FireKillerGR

For visibility as its the 2nd comp in 4 months that this is happening (with a mini cheating incident in between) @sergmann & @Bullshooter PS. for the gazillion time; you have been around for years and know the bigger part of the active community. Going on the back of someone to accuse of him cheating to another group of ocers + report *after* a stage is over in hope to eliminate competition (especially considering the reasoning being invalid) looks weak. The more you keep doing it (even if it isn't involving me/us) the more I will call you out for it. PS #2 Since we provided video proof of different SP for stage 1 without it being required (uninterrupted video from score to bios); it would be in the spirit of the competition & sportsmanlike conduct for you guys to do the same for stage 4.

2ms is the reason to love or hate 32M. Solid work as always!

Thanks guys ?

You are partially right. In a sense a big part of the active ocers is going for the 2D because of the convenience/time its required to set everything up. Also, some do occasional xoc based on the one cpu/mobo they get per gen from vendors. That doesn't mean that the rankings themselves are competitive. So quantity of users doesn't answer the competitive-ness question/issue. If 2D gets 3x the points of 3D (due to the quantity of benchmarks with 80+ global points for the top spot) then nobody will ever need to bench 3D. To sum it up, we need a balance between 3D and 2D (obviously 2D will be getting more points due to the quantity of the benchmarks + core quantity) till a better formula is integrated. Maybe I am wrong, but no ocer should be able to end up in top10-20 by doing exclusively 2D or 3D.

I was analyzing the current system, how it favors 2D and how more unbalanced it will end up being with 3D legacies being killed. Now, regarding your question. 18 people (not 500) benched a 12900KS (8p category on r20) on ln2 and between your score and #3 there is a gap of almost 100 mhz. With that in mind, I would say that buying a random 6900XT-XH (less than 1.5k usd) or a 3090/Ti (less than 2.5k usd) would give you more chances to enter the top-3 in 3D than buying 10-15x KS (10~k usd) to enter the top-3 there. If people don't want to put the effort to bench 3D due to time/difficulty or because it isnt as rewarding as it should have been then that's a different issue/question. PS. Went a bit off topic. ?

well, dont wanna be cocky but we can be a good example as we competed till the release of the 3090 HOF (so for at least 3+ months) last year and stayed within top 3 on all 3D benchmarks with a store bought 3090 Strix. On top of that nor the 3090 or the 3090 ti were pre-binned cards (we just benched the better one of those we got in each case) Our 3.3+GHz 6900XT was also store bought (retail priced, as was the 3090 strix). 3D has much more room to get into (the higher ranks) than 2D benchmarks but also requires more effort/time. If you bring cost into the discussion I can easily tell you that we would pay the same exact money we did for those 2 cards, to own a cpu that will rule the 2D rankings for a season (not like the gpus last for much longer anyway). Eventually u can spend 4k to buy like 5-6x 12900KS and you will still most likely be far off the top 3 scores/cpus.

These benchmarks are pretty much the ones that require a bit of additional effort vs casual 2D where competition is pretty much more "exclusive" for others to get into. Its the benchmarks that are open for everyone with just a decent cpu to get a couple of cards, spend the time and claim some decent points to rank up. Without these, the current ranking system favors cpu bin-to-compete even more. 100% agree. No reason to hide behind our finger here. Not one of us the more competitive guys ran multi-GPU 01 since it got its points disabled a few years ago. But at the same time, the point is that these benchmarks also help less competitive ocers gain some points assuming they put some effort in and get them through the experience of solving any potential issues. Something that they can carry on for future benchmarks/cases.

thanks guys!

I understand why 01 multi-GPU might be killed at this point but eventually this would result in the same punishment for those who spent the money & time to have it figured out properly & fair with the one(s) that cheated. Additionally, what is funny is that the one(s) who cheated on 01, couldn't get proper scores on 03 cause there the scaling is much higher/more evident. This results in your "3x/4x" runs (single gpu) to be far lower compared to the actual/proper runs. That alone should be a dead giveaway that others weren't cheating; it was just yourself failing to figure things out and turning to cheating as the solution.

Jokes aside there needs to be a distinctive line to whats punishable and what isnt and to what extent. Recall @Raufgetting banned cause he altered a screenshot of a legit score as he added a memory tab that was missing.

Yes tbf maybe its coming from us as its easy to hook up the capture card, hit record and bench normally. It just sucks that some manage to ruin it for everyone else. For 03 its quite clear as the scaling is evident. Can do some further tests to confirm but its basically visible here: Recent 1x GPU score with alder cpu: https://hwbot.org/submission/4858339_chispy_3dmark03_radeon_r9_290x_273295_marks Our 3x: https://hwbot.org/submission/5020268_ogs_3dmark03_3x_radeon_r9_290x_420566_marks vs our 4x: https://hwbot.org/submission/5020272_ogs_3dmark03_2x_radeon_r9_295x2_446238_marks For 01 its a bit more tricky but its also evident by judging based on Nature's FPS. 2+k FPS on 21.5.2 drivers with 290x4 should be easily done with cpu at 5G or so (2.3k fps at 5.6G cpu). Cant comment about older cards/drivers. Below you can see 4x xfire vs single gpu with cpu clocked at 5.6GHz in both cases. I believe single gpu scales better on most tests when pushing the cpu (or requires different LOD) but either way the gap in Nature is massive.

Hi everyone, after the recent discussion about the loopholes of old benchmarks (especially 01) and how they can be tricked by running them with less GPUs enabled in SLI/Crossfire while subbing with full Crossfire/SLI enabled, we did some research today to see whats up. We recorded a video of 21 mins non-stop testing showing enabled 4x GPU Crossfire vs Single gpu and their differences & also sent a comparison screenshot to the moderating team (full video available to them at any point of time) As the performance gap between single and multi-GPUs on 3DMark2001 is quite close, some seem to have taken advantage of it and run the benchmark with one GPU as they couldn't figure out how to get the performance to work on multi-GPU configurations. Thinking that everyone is cheating and instead of raising the question towards the mod team or reaching out to other users in a discrete way to check what's up, chose to take advantage of the small performance differences in order to run the benchmark with a single GPU before enabling the Crossfire for screenshot purposes. Eventually this is not just about figuring a potential concern but also about deliberately running a false configuration on purpose for personal gains. The performance difference being small or the lack of system info should not be the reason to call it anything differently than what it is. To our eyes this is NO different than disabling cores on a 12900K/12900KS and ruling the 1c/2c/4c/6c cpu categories other than this being visible to the eyes of the community and the moderating team. Same way one could do the exact opposite and run 2x GPU in SLI/Crossfire and disable it to sub it under the single gpu category of any 3D benchmark. How visible it is makes no difference to the action itself. NOTE: It is SO visible as a specific test of 3DMark2001 performs worse with a high clocked LN2 CPU (running single gpu) vs a run at 5.6 GHz with Crossfire enabled. With new competitions coming in and HWBot slowly growing again, it is also on the users to maintain a certain level of transparency and avoid clear wrong-doing and not just on the moderating team. We are coming out publicly on this as killing a benchmark cause some(one) CHOSE to cheat while others invested time & money to figure it out shouldn't be the way. Additionally, thinking that everyone is cheating and submitting scores with wrong configurations on purpose for personal gain should not be left as is either. We mentioned it before and we are mentioning it again as we stand by it; we are always open to make video-proof a necessity for top-10/20 scores & comps to maintain fairness towards all users. Regards, Stavros & Phil

Always down to have video verification mandatory

As a naive person, I suspect that the timing of this being raised is just unlucky. ? Even though we are on a tech world/hobby and changes are expected with the pace things move, I believe we can agree that the changes happening are in some cases a bit random and also too often (format changing annually at this point). There is no way this wasn't foreseen 6 months ago when the initial changes came in and now opting for a mid-season change after people have spent $, time and ln2 to bench these. 01 is the perfect example as it should have never come back into the game for these exact reasons/concerns you mentioned. Instead, you have other benchmarks that scale nicely (2x, 3x, 4x +) that don't get points (on multi-gpu configs) due to low popularity. This kicks off a never-ending loop where no points are awarded -> nobody benches these -> they wont become popular.

Ευχαριστούμε Γιώργο!

thanks mate!

Won't be able to participate by the looks of it as a 2 month staggered comp during the summer time is a bit harsh. Sick comp nevertheless; good luck everyone!

Ευχαριστούμε Γιώργο! Thanks guys ??

thanks guys!

Sold

Since market prices have dropped significantly, new and final price -> 470€ shipped

Nice clocks?

Price update

Bump it

Open to offers ?