Massman

Was asked to remove some screenshots here, but they're already gone ...

Ideas are not the problem, IMOG shared a couple of interesting ones in the other thread. The problem is time to implement those ideas.

Not sure whether amused or creeped out ...

He's not banned from anywhere and I don't think he will be ... Or perhaps it's Francois being Francois, threatening loudly in public. Honestly, I doubt that many people within Intel really care about this kind of leaking. It's a market segment that is oh-so-small and there's practically no competition; no matter who leaks what, Intel's not going to lose any market share or sell one mainboard less. On the contrary, this kind of leaking probably gets more people interested in the product. Quite frankly, if Intel wanted leaks like this to be completely gone, they'd be able to do it. AMD can, Nvidia can, hell ... even Apple can. Instead, they keep shipping these ES samples in large quantities to ODM and OEM without having the companies account for them. The biggest advantage is that these companies actually use them for testing and validation, which makes Intel millions of dollars since everything works smoothly when it hits retail. To be honest, I don't think they have much to say when Anandtech, one of the largests media sites (and US based!), still has their review up. A review! Not just some crazy extreme guy running 'pointless' applications. No. A genuine, full-blown, practical review detailing all aspects of Ivy Bridge. Priorities ... (that said, haven't had any request to take down the thread ... it's not just down to the size of my balls)

As for benchmark definitions, the first idea that comes to mind is leaving it upto the benchmark developers. There are some problems with this idea, though: - historically, overclockers/benchers did not always care about what the BM developer had to say about it (*) - practical reality: not everything can be pinned down or checked (eg: tesselation) => lots of loopholes - BM developers are also not all-knowing and sometimes contradict themselves when speaking of 'purpose' and 'implementation (see: Borandi's argument) (*) examples: - 3DMark01: using a different run order is not how FM wanted the benchmark to be run - Usage of LOD was against FM regulation In general, overclockers/benchmarkers have always been more into 'getting the highest score possible' rather than 'getting a comparable score'. Years back (2001/2002), liquid nitrogen was deemed 'illegal' by a lot of hardcore benchmarkers in that time period too.

- Asus Rampage IV Formula --- 0016: download - Asus Rampage IV Extreme --- 0016: download - Asus Rampage IV Gene --- 0016: download - GIGABYTE G1.Assassin 2 --- F10b: download - GIGABYTE GA-X79-UD3 --- F10b: download - GIGABYTE GA-X79-UD5 --- F10a: download - Asrock X79 Extreme9 --- V2.00: download - Asrock X79 Extreme7 --- V1.20: download - Asrock X79 Extreme6/GB --- V1.20: download - Asrock X79 Extreme6 --- V1.20: download - Asrock X79 Extreme4-M --- V1.70: download - Asrock X79 Extreme3 --- V1.40: download

Okay, there was a small bug with the end time (different for comp and stages). Fixed end time of the competition: Endtime: 15-3-12 23:59:00 CET Sorry for the confusion!

Looking at that bed cover, I finally understand "like a flower"

"Der8auer Inflection+"

Yummy!

As expected, DrWho (Mr. Piednoel from Intel) already responded in the XS thread about this. This is the quote: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?279711-Ivy-3770K-amp-MSI-Z77A-GD65-LN2-results&p=5068812&viewfull=1#post5068812 Notice the bold part. OC_windforce has been taken part in live OC competitions before (MOA) ... I wonder if he'll be allowed in the next ones.

Endtime: 15-3-12 12:00:00 (noon) CET

Once again, it depends on how you define 'the track'. I know, this may sound really irrelevant and boring, but it's important. To finish 'the track', is it obligatory to jump over the small hill, or is it allowed to avoid the hill and drive next to it. Even a seemingly regular track like an F1 racetrack still has two boundaries defining the track's limitations. Also, not all cars will drive the exact same route on the track; some will take outside lane, some will take inside lane. It's the same question: what is the benchmark? Is it 'render all frames' or is it 'render this scene'? As for the reductio ad absurdum ("where is the end?"), that actually depends on HOW Virtu MVP is deciding which frames should and which shouldn't be rendered. So far, I have not seen any information related to the technical side of the software, so it's a little difficult to actually comment on it (negatively or positively). With my very limited knowledge on 3D development, I do think there are two practical relevant scenarios: 1) the software compares the new frame with the old frame, analyses it, tracks down the parts that have already been rendered and, instead of forwarding the render request to the discrete GPU, uses a part of a previously rendered frame to show the image. 2) the software disregards new render requests on an arbitrary basis only to "speed up" the framecounter. This could, perhaps (i don't know), be done by ignoring the less important render requests. In scenario 1), the reductio ad absurdum is not a valid argument, because 'the end' is determined by the 3D scene and that 3D scene only. Virtu MVP would boost the FPS depending on how much similar parts are supposed to be rendered. In this case, we're just talking about an efficiency enhancement as the system is just not rendering identical parts multiple times. In scenario 2), argument is actually valid and is problematic, because then there's an arbitrary (=subjective) basis to decide how much should be rendered.

What we really need is a 3D benchmark (not 2D!) that actually says something about the hardware's ability to render a scene with a certain image quality, rather than measure how much frames it can render with a fixed quality. A benchmark that tells me "hey, with this card you can play 1080p with 8xAA smoothly" or "hey, this card will only give you 720p with 2xAA smoothly". I don't think FPS is going away soon, though. It's way too easy to use it as a marketing tool.

What's the latest you have ?

Persian - Jalda Restaurant (http://www.jalda.de)

Can you make a screenshot of the error?

Nothing here at HWBOT is really comparable. Operating system, drivers, services, frequencies, silicon quality, lod, evga epower ... it's all different. It's comparable ... to a certain degree. That degree is nothing more than subjective. And the subject in this case is the definition of "what is the benchmark". Even with Lucid Virtu, the track is still the same. The scene is still rendered (no visual difference). I understand what you're trying to say, though, but like I mentioned earlier it just comes down to how you define benchmark. Is it "render as much full frames as possible" or is it just "render the scene".

Oh right. Zotac girl. Reminds me I've to send her an email .

It does make sense, that's the problem. There's no visual difference even though 20-50% less frames are actually rendered. That mean better efficiency, which is a good thing. The logic that you would then be allowed to disable ALL frames is not really valid, because the idea of this software is that there is NO loss in image quality even if not all frames are rendered.

Will we be able to see whether or not MVP was used in the GUI, or will we have to check the verification link only (like tesselation)?

Some comments: MVP does not work well with multiple GPUs. 2x7970 scores 15K gpu score in 3D11, with MVP enabled that's 10K (~ 1xGPU with MVP). I assume it's just a matter of expanding the MVP software to support multi-gpu configurations, but of course we don't know how much resources Lucid has to do this. The performance does not go up when overclocking the IGP of the SB cpu. This means that the "coop" between IGP and discrete GPU is only a half-true story; it's quite likely that you could very will do the same thing with any other GPU. But of course, it's nice to say that the IGP and dGPU are working together. I don't expect any performance gain going from SB to IB either ... Practically, this software requires nothing more than what you do when enabling D3D overrider. You just need a mainboard that has the MVP licence. Not all applications scale. Heaven DX11 goes up massively (+40%), 3D11 too (+27%), 3DM03 as well (+50%, need to rerun to verify). Vantage crashed all the time (I suspect issue between Virtu and ATI driver), Aquamark3 actually went down (-24%). Fyi, we've scheduled adding the functionality to indicate whether or not you've used MVP in your benchmark run. MVP scores will not be ranked and will not be receiving any points for the time being. We might add ranks/points in the future, perhaps in a different category.

OK http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=42040

Here's a complete list of all the LGA1155 Z77 mainboards we currently have in our database. We're constantly updating the database and adding more boards. Please feel free to reply if we missed a product! Thanks to: Stasio, Pt1T, Hiwa, Vladutz2