K404

LOL ok It happens... ...please can a mod reinstate my result?

I had my global PCM05 score reported for a "lack of validation." Theres nothing wrong with my score. Theres CPU-Z and GPU-Z windows present as well as a full score breakdown. The guy who reported it thinks there might have been a software RAMdisk used. My score breakdown will show that thats not possible. I used a single I-RAM. The edit button in the reported score box doesnt work. ... though im not sure what to edit- everything is fine What happens now? K

This is only a vague idea. Im sure theres consequences i've not thought of so...feel free to tear it apart. Would it be beneficial to separate the global rankings from the hardware rankings? Its possible to get 300 hardware points using no hardware from the last 3 years. 300 points gives a global ranking around 200th place. That says (relistically unofficially) that someone is 200th best in the world, GLOBALLY, with results that can mean nothing because of the age of the hardware. Its also possible for someone to bench a few categories with... say.... a GTX295 and be spanked in the global ranking by someone using gear thats generations behind. If the global leaderboard was changed in that way, would it be possible to use averages to determine rankings? e.g... if I had a global ranking like....32, 44, 18, 58, 102 and 60 then my global ranking would be 52nd or 53rd. Maybe weight it slightly towards the latest benches? Just ideas K

If it could be highlighted in some way, that would help yea Im sure that if the accounts were separate, the teams they belong to would benefit. Separating them would *probably* only help them (and indirectly hinder us) I dont think theres any benefit in this for Benchtec. I want HWB to be perfect.

Hey... thats unfair. To be bluntly honest....guys pooling resources against people benching by themselves ISN'T fair....and (IMHO) HWB should do something about it. Which is our point. Benchtec (AFAIK) have never looked for ways to bend the rules in our favour. We bench. Thats what we do. The politics side doesnt interest me but in an INDIVIDUAL ranking how can you possibly defend people benching together under one name. You asked us to dissolve the Benchtec Group login basically because other teams couldnt be trusted to have one, then you do this? Come on.... head out the sand please. We're discussing this because it could easily BECOME a problem. Do you not want us to bring to attention the flaws in HWB and just hope no-one less honest catches on? If the current situation isnt a problem, then we arent exploiting a loophole. If it is...you just identified the situation as a loophole...of your own making. edited... I was a bit tactless to start. Sorry.

Realistically, its an approach Benchtec dont want to take UNLESS it becomes the status quo and it becomes the only way to maintain our position and impact globally. Its an approach thats open to abuse, hence the explicit methods discussed of abusing it- so we can show it needs regulation. Enjoy CeBit!

Thanks Thats really all that we ask so things are worked out to be as fair as possible to everyone involved. possibly off-topic... I believe a lot of this WILL come down to money. Using an example of 3 people benching together under one name- If hardware was cheap, each of them could afford to buy it themselves and bench it. That would bring more points to their actual team and they would still have good personal rankings..which really would be personal because it was them on their own. People benching (or at least...submitting) alone would be better for their actual team because of the hardware category allocation as well but thats not to say that people joining forces in this way can only be bad for teams- GLOBALLY, they will be noticed more and we all know that all-out world records get more attention than the No.1 spots for...a 7800GT or whatever.

hahahaha ok...we didnt see that coming! Take the screenshots for your fridge doors now, it wont last

It opens the door to allow mini-teams enter the individual rankings. Fugger and Vince could join forces for XS for example.... or Baz, Paul + Thicky for BTUK. OPB+ Joe on OCX.... Stummer and No-Name for AF. HWB has a team ranking and an individual ranking. I believe there should be hard lines drawn.

I dont ever want to knock the community and team spirit side of benching but the idea is open to abuse. Would HWB ever step in if things went too far? Would it be wise to put some guidelines in place now? I dont want to see the biggest "conglomerates" take over the leaderboards

Id really like to see multi CPU split from single IE...2P,4P, 8P and even the 3P if AMD ever sent them to production... Im not sure if that kind of comparison is a good one though knopfler..... how long until some of the CPU benches can be processed on GPU? Would people want SPi, wP ranked globally or split into CPU and GPU-based?

Damn. I wish more of this was fool+cheat proof

An idea strikes.... could the hardware master and/or hardware junkie leaderboards be pushed harder from the HWB side? Those are a free-for-all with a bit less dependence on money. Downside I can see is...the harder they are pushed, the bigger the fish who will swim there and the guys with least money will be pushed out again. Rank by cooling type? Make it mandatory to have temperature software open so we can spot whos using A/C, chillers etc Im heading WAY off-topic now...

Semi off-topic... HWB needs better funding. I dont think its anyones fault that the staff have become so overworked but overclocking and benching is increasing in exposure and activity at an exponential rate- we are victims of our own desire to push the hobby...sport and while people mostly complained about Futuremark charging for Vantage (including me!,) I CAN see that we cannot expect everything to be 1000% accurate, quick, actioned etc if people are doing the hard work in their spare time...for nothing other than satisfaction. I would rather MUCH rather see HWB stay "in control" of global benchmark submissions than a company take over because they were backed and funded by hardware manufacturers and the skewed loyalties that come with it. I believe this should be by enthusiasts for enthusiasts in as many ways possible. As for Baz' point.... I know a year ago I was 100% in agreement, mainly through a money dependence and i would still like to see more emphasis placed on skill not money but I can see that they are technically single GPUs. The emphasis would still be on money. If not for hardware directly- LN2 and cascades to get the clocks. overall. Im a big believer in bench efficiency and the reality of increasing a CPU speed by 25% to get a 5-10% score increase in benches is something im not a fan of but its what I "have" to do to get the rankings. Its satisfying to get so close to higher scores with so much less on the GPU or CPU...wherever the bottleneck isnt, but whos gonna notice if im in a lower ranking? No-one checks to see whos lower down the leaderboards We cant escape the money dependence in this hobby, especially for global. Global points are EXPENSIVE. Hardware categories arent much better. Even if the category hardware is pretty cheap, the rest of the system still has to be up there to get the scores. Still got plenty of categories with £40 GPUs with £150 or £600 CPUs on £250 mobos cooled by cascade or LN2. Granted, i've done nothing to work against that (with dry ice) so for the small difference I might or have not made...I apologise. Im worried this is "how it has to be"

wireless transfer Vs (VERY) low ambients. I think that will have an effect on signal transfer reliability and speed. Also: OMG thread revival!

You have a vested interest coz il buy you a pint for saving me money

Thanks Massman I shall now not waste my money on one

Bump

I hope everyone who goes takes a crapload of pics

Server error? WTH happened?

I hate the money aspect of this as much as everyone else does but world records and the best scores need the best gear and the companies know we'll pay for that C'est la vie. Approach the hobby at the angle that gives you the most fun

Hey Vivi I tried that approach with the 6600GT...didnt work coz of the GPU bottleneck I agree with the approach though.

The allocation to global points was limited because it was considered skewed that benchers could become ranked very highly without any "relevant" global results. To be ranked well, have to be doing well in terms of global scores as well.

platter-based HDDs only?

I thought the problem with PCM05 and SSD is that its now harder to tell if someone is using a software RAMdisk or not, because of the similarities in scores? More current hardware isnt the problem, although the score skew (IMHO) is....