FireKillerGR
-
Posts
1753 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
26
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by FireKillerGR
-
-
2ms is the reason to love or hate 32M. Solid work as always!
-
1
-
-
Thanks guys ?
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Splave said:
just look at our profiles, I have pretty much every 2d gold and you have some 3d golds and you are ahead. How is that undervalued for 3d?
37 people benched R20 on 8c alder lake ln2 and gold is worth 161pts...3 people benched FS on ln2 and gold is 169pts and as you said its cheaper to just go buy a card right? so its worth more and cheaper with less competition. Maybe I should focus more on 3d haha. I would say that is quite rewarding in every way is it not?
Same story in 11, 2 ln2 results in the top 5 still worth 169 points.
32M WR is 161 points....top 80 subs are ln2...why would anyone pay to bin cpus when 3d is worth this much.
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.
-
3
-
-
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. ?
-
2
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Splave said:
Some could argue that the rest of 3d is for binned gpu guys only as well though. ? I don't see anyone that buys their own card in the top 5 for current gpu ranks.
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.-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Splave said:
No one wants to lose points or to make benches die because they are no longer valuable. But what about people that spend time and money to compete on the top end. When it's too easy to cheat it needs to get removed. I had 01 dual card gold worth 200+ points all it required was a 7ghz cpu and still voted to remove points after spending $750 on 590s.
I think people like to trash ln2 benchers a bit what we call "elite" hate behind closed doors...but I don't see companies sponsoring hwbot comps for ddr1 ddr2 platforms or Intel sponsoring 775 competitions. So ln2 users should have some say I think ?
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.
17 hours ago, hammertone said:won't attract lustful point whores. This too funny
Like as if that's ever going to happen. ? Always chasing points for top spot you guys
eg.
Top overclockers got interest in pcmark 10 and ycruncher. That was mostly ignored before.
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.-
2
-
1
-
-
-
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.-
7
-
-
2 minutes ago, hammertone said:
If you knowingly cheat then you defeat yourself. What is point? Is best effort not good enough?
__________
My humour about all this sad business. ?
1. You all get bans.
2. Loose all your points.
3. Confiscate all your best parts
4. Winning
__________
My serious side.
1. Leave 3D01se alone. Most of us old guys still enjoy it ?
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.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, AKM said:
Requiring proof for competitions I can understand as there are legitimate prizes on the line, but for every top score just seems like a huge pain. I'm sure we all have regular lives as well and time is already limited for a lot of us, and this just seems super extra for regular subs. But honestly, I myself don't have any valid ideas to police it. In my opinion we just nuke the globals for 01. It sucks because legacy 3D is my favorite but at this point don't see any other way to avoid situations like this. Maybe let it ride out until the end of the year/season and then change for next year? Hardware points should be good still because of how big the sub database is for 01, but we would hopefully not run into things like this again.
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.24 minutes ago, der8auer said:Two things here: Before I opened my thread 2 days ago I looked into this and from my perspective it was not clearly visible in all cases if single or multi GPU was used. 01 and 03 were the benches I probably used the most in my active carreer. And especially with the different tweaks (and run oder for 01) there are sometimes huge fluctuations in subtests. And especially for blocking people for "cheating" we have to be 100% sure that it was actually a cheat. And if there is a tiny uncertainty left, we have to give benefit of the doubt.
The other thing is that new benches don't really allow this way of cheating because we always ask for the futuremark verification link. Just disabling SLI after running Time Spy for example won't work. That was my intention why I asked to just disable globals for 01/03 for the multi GPUs.
Looking at this from a neutral point of view and especially business point of view (the last one I don't really care about tho) I would just disable them right away and move on. We have so many other topics to care about that spending time on this doesn't really make sense. But then again from a bencher point of view I know how much time and effort (and money) it takes to create these scores and I respect that. That's why I was looking for your feedback on this matter. From my side there are just two options:
- It's detectable and people report the scores -> moderation investigates and decides. This can cause drama for both sides. Moderation will have to spend time on it and potentially can take a wrong decision here if the detection is not clear. This would be at your risk
- We disable points and move on
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_marksOur 3x:
https://hwbot.org/submission/5020268_ogs_3dmark03_3x_radeon_r9_290x_420566_marksvs our 4x:
https://hwbot.org/submission/5020272_ogs_3dmark03_2x_radeon_r9_295x2_446238_marksFor 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.
-
2
-
1
-
-
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-
10
-
-
Always down to have video verification mandatory
-
1
-
-
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.-
4
-
-
Ευχαριστούμε Γιώργο!
-
-
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 ??
-
-
-
Since market prices have dropped significantly, new and final price -> 470€ shipped
-
-
Price update
-
Bump it
-
Open to offers ?
Intel Masters of 12th Gen Challenge
in HWBOT Competitions
Posted
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.