Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

r1ch

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    114

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by r1ch

    Wrong position for time (0.01s difference)

    in Submission & member moderation

    Posted

    jmke, I'm not going to do anything that hwbot doesn't want me to do - as you've explained, hwbot only works to 2dp.

     

    What I'm asking for is special dispensation from hwbot to make a change that gives me the position and points that I should have already.

     

    It's only a 3rd place Q8200, and 0.5 points we're talking about, so it's no big deal - it's not like it's a world record! :D

    wprime without screenshot after 1-1-2008

    in Submission & member moderation

    Posted · Edited by r1ch

    EDIT: looks like wprime has changed their website so that uploaded 2.0 results can't be submitted to hwbot from their website.

     

    Well done wprime!! :D And a simple fix as well.

     

    Now what about those results between Sept '08 and now that 'could' be wprime 2.0 results? Do we just have to accept them or is there a way of blocking those results potentially using wprime 2.0?

     

    A ranking system with 3 layers to it (pre-1.55, 1.55 and now some 2.0 results) really isn't very good, especially as it could have been avoided.

    wprime without screenshot after 1-1-2008

    in Submission & member moderation

    Posted · Edited by r1ch

    of course that is the problem! SS or not is not the issue; Wprime 2.00 not submitting a string is the issue; we can fix this if we ask Wprime author to add a string to 2.00 and 1.55 versions, and only accept online submissions at HWBot if the applications submits a valid version string.

     

    what you are talking about is a workaround, we need to address the core issue; and we can talk away all we want, in the end "HWBot" is one man: Frederik. And WPrime is one man : "wwww" they need to sit together and work things out.

     

    Here it is plain and simple...

     

    RULE: You must use the wPrime v1.55 version

     

    PROBLEM: ANYONE can submit a wprime 2.0 result

     

    The REASON you can submit a wprime 2.0 is because of the wprime string.

     

    Maybe you can answer one question. Can the wprime website, or hwbot website, change the submission string AFTER the results is submitted online? I believe the string to come from the program/application itself, which means that anyone who has downloaded wprime 2.0 can submit a valid result today, tomorrow and for however long they want.

     

    Maybe I should get some LN2 and start posting some wprime 2.0 results that take points away from the people that you will listen to when they start complaining.

     

    I'll be honest, I love hwbot. I love the competition. But I find it unbelievable you can allow wrong results for 4 months.

     

    PS. I'm not going to go away - I want to see hwbot fair again!

    wprime without screenshot after 1-1-2008

    in Submission & member moderation

    Posted

    the only person who can change something about this is the author of Wprime; he released Wprime 2.00 without checking with the HWBot and he submits to the bot without providing a version string; if he adds a version string to Wprime 2.00 when submitting to the bot we can filter these entries without problem

     

    Wprime needs to submit version string when submitting to HWbot, that change needs to come from WPrime, we can't do anything about that

     

    This isn't the problem! You know what the problem is...

     

    I understand the issue; another bigger issue is that people can bench with Wprime 2.00, submit to hwbot and then remove verification link :(

    we need a solution to this in very near future

     

    Hwbot have two options:

     

    1. Hwbot do nothing, and it is accepted that you can use wprime 2.0, submit online, and remove the verification link for a valid score.

     

    2. Hwbot ask for screenshot for all wprime results, just like Spi, pifast, etc etc. Problem fixed.

     

    So what is it, is wprime 2.0 allowed or not?

    wprime without screenshot after 1-1-2008

    in Submission & member moderation

    Posted

    rich,we cant sumbit with link by 1.55!

     

    As jmke says, you can submit using 1.55 with an online link. BUT, wprime 2.0 can also be used to submit an online link that by the current hwbot rules would be ok.

     

    i was so angry when i saw this thread in the morning because r1ch said that we cheat or use some illegal version ! but after that i think the best way is test again with screen shot !

     

    so dear you could see now with screen shot , OK ? :

     

    http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=834803

     

    Thanks

    Shahryar_NEO

    Shahryar, please I am not calling you a cheater! :) I have no problem with you, you have not broken any rules. I have a problem with the hwbot rules for wprime and the silence from hwbot on this topic.

     

    Note: I'm not saying any one of those results are definitely wprime 2.0 results - but there is no way of knowing they're not.

     

     

     

    There is a completely public way of submitting a wprime 2.0 result and there being no way to block it. I can't understand why the rules haven't changed. I feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall.

     

    Maybe if it was Superpi or a 3DMark then something would have been done by now.

     

    Maybe we should remove all points from wprime now it is not a 'reliable' benchmark....SF3D?

     

    I have tried to be polite, patient and understanding but I just don't understand.

    PCMark05 HB Rules,FM Rules and correct submision for ranking.

    in General overclocking

    Posted

    03 scales perfectly with multi GPU setups and it is still best benchmark to show the power of CF or SLI.

     

    Bingo! Exactly my point. PCMark05 scales perfectly with the drive technology you use. This is a justification AGAINST your argument.

     

    To address Gautham, yes, the 9000mbps test was obviously using some sort of caching. So what's the problem? It's identifyable, define some limits and let people enjoy the benchmark. ...just like what has happened with the 220mbps limit, and now the 300 mbps limit.

     

    It's funny how people didn't talk about dropping everyone's points for 3DMark03 when AMD GPU's started producing bugged runs.

     

    I'm gonna step out of this thread now as I've said my bit and just want to get on with benching, including PCMark05.

    PCMark05 HB Rules,FM Rules and correct submision for ranking.

    in General overclocking

    Posted

    And please, explain how 3DMark01 and Aquamark is connected to this issue, what PCMark05 have? I can't see any similarities.

     

    Lets look at the justification you've used...

     

    Not 4 years old tests suite, which wasn't designed to hold this kind of storage power.

     

    We have better hardware nowadays, but it doesn't change the fact that this benchmark wasn't designed for new hardware.

     

    Aquamark, 3DMark01 and 3DMark03 are all older and none are designed to run on 2/4/8 core CPU and 2/3/4 GPU setups.

     

    Now PCMark05 can't give any reliable results with those monster SSD setups. 9000MB/s virus scan is not the value FM had in mind, when they designed this benchmark. It is their error in design, not ours.

     

    To repeat someone else, 388,000 is not the value Aquamark had in mind.

     

    The results ARE reliable. They're consistent with the hardware they're run on and the tweaks used. The hardware has got better, just like CPU's and GPU's.

     

    If you want to spend thousands on Skulltrail, i7 and 4870X2's and and not concentrate on PCMark05, that's fair enough and it's your choice not to buy an i-RAM or an ACARD. Don't spoil it for those who value filesystem performance enough to spend a few hundred quid on a fast operating system 'drive'.

    PCMark05 HB Rules,FM Rules and correct submision for ranking.

    in General overclocking

    Posted · Edited by r1ch

    SF3D, you should listen to what your fellow hwbot mods and admins are saying instead of repeating your flawed and blinkered view on the situation. Every argument you put forward has been proved groundless. Massman has this absolutely spot on - read his post again please.

     

    You don't seem to understand that the single justification for your argument against PCM05 would have at least 3DMark01 and Aquamark points removed as well. Is this really what you want?

    PCMark05 HB Rules,FM Rules and correct submision for ranking.

    in General overclocking

    Posted

    I'm sick and tired of this PCMark05 and the "HDD" issue we have. No one is using HDD with it anymore, so we should just dump the whole benchmark.

     

    Is your only definition of a hard drive a rotational magnetic drive then? Or do you really want to start debating the semantics of what constitutes a "HDD"? I really really don't.

     

    I don't understand the hate for PCMark05. Futuremark are responsible for the all of the confusion, by (rightly) imposing a 220 limit to start with, (wrongly) removing it and then (rightly) putting a limit back but a higher one than before....without public statements to this effect.

     

    I feel sorry for hwbot having to moderate scores based on changing rules.

     

    However, dumping the benchmark is not right. The only argument that there is against it is that current physical 'drives' that you can install an OS to are "too fast" and not what the benchmark was intended for. By that reasoning, if you dump PCM05, you should dump 3DMark01, probably Aquamark, and with the Windows 7 and ATI/AMD bugged runs with 3DMark03, probably that as well. No? I didn't think so.

    wprime without screenshot after 1-1-2008

    in Submission & member moderation

    Posted

    "From today, 8 march 2009, a screenshot of wprime is now required - any submissions with only a wprime link may be blocked if they're reported"

     

    Seriously, this cheat is so simple and so hard to discover it's a MUST to get it fixed NOW!!! All it takes is to add those words, quite simp,e actually.

     

    Here here.

     

    Should actually be 21st January, which was when I first reported it to hwbot...

     

    Please explain why this is taking so long to sort out, wprime is a joke now with future results having to compete against pre-1.55 scores AND 2.0 scores now.

    Teams within teams getting single rank.

    in Team Discussions

    Posted

    It's unfair because I don't like the fact that you want to find a loophole just to gain more points?

     

    We're discussing this because it could easily BECOME a problem. Do you not want us to bring to attention the flaws in HWB and just hope no-one less honest catches on? If the current situation isnt a problem, then we arent exploiting a loophole. If it is...you just identified the situation as a loophole...of your own making.

     

    It's not US that have "found a loophole", it's the multiple person teams that YOU allowed.

     

    We would only be following what other people are doing to make it FAIR.

     

    I'll say again, we can talk and talk about this but I think the topic needs to be closed until hwbot make a decision.

×
×
  • Create New...