Johan45
-
Posts
138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Johan45
-
-
Couldn't this possibly encourage more HW sharing to keep the top scores very close?
-
That's a great idea xxbassplayerxx, things were a bit frustrating to say the least. I agree a central spot to sbmit and display issues/solutions/rulings would make things much easier.
-
1
-
-
You'll have whatever support the HWC community can provide this year. Last year was just a mess for me life-wise.
Awesome, our crew is building.
-
,
Guess you and I will have to take on the world!
Hope the stages are pre-tested a little more, or at least a little more orthodox, compared to the TC. Some frustrating stages these past few months.
Hells yeah, I'm game. We could probably drag marc into it for the big guns.
And yes some of them were just too hard to find parts/people to participate.
-
38 days till start!
Maybe we can actually get some interest in it this year. I tried a few places but just seemed that no one was interested in pulling for the Great White North.
-
Sounds like someone who didn't have a 20 day run fail
Good call, it hasn't failed yet and like Rasparthe I live in the country so power can be ifffy. I've just been lucky, now if it can hold out for another day or so.
-
I've had fun with it to be honest. It was a nice change from the everyday pushing and had challenges of it's own.
-
Sure would be interesting. I realize this is a big job and decisions made will never make everyone happy.
-
That may be so websmile, I have heard that some of the older HW was problematic but the validations that were attempted with new HW that are rejected are the result of what I posted earlier. Some boards the HTT frequency will fluctuate and when "I" was trying to validate on the lowest reaches of that fluctuation it was rejected. When I validated at or near the actual BIOS setting it was accepted. I guess my point was, HWBot already has a specific set of rules that we follow daily. My interpretation is that the rejected results are not valid so by the rules should be disallowed. If that CPU/board won't validate where you want it to then pick something else. I just "assumed" the spirit of the competition was to "find" hardware that would give you an accepted validation at the lowest speed you could get.
-
websmile says:
This is no bug, it is done to raise suspense - I hope will get fixed one day^^ - I checked the amd lowest validation stage, I will not remove rejected validations, if someone is unhappy with this teams should discuss this and find a solution for themselves. I know the AMD issue from past, I also know some people think this is a glitch below 50 MHz, but it is impossible for me to judge what is right and what is wrong^^
Oh so does that mean that all the rejected intel subs will be removed then and we no longer need a CPUz link in general? We could just go back to SS only for validation would that be enough. Glitch or not it's not valid, someone is riding the HTT link and rolling the dice, I had the same thing happen it's only valid if CPU-z can CORRECTLY read the speed. That's why it has checks built into the validation site I would assume. So I think it's pretty cut and dry websmile, if it says rejected it's no good. It wouldn't cut it outside the competition so why make exceptions?
-
Massman says:
Strunkenbold said: Im in no position to decide something, so its up to Massman I guess.
Christian Ney is the big boss for the moderating.
I have no power here
So what is the verdict? Are CPUz rejected validations going to be allowed in the low clock challenges? I thought that WAS part of the challenge?
-
Nice one man, you made the front page.
-
If any of them are bugged it's the 2332 run that's in first right now. That looks very out of place and not all the test scores are showing.
-
QuickFast
QuickFast says:
Massman said: The challenge is to find the CPUs that both validate and clock really low
So is part of the challenge to get a valid submission?
I'll make this more clear, in the CPU low clock many of the subs are rejected by CPUz if you follow the links. Are these still legitimate
-
Thanks, I actually have one that's 4 seconds faster. http://hwbot.org/submission/2909360_johan45_gpupi_for_cpu___1b_fx_9370_3min_8sec_780ms/
-
That's pretty sweet, thanks guys and thanks to FM for letting us use them.
-
Quick question since I couldn't find any real clarification anywhere.
Is it allowable to change batch size or does the bench have to be run as is with no alterations ?
TIA
EDIT: got my answer and the changes are allowable.
-
Thanks massman, I'll get one yet!
-
Thanks massman, I'll get one yet!
-
Thanks for the tips but more volts didn't seem to do much for it either, just seemed to crash sooner. I did manage just over 8 but failed in the validation. There's always another day.
-
I noticed that someone is using dual CPU opteron engineering samples. Are those allowed?
-
Thanks massman
-
I'm trying to submit with a 7850K kaveri and it's saying that the r7 SERIES 512 SHADER ISN'T ALLOWED for the competition. It's still the integrated graphics on the CPU. Also are Athlon non APU allowed for the % OC for CPU?
Thanks
Johan45
-
We haven't announced yet the hardware category limitations for the World Series, but I can already tell you that their won't be brand limitations on the hardware for example. I guess things will be around Z87/Z97platforms.
We're a couple of weeks away and just wondered if there was any update to this or if it's just going to be a surprise?
New HWBOT Team Ranking
in League Discussions
Posted
I gues I misunderstood. I thought it would be top 20 per bench/HW so the top 20 scores on my team from members who ran 6700k and the average of those 20 scores. Then top 20 for 4790k etc..