FireKillerGR

Thanks guys, will freeze them soon to see what they got ?

Congrats!!! :)

Gooood stuff; congrats ωρέ ???

Thanks! @M1rror 3x antec 1300w

Thanks ^^

Also interesting to point out that GPUPi for CPU gets 180 Globals out of 462 subs (2x cores), 151 out of 154 (1x core) and 200 out of 908 subs (4x cores). Same way for x265 4k, 144.3 for 116 subs (1x core), 172.3 points for 348 subs (2x cores) and 193.8 points for 743 subs (4x cores). Meanwhile for 3d, 161.6 points for 3DFSX Single out of 1963 subs (lower than the 4 times less popular gpupi dual core and two times vs quad). Same goes for dual gpu 3dfsx, 3dtsx single etc. Most remarkable of all would be 3d11 with 161.6 points with 3678 subs. ---------------------------------------- And to share actual potential solutions publicly: a) have a sheet where actual calculations go in place to calculate the points of benchmarks before changes are being implemented. That way you dont end up with a mega unbalanced point system that has to be adjusted again and again (or at least not that often) b) try to limit the amount of points both 3D and 2D get. ie. 5500 points for both (equal). Once a 3d benchmark gains popularity (= more points) the rest get automatically calibrated so the total amount of points remains the same. Same would go for 2d. (ie 150 subs PR gets 130 points, 03 gets 202 etc but once PR gets popular both get 166 points) That way, we dont have to wait for a benchmark to magically gain in popularity while also don't have to change anything in case it gets a massive point increase (due to popularity).

Thanks! Just for this run -> a bit over 1L Overall session about 30L

I know its a bit hard, but maybe having a base formula/sheet that calculates what can be gained per benchmark/category & then adjusting it (before introducing changes) to see if it balances things out would be a cool idea. I doubt anybody thought/calculated/expected the current system to be that broken. At least that way, you will know where each category stands and can keep adjusting stuff till you find a formula that makes more sense. PS. obviously not meant to disrespect the amount of work and time put by Leeg and others into adjusting and making hwbot better.

To be a bit more precise on the issue, I collected all the points one could get (a month ago so it might be a bit different now) from 2D and 3D and its as follows. 2D -> 8532.1 3D -> 4081.5 (of course I am aware of the 30x subs GFP cap) Only calculated the scores that get you above 80 Global Points + included per core category for each benchmark + multi-gpu configs for the 3D ones. From 2D, the benchmarks that award the most points are GPUPi and 4K. (2023.8 and 2147.6). From 3D its 03 (774.5) and 3D11 (595.5). Last but not least, there are 67 individual scores (core categories * benchmarks) that give more than 80 GP on 2D and 31 on 3D benchmarks. -------------------------- What could help balance things out: 1) Give points back on 3DFSU and 3DTS. 2) Explore adding more benchmarks like Catzilla or find alternatives 3) fixed points as Tobias suggested. If one benchmark gets no points, it will be even less attractive for a less experienced (with hwbot) user. Also, its impossible to calculate how a benchmark will scale in 6 months as one might see way more growth than another.

Thanks guys ?

Well done team Brasil!!

thanks guys :D

Necessary no; time efficient? yes. All 4 scores were done in 2 hours. Would have taken longer if we had to defrost + swap mobo/cpu. :) @AKM thanks buddy!

not bad

It is what it is ???

Thanks ?

Thanks. - combo of both

totally agree; feels like cinebench at this point. Only difference is that it requires a couple GPUs lol

nice one Nacho!

thanks @luumi 1ms = bios hax being op

I got to say that the memory clocks give a fair advantage. Will run wazza and rebench ?

This is under NDA afaik. You can try reaching out to Galax/Galax OC Lab in order to get access

Best way to start submitting for 2020 ?

Yy some quick 2D haha @MR-B no need for 06 just yet

Lol