overseas.....
  7. Wait is this team based again this Season or individual?
  8. Same here, no idea why everything Slot A is so expensive... hard to justify paying $200 for a motherboard that old. Can you just jam the CPU into a Slot 1 board???
  9. I plan to be there, although still trying to source SLOT A, one platform I don't even have a board and chip for.
  10. Me too, you know that I would prefer unlimited subs that count for league, but even now we are limited to 20 subs in hardware and 15 in global. I'm not talking about the Hardware Masters league as I hope they don't change anything there (finally closing in on 100!), but this seems like an easy fix that allows both camps to bench where their interests lay but still compete against each other in a level playing field. The slope and amounts can be adjusted for sure, I was just using 40 as comparable number. If globals want to be worth more say 200 then adjust the amount of hardware subs that equal globals accordingly. Its all about keeping the POTENTIAL points the same.
  11. Aye, +1 to this, if I could get away with only benching vintage hardware and still participate in competitions, I would. I think the general conflict here comes from the fact that some guys are heavily into newest generation (maybe because HWBOT rewards that but probably because next generation is always cool) and some that are heavily into vintage or hardware benching, and then a great number that are in the middle. Maybe HWBOT should allow each individual overclocker to make the choice for themselves. Perhaps every overclocker is given a set number of submissions and you can spend them how ever you wish. If the max for Globals is 100 (as some have proposed) and the max for hardware is 50 (as currently allowed), So every global score will cost you 2 submissions and every hardware submission will cost you 1 submission. If the max submissions that count are (throwing out numbers) 40, you can split them how ever you wish. Put all 40 points in globals (20 submissions allowed), or all points in hardware (40 submissions allowed). It would be equal playing field for both kinds of overclockers if you allowed the potential max points for each submission to be equal. That is why I proposed 2 hardware subs equals 1 global. If each overclocker is allowed to reach the same potential points but they can choose how its done, perhaps it wouldn't feel like an unlevel playing field for one type of overclocking or the other. Just another idea to muddy the waters even further.
  12. I know what your talking about! Winter is serious bench time here in Canada, so far it's been mild but hoping for a nice run of -25c in the new year. Congrats on your scores, by the way, well done. You have some good veterans in Sweden you can learn a lot.
  13. Its hardly embarrassing, but a legitimate question. I think his problem is when Systeminfo mismatches what CPUz says, just leads to suspicion, but I know I'm satisfied that the scores are legal. So I say congratulations and with these explanations I'm sure Micul does too. The N/A is because it was turned off, because the installed version provides a 'Systeminfo' error on startup. Like Rauf said it isn't required. They are good scores so its good they remain. I look forward to seeing the rest of Oggys score with his modded 6600GT, but he will probably be forced to use his 4960X. Also it should be interesting to see Kvekan's scores with his 9800 GTX but I suppose he would use his 5960x on Single Stage instead of a 2600K on water. Still I will watch them to see how they progress, always good to see when countrymates are inspired to help out a country during these competitions.
  14. I always assumed the rule meant a mainboard tab was needed if you were plugging the output cable into the motherboard, hence the motherboard IGP part. It doesn't matter if the actual GPU is on die or onboard, they are integrated and you are plugged into the motherboard. Of course, the teams that have the most to lose will argue that it wasn't necessary. I recently just had a new teammates scores blocked because he didn't have CPUz on the screen, he didn't read the rules, didn't know it was necessary the score was taken down. Are you arguing that it should have stayed because he didn't see the rule? Or are you saying that you saw the rule, thought it didn't apply to you, despite the majority of every entry having it, including your country mates, didn't ask for clarification and then left it off intentionally. I'm fine with how ever it gets ruled, its always hard on the moderation staff to take down scores that significantly impact the standings and I understand that some members have the swagger to receive 'interpretations' of this sort. Look forward to next year, love these big competitions, planning already in the works for the next one! Happy holidays!
  15. So they aren't integrated? Aren't they in the Integrated socket of the hardware listing? Isn't the stage called Firestrike IGP? What are they classified if not integrated?
  16. This ^^^ , the points system is already heavily skewed to globals, if the solution is increasing the amount of globals given out, please leave it alone. I still have hopes that HWBOT will one days recognize time, knowledge, and skill in all generations equally and steer away from rewarding the biggest wallets.
  17. Thanks for the clarification, that is excellent. I don't have to like the rule, probably won't take advantage of it, and find it only one easy step to passing subs around to members of your team, but I will stop advising country mates and teammates to refrain from doing it. Appreciate your quick response on this.
  18. Thanks Mr Scott, afraid you are probably right. It would be impossible to prove there was 4 people actually at the helm of the shared hardware which is what makes it suspicious. Lanbonden and Rauf both seem active and reputable members of the community and you have to respect that they wouldn't tarnish both their own personal honor and worldwide reputation with cheating. So, personally I offer them congratulations on the 3rd place finish. As for the rules, I think it needs to be nailed down solidly as to what is legal. If the swedish scores stand for this competition then we can say that it is legal and allowed. For next year it will be way easier to bin one set of WR hardware instead of having everyone use what they have and we will be better prepared. Of course, it burns when you aren't playing on level field because assumptions made about the rules. So I will look forward to the clarification from the moderation staff
  19. Oh, confused by the screenshots and the meetup pics that were attached to some of the scores, unless those pics are from last night? Great work though guys, pretty incredible scores. 4-peat next year?
  20. I think when you take in to consideration the sandbag Stage 1 results that Australia is holding, it is over. I can't believe that they trusted the engine enough to submit their Stage 2 and 3 results in the last hour. Now that is brave. Can't wait for next year! Love these comps!
  21. Can one of the mods look into why this sub didn't overtake our DDR3 score? Sticky previous one? http://hwbot.org/submission/3064542
  22. It doesn't work that way in the first stage, its simply an accumulation of points, only in Stage 2, 3, and 4 force you to gather subs in each of the categories. There are always going to be things that are unfair to one set of overclockers or another. Hell for that matter, this Country Cup was entirely to modern for me. I have no interest in competing against binned 6.4Ghz Skylake processors but those are the rules so all I could do was bear down and get the best done we can. Canada came in 22nd last year, all I was hoping that through organization and stupid amounts of harrassment to other Canadians overclockers we might crack top 10.
  23. Like you I wish the end dates would be the same, very annoying. I think its actually easier to get people to compete with it set up the way it is. If its just an average then you will have teams that can just skip something like 1 core XTU because they have such high WR 8 core scores, if your WR 8 core is high enough maybe even skip a 2core XTU and still be competitive. Half the idea is to promote and gather your country mates and get it done. Those guys that don't have the 8 core hardware can actually contribute, and in fact, you need them, that fancy 8 core WR will get beat by a country that organizes 5 air scores across all the cores. How much motivation is there to find someone to get a 1 core score if you can just use a bigger 8 core? I always assumed it was a competition to determine the best country of overclockers, not which country has a couple of WR benchers. If that is the competition that is wanted, believe me, take out the requirement that you can only submit once a stage, that would have helped us a ton....
×
×
  • Create New...