K404

Sweeeeet! Thankyou Massman There should absolutely be limits, yes! If a card is picked for an efficiency challenge, how about using the average air MHz listed in its hardware page? (or whatever cooling the challenge wants) CPU and RAM limits... absolutely! Even though those will be 95% bottlenecks if challenging in an older benchmark on air

I like this idea

Not that I can see

Doesn't necessarily mean anything

Nahhhhhh, though I see your subtle hint :D

Are all of these MHz accurate?

Not helpful

Is there a way for me to not get a notification whenever someone quotes/mentions/picture comments/whatever me? I only want notifications when I have a PM or something important. Thanks!

We both know that that intention has not always translated to reality. I'm not pointing a finger or blaming anyone, but good intentions have led to unbalanced distributions.... the details (IMO) are not so important in that thread. Maybe PM? Wallet size will ALWAYS be a factor. I wish it wasn't, but it always will be. I slightly disagree with this. I do believe that Hardware points are important, but I feel that for "the worlds best overclockers," the emphasis should be on great global. Formula 1 does not have a Citroen 2CV challenge, for example ...and this is coming from an older- hardware bencher What about a fixed ratio between Gobal and Hardware? I know I mentioned this years ago. If someone has e.g. 800 Hardware points and 400 Global points, only 400 Hardware points contribute to ranking? Want to increase your ranking? Increase global, because it will automatically increase the Hardware points that count. Or.... only 50% of the difference counts, or something like that.

Simple question. Why do people bench 3D? Why add cards and run up to 4-way (or more, in some cases. I think that has to be kept in mind for any future-proofing) People either bench for points, for the challenge, to win a competition or for fun. Anyone benching to impress a vendor is naive Some of the comments are beginning to sound like there's entitlement. I have done something complicated and it cost a lot of money. Where is my reward. It's important to not lose sight of "the means to an end" as Massman says, the algorithm doesn't care. If someone is in it for points, buy the gear that brings points.

Such bargain! Much trust! So deal! Many honest! wow!

Sounds like its time for a new chip!

What PSU were you using for it? Sam did a comparison a few years ago and best PSU Vs least good PSU accounted for over 1GHz in CPU-Z (Netburst CPU) ....and none of the PSUs were really bad quality.

Can you not give any info on the FSB + RAM capabilities for the P5E3 Pro and P5Q3?

Where there is a TiN, there is a way!

IIRC, WR points were to offset high-cost and low points otherwise. I'm not sure if we're getting anywhere at the mo. Complexity of the bench prep + cost + feeling suitably rewarded for it + having the lifestyle to support extreme benching + working with benchmark coding that might not be futureproof No-one is going to come out ahead all of the time. Important rule for life! If points are important, buy the hardware that brings the points. If rankings are important, but the stuff that'll result in gold.

Aren't the "WR points" for 1x, 2x etc just the higher points for having a good global score? 1+2 = 2+1.... same thing, different name. I'm ok with the best scores for the benchmark having a points bonus. A lot of the time, they don't go to 4-way.... or is that just more fuel to the fire of CPUs getting too much reward?

Thankyou Not yet, but at the moment i'm closer to benching, not further away.... if that makes sense? I'll try that. I don't normally delete the Experience and .net folder. Maybe that's where i've been messing up! Thankyou for the idea

In the interest of covering every angle... there was a time when hardware gold was max 15 points... and now we're used to 50. We've just changed the value of the reward for having the best score.... and maybe we will do so again soon. I do believe that only the most popular categories should have the highest number of points available (whatever that number might be) What if there were 2-4 categories for CPU and 2-4 for GPU that got the max and every other catgory was awarded points as a % of results compared to the most popular? e.g.... 50,000 results for E8600 gets "X" and a CPU with 25,000 results gets X/2? I don't think there should be a fixed saturation point. It should manage itself based on whatever the most popular categories are. The big benefit of this is that it's FUTUREPROOF and doesn't need further interference! Part of me is thinking that i've almost just suggested what's already being worked on :/ If points could be assigned as a % difference of the one beaten or to beat, that would be nice... with a multiplier towards the top because the top score should be tangibly better... because it's the top score. E.G..... popular category: 50point gold. Take gold by 0.6%, multiplied by (e.g.) 10 ... Silver is worth either 6% less than 50 (47 points) and the leaderboard is calculated by working down from the top. Big Downside: That would be a ****ing nightmare for the server to calculate. The biggest benefit that I can think of with a higher number of points is the option of having points as an integer. A user gets 12 points. Not 11.8, not 12.1. They get 12. This is not diving or ballroom dancing Is it easier to explain to "an outsider" that they have 500 points, not 488.3? The obvious question to be asked from an outsider is "is the 0.3 important?" Whatever is decided... I think it's important that the new algorithm is futureproof and can look after it's own scaling so it can be LEFT ALONE. EVERY TIME these is talk of a change, ther is a lot of talk and complaining and backlash. I know... sometimes I am a loud part of that, but would I be right in saying that lessons aren't being properly learned? OR... is it important to benching to keep shaking things up? It only works when it works....

Well, the Hardware Masters league will look.....different

Is it all down to .Net? It's been so long since I played with settings and tweaks, I can't remember what's needed for what and what applies to multiple things. I remember that nVI needs .net...depending on other settings *sigh* So much to relearn!

Aha! ok.

I'm sure there's an nVI SLI compatibility bits setting (or list of settings) for each benchmark, but i've never seen a list Same with PhysX

.... What about SLI and PhysX assignment?

320.49 and Fermi. Took a notion to play around a bit this morning (first time in a long time!) and not having Control Panel annoyed me more than usual