Massman

What format for the youtube URL video are you using?

The rule helps even the playing field for the 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10-cores. The Core i3s will be competitive against the Broadwell-E 10c in the next stages. The Core i5 is a great CPU for the price, but a giant pain to organize competitions around. We do address this in the Challenger Divisions, however. Division 2 of the Challenger series is limited to Core i5 only, so that would give you a fair game: OC eSports.

It's quite difficult to factor in hyper-threading when trying to level the playing field. If we divide by core count, the HT-enabled parts have an advantage. If we divide by thread count, the HT-disabled parts have an advantage.

What versions of XTU are you using?

Beast mode!

You both have mail. I'm trying to set up a redirect for legacy URL support

Wow, the difference in clocks between water and ln2 are really small

Stock cooler -> world record. Crazy ...

Found a bit of time to read through the feedback in this thread. You guys wrote massive walls of text, awesome! I won't go in to specific replies for now, but I will make some general statements below that should address most of the feedback. For feedback on specific submission point comparisons please always link to the scores you are comparing. Otherwise it's difficult to comment 1) Global versus Hardware Points This discussion permeates the HWBoints discussion since the very first revision. There are two points of view, generally. The first point of view is that the balance should be leaning towards the Global Points as overclocking is driven by new hardware releases and the fastest benchmark scores. The second point of view is that the balance should be leaning towards Hardware Points since it tends to require more knowledge on a wider variety of platforms. I think most people are in the middle of both points of views and want a 'fair' balance between Global and Hardware Points. Ultimately this is a decision for the Community Leader @Christian Ney). I don't think there is a 'right' decision here, since there will always be people who want more of the one or the other. On the topic of the industry, I want to get the following point across: the decision of how much Global or Hardware Points are allocated to the Overclockers League is entirely up to the community to decide. The fact that the industry prefers the latest generation of hardware to be used/promoted has no relevance to the Overclockers League. Even if we would have a League that is based on solely the cheapest graphics card and the oldest hardware, the industry would still be able to use the benchmark records for product promotion. The Overclockers League should reflect solely the point of view of the overclocking community. 2) Why so many changes at once? Some people argued that we introduce too many changes at once and it would be better to do small changes. As @george\.kokovinis pointed out in an earlier post, for any economy it's important to have a stable and predictable environment for people to invest time and resources into it. It is in everyone's best interest to not change the algorithm every couple of months with small tweaks and changes. One big change that holds long-term allows everyone to get used to the environment and find out how to get the best results. Based on the past ten years at HWBOT, I think this is indeed the best approach. 3) 2D and 3D required for the League Svictorcc proposed to use a League algorithm that requires a certain amount of 3D benchmarks for the League points. From a design point of view, this is no problem. It is up to the community to decide if this is a good idea. I think some of the replies to that suggestion bring up a very important argument against it: the cost of competitive 3D overclocking. The cost of a competitive 3D system is now USD $1700 (CPU) + USD $1200 (GPU). With the unlocked Skylake dual cores, it's possible to be competitive in the 2D benchmarks with a USD $100 Core i3 6100. Even the Core i7 6700K is priced 'low' compared to the 3D systems. Requiring people to bench 3D for a high rank in the League will drastically increase the minimum cost of overclocking. I think a better approach to promote 3D overclocking is by hosting regular Cheapaz Chips competitions with low-end hardware. The winner gets 50pts for that and the entry cost is minimal. 4) Adding/removing points from benchmarks Several people have suggested to add/remove points from legacy/similar benchmarks because they are outdated, low in activity, or just too similar. Some argued that currently it the competitive scene is too spread out, causing very little direct/focused competition. Others argued that it's better to have a wide selection because then you can choose what you prefer. Just like the Global vs Hardware points, this is a discussion that does not have a right answer and will therefore always be a point of discussion. In the new algorithm we have the capability of adjusting arbitrary weight to the point slopes in favor of specific benchmarks. This allows us to increase the points for the 'most important' benchmarks once or twice a year, encouraging direct and focused competition in specific rankings that the community finds important. For example, on January 1st and July 1st of every year we pick 3 CPU benchmarks and 2 GPU benchmarks that get 125% of the points. The others remain at 100% or below. Below an example: 125%: Geekbench Multi Core, Cinebench R15, Y-Cruncher 1B, Time Spy, Catzilla 4K 100%: others 80%: XTU, 3DMark01, 3DMark05, SuperPI 1M, CPU Frequency The choice can be based on a community poll or as determined by the community leader @Christian Ney If I remember correctly, the activity is measured over a time-span of 1 year ("amount of people participating in the last 365 days"). This is certainly the case for R6 and I think this did not change for R7. But let me check the code before confirming this.

We need @der8auer

Insane, card obliterates Maxwell

We tried reaching out to game devs in the past, but no luck. The documentation for communication with the HWBOT engine is available in public. It's very easy to add a 'submit and compare' function for any developer.

Beast!

Slamming it!

Ah, I know what's wrong. Just fixed it

Can add, can add

can you try without the www. ?

OMG!

GTA V has a decent one too. The capture is mostly needed because, well, we need some form of verification :Dq

The benchmarks are integrated in the games (except for Resident Evil, I think)

Ah, link fixed

Let's try something new for once ...

It was a routing configuration. Removed the generic ones as they seem to be clogging the Google searches

Hm, strange. I checked before posting ... let's have a look

DIP5 has XTU integrated?