der8auer

Yea memory and timings work without any problems

Can't remember exactly but was quite high. 3600 even higher. 3200 MHz worked fine even on stock SA. So IMC doesn't look bad.

Damn nice man!

a i3 6300 scores around 400 in R15 and 4.95 in CB11.5. So I guess it won't be enough to dominate the rankings.

3000C13? I'm not sure to be honest.

GEIL Dragon white should have AFR and they are already available in Germany.

Yes cmos battery

The point of the system is that you have to have a certain amount of scores to be listet at the top. Take a look at my drawing again and check the part where you can see "SuperPi32m Team Ranking". You can see Team C has a better average than the rest but is ranked lower because it only has 8 instead of 10 scores which count to the average. So even if a team would have 6 insane scores with the latest hardware a team with 7 very slow and old scores would still be ranked higher. Exactly. At least testing the ranking alongside the normal Team Ranking wouldn't harm anyone but we could see what happens. The global focus will become smaller depending on the amount of scores we require for the team-average and if there are any additional limiting factors. For example 50 different CPUs would move the focus away from recent hardware. Another approach could be to limit the amount of CPUs per generation. A split in hardware and global ranking would also be possible. E. g. everything from Sandy Bridge and newer would count to global and everything below to hardware.

Yea kinda. It's more like a punishment tho and not a motivation. Everything stays the same. I guess the people who are already not happy with the current concept will just be pissed off and completely stop.

Let me highlight this:

Following the local threads e.g. on HardwareLuxx, PC Games Hardware or Awardfabrik the motivation is not related at all to the prizes.

It's a strange example. But let me ask a question. Why are so many users inactive all year but suddenly join Team- and Country-Cup while they are not motivated to bench for the Team-Ranking? It's a clear message to me that the people are still interested in the bot and like to bench (especially in a team) but not for the team-ranking.

Well you have several steps in the ranking. Like in the Country- or Team-Cup it should be possible to click on the average score to see who is contributing with what hardware. No it doesn't. It doesn't matter if you have 5, 50 or 500 users in a team. You need people to serve high-end, mid-end and legacy hardware. That can be done with 200 users or 2. It's about the right communication (team-work) to split up the work and find people for all required scores.

No you understand it wrong it's not related to the amount of team members

Honestly I don't want to change anything if the majority is happy with the current team ranking. It's just brain storming guys. The ranking I'm talking about is pretty much what we see in country-cup or team-cup - just without time and specific hardware limit. It has nothing to do with the current way of a team ranking. Maybe call it Competitive-Benchmark-Team-Ranking. I think this also went wrong in the communication between me and massman - sorry for that Just an example with 2 Benchmarks so you can see how it would build up. So before you guys get the torches out to burn my house down - how would you think about this if it would be a seperate solution/ranking and the current ranking would still be present?

Interesting idea for sure.

Actually that's not how I thought about the ranking haha Will talk to Massman again I guess.

Okay all cool. Will also wait for the details now.

Which discussion? lol no need to freak out. I don't want to promote anything. It's an idea and I wanted to hear opinions about it...

I really love that there are still teams going for CP. 6-7 years ago that's all people were aiming for. But how many "teams" do really care about their ranking nowadays? 5-10 out of 100? I think that's mainly because the team-ranking is dominated by the fact that you need a large quantity of results and not quality. I honestly respect what you guy are doing and how much work you put into this. I would just love to see more competition and activity in there. But yeah - let's wait for Massman.

Yea same user

No. You can only submit once with one piece of hardware. E. g. 6700K can only be once in the SuperPi ranking. No Hardware sharing possible. I think we need to wait for Massman to post the example. I think it's easy to misunderstand the idea. The team ranking is absolutely fked. There is no activity/competition whatsoever.

It's quite hard to explain - I have to admit that. Take a look at the example above. 20 scores are necessary to have a full average score. You need 20 different pieces of hardware to have the full average score. So: 6700K 6600K 4770K 4790K 3770K 4820K 5930K 5960X 3570K 2600K 2500K 980X E8600 ....and so on until you have 20 scores with different CPUs. The real amount is not set in stone like I said and could also be adjusted to e. g. 10. However, the more scores are required, the more legacy hardware is necassary which will keep the game interesting. Also You will notice that expensive hardware will only help a little bit. For the SuperPi32m ranking maybe 50% can be done with recent hardware of the last 3 years. Everything else needs older components which are quite cheap. The slow scores will have a huge influence in the average so the legacy and cheap hardware will become much more important than it is at the moment (which will be interesting for e. g. classicplattforms). The team size doesn't matter at all. You can be first in the ranking no matter if 5 people are in the team or 500. All you need is a lot of good scores with a lot of different (and also old) hardware.

So we're currently working on a new Team Ranking to improve your HWBOT-Experience. I will just quote myself from an internal discussion: My idea was to go away from a pure hw/global-point based ranking to a competitive ranking. Short explanation: - The final team-ranking is based on the team-ranking in each benchmark - Benchmark rankings are an average of the top 20 results with 20 unique pieces of hardware (the final amount can still be discussed ofc ) Example: SuperPi32m Team A 1. User#1 - 6min 0s with 4770K 2. User#2 - 5min 30s with 4790K 3. User#3 - 5min 40s with 4690K ... .. . Team average: 7min 10s SuperPi32m Team B 1. User#1 - 6min 10s with 4770K 2. User#2 - 5min 40s with 4790K 3. User#3 - 7min 0s with 4690K ... .. . Team average: 9min 20s Team Ranking SuperPi32m: 1. Team A 7min 10s (50 Points) 2. Team B 9min 20s (40 Points) 3. Team C 10min 0s (35 Points) ... .. . Total Team Ranking (based on the Team Ranking of the individual Benchmarks) 1. Team B 450 Points 2. Team A 420 Points 3. Team X 80 Points 4. Team C 35 Points ... .. . I first wanted to see top 20 scores using 20 unique hardware and 20 unique users. However, you can just create a new user in the end to fool the system so it's easier for us to allow everyone to submit as much as they want. From my point of view this ranking is much more competitive and will need more teamwork than before Massman is currently working on an example based on few benchmarks to show you how it would look like. This is just a draft. Nothing is set in stone yet. I'd like to hear your opinions and ideas about this.

I don't think so but the soldering process can cause tension inside the PCB.