K404

I think most of the complaint is against the......"streamlining" of team points in the hardware categories. It wont solve the problem, not as long as there are personal totals involved. Iv always liked the idea of a Pro league. Vince, Hicookie, Nick, Dinos? Eva? Smoke? Sacha? You, Petri? Massman? Elmor, DrWeez, Fox, Stummi, George, Thomas.......The pool is small ish at the moment- it will increase in number

Well...... HWB is for our benefit. I like having my bins emptied each fortnight and having street lights that work.... its for my benefit and I have to pay. $10 a year? Every 2 years? The people who care will pay it. HWB should get..... maybe $10K into the bank which must at least *help* It might also make the workload that bit lighter The people who want it all for free would stop coming BUT.... if we pay, we would have some expectations of quality of service, problem resolution etc. Im not saying those things aren't done now- they ARE done, but human nature means if we're paying for something, the tolerance for delay goes down. It would also (probably) mean that we would expect polls on big decisions and as a democracy, we'd expect the majority to have their way We pay about the same for 3DMark licenses and TBH... what we get for the money aint great- slow fixes to problems, dodgy ORB servers and not much in the way of protection from cheating. Paying the same for HWB should be much better value for money.

The hardware most likely to be shared is the cherry stuff and it gives an unfair advantage to whichever team gets it. Gigaboost and his 5870...... if he was on a team and hardware sharing was allowed as you suggest, the ranking would be taken over by ONE (maybe two) cards Is that fair? Worse still is when a CPU + GPU combo start to shine at an event and 3-4 guys take a result each at the same time. Thats demoralising. "Beaten" "4 times" by 1 setup. How can you support that?

Massssssmaaannnnnnnnn Have you come up with an idea for the progression of HWBot, not discussed it with the staff and are now ignoring the vast majority objection coming from the people who use the site? You want to just implement it anyway? There is also a small babble of voices suggesting this is coming from company involvement and you've been bought Please tell us none of these things are true. I had a thought earlier that this is a massive joke.... you with your wacky sense of humour

Ummmm..... would I be right in saying this idea doesn't even have the full knowing and agreement of HWBs own staff?

I like all of those ideas We all know that benching with free hardware is entirely different to benching with hardware we've bought. Its much easier to jack up the vTT on a free CPU, knowing that it doesn't *really* matter if it dies. Its easy to thrash hell out of the vGDDR on a free GPU- we didnt pay £400 for it...... I do believe the heavily supported guys should be split off. Can separate it into 2D and 3D as well if you can figure out how to apply the points. The problem is knowing whos getting what in terms of sponsorship/ support/etc

Well..... yes. At the moment, its entirely open. THe super-supported are at the top. Anyone with some proof of skill can approach a company and ask for at least *some* of the hardware to rise up the ranks. These are the normal guys currently paying for all/the vast majority of their gear If you put the same guys in a different league to the super-supported and tell companies not to look at the lower league, how can they progress? I do not think the guys who get everything for free should be in the same leaderboard as the guy who survives on bread + water to buy a card + LN2, but if someone wants a shot at being at the top, there has to be an open and equal way for them to have that chance. To what extent do you want to divert company attention away from the XOL? Al..... I had a quick think earlier. Yea, GPU my scores are, as they stand, almost entirely unscathed. My CPU work will take a hit. Im not against this for my own benefit, I really dont think this is the best way forward for the hobby. I *do* think Benchtec members will lose a lot of points, as will every other team. I have no clue how a revised leaderboard would look but still.... see my reasons above. I want the hobby to flourish. I dont think this is going to help

Al.... you're miles off The teams on top are the teams with people who bench in a lot of categories. Why do you keep listing top-end 3D benching as the way to the top? It's not. PURE is the best example. Fantastic benchers, but global results are not the sustainable way to No.1 Thats easy... i'd feel better if I was benching in Rev 3, because i'd get SOMETHING out of it

If XOL is of less interest to companies, how are the participants of XOL gather the support to move to UFL?

If a user has individual points and a place in the Hardware Masters league, hardware sharing will not be stopped, or even close. I do not think Rev4 in its current form will stamp it out. There is no mechanism that I can think of that will stop hardware sharing. A revision as unpopular as this that aims to only *reduce the temptation* is...well....a waste of time. Make the punishment unbearable and the results will be better. If someone lacks a moral conscience, the only way to get them to stay honest is fear of punishment. I do not think wiping out the hard work of so many people in each team is a good move for the future. I really cannot see why you think it is. I fully believe HWB staff did discuss this before you posted.... i'm surprised that some of the plans for Rev4 got as far as this. How much time, money, LN2, electricity etc will people waste chasing scores that they dont beat? There is, seriously... SERIOUSLY, nothing in this idea to motivate people. 75% will not bother trying. 20% will try and fail, 5% will succeed and make the other guys work, in turn, a waste of time, money, LN2 etc. Please.... drop this part of Rev4 at least. It will NOT help overclocking. Come to think of it.... it wont help component sales in our demographic either. Why bother dropping money on something that wont bring any benefit to the team?

Dont be so hard on yourself. Its the idea that should be stillborn, not you ...... it's too late for that :p

@ Chew. Hey I know fine well hardware sharing is going on... I just went to the supermarket and on the way back I had an idea If two long-standing members of a team are caught hardware sharing, they get banned and the team loses 5% of their total points? Long-standing means people cannot jump between teams and tactically damage a rival Taking away from the team as well as the individual means there are repercussions beyond the individual. They have to think about more than just themselves. It should also cultivate checks between members, hopefully not paranoia though. I still believe hardware sharing is done mostly for the benefit of the individual, but the punishment should be a deterrent. Taking someones points away through a ban isn't always. They either have something, or dont have it. Maybe if they are allowed back on HWB, they shouldn't be allowed to score fully in future? Maybe take 10% off their scores?

The difference is that with the proposed Rev4, people will contribute NOTHING to their team no matter how hard they try and what kind of motivation is that? At the moment, water, phase in a popular category will get a user a ranking and some points and will make them feel good. It will drive them on. If this change goes ahead, what exactly is the point of anyone new joining HWB? They cant help a team. "Do what you can with what you have" becomes pretty much a kick in the face A zillion GTX480 cards make no difference. Global scores are e-peen. Hardware scores are what get teams ranked well. We arent going to avoid hardware sharing with this rule. I dont think people share GPUs/ CPUs FOR THE TEAM. Benching is a personal thing, they share for their own total.

If 5 guys on 1 team bench the same GPU or CPU, will their personal points totals still increase? It sounds as though only the guys with LN2 can improve/have a strong impact on their team score. I oppose that, seriously. It gives the entirely wrong message to guys starting out. "LN2 or you are useless to us" It also puts more work onto the LN2 users in a team if the team is to increase their ranking XOL Vs UFL: If manufacturers are asked to focus hardware support on the UFL, the sponsorship circle will be harder to break into, I suspect. What is the rough limit of company support before a user is classed as Corporate? Im interested to see how you calculate XOL on Global points to take the emphasis off the latest hardware? Competition points: There aren't enough places in the qualifiers to give everyone a shot and this will affect their XOL ranking. In this respect, people WILL be told "No, you cant compete" It could enter a closed circle. Companies might take the best regional guys in the XOL to represent at regional qualifiers and the best guys are probably gonna be the ones who were involved in the events the previous year. You're placing a fair emphasis on company support... HWB cant tell them what to do. "manufacturers are asked, however, to focus on the UFL" Could be interpreted as "Dont give him hardware, he's not high enough up the food chain" Hardware frequency limitation: Hello downclock. Frequency cap based on average OC of the component: I hope thats a fixed value, decided on at the start of each competition

Thats especially awesome given the CPU clock Congrats Jon!

Of course, the "within bounds" rule can still apply, but to be pedantic, the score breakdown is not a rule and it's not required. At the moment, I can report any incomplete score I want for being in breach of the rules and it's legit. I try not to take the mick. From vague meory, I dont think all the scores I reported the other night HAD to be reported, but hey... the guys involved are unlikely to forget the score details box again.... better learning it now than on tweaked to the edge LN2 runs reporting in future: this thread still exists: http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1787, but if a score is really wrong, it will probably be reported for being really wrong, not for a minor lack of validation and the mods will do the right thing (no sarcasm, I do have faith in you guys)

Well..... to split hairs, if the FPS breakdown is required/ a rule for 3D03, I would say its legitimate to report it. The mods can decide if its ok to let it stay.

D'oh.... ok A bunch of scores are gonna get reported. If I see "Win 7" without an FPS breakdown I get twitchy

I see a LOT of scores in this bench without FPS breakdown. Seeing as the FPS details are available in the free version, there's no excuse to not have it present and it will make bugged-score finding much easier. Could FPS breakdown info be made mandatory?

9 pots will take some beating These pics are gonna generate more drool than the original Tri-SLI shots for example....

In a long-time? Isn't "ever" a fairly safe description?

I think even Tony Hawk would struggle to get a company to design for those wear conditions

Thanks Karl Thats weird... if I type 550 into the CPU search box, it doesn't come up?

equally impressive: retail! equally equally impressive: vCore! :D

Ticket ID: 1009 Priority: Low Please can you add this chip? ....just looked again... and the '550 as well?