Massman

It's verified now.

I'll look at the exact configuration tomorrow morning. When configured, the HCE should not require me manually checking submission if the are legit.

@ Sweet: The sigh is not really because people have different opinions and they want to share them. I like when people share their view and point out ways to improve this site or overclocking in general. For example, I.M.O.G recently started a thread regarding the OC Challenges and his creative ideas lead to different styles of competition. The sigh is mostly because we just keep coming back to the same discussion topics. Also, we also keep having the same type of non-discussion where two people come with arguments from their side, clearly highlighting an existing issue, but none of them can provide a viable solution. For me, that's the most frustrating part about this type of discussion: a certain problem is identified, but either there is no solution suggested, or the suggested solution is so complicated it's too difficult to actually implement practically, or a general "it all sucks" follows. And, in my opinion, a lot of the problems that were brought up here just come naturally with the world we live in: - internet: anonymous; can't really verify environment - software: hackable; pretty hard to find software that can't be hacked - hardware: market-driven; certain companies just don't sell hardware in certain regions in certain time periods - marketing: exposure; marketing has been part of overclocking since long before hwbot. - technical sport: silicon; whether you like it or not, the benchmark score is the result of the hardware. You can try as hard as you want, you won't beat a 1000MHz GTX580 with a GF2. - firmware: hardware needs firmware to run properly; not all firmware is safe enough to be available to the public and companies don't them to leak. - opinions: we all know what that brings with it ... and so on. The boundaries of the overclocking world is not defined by you, me, hwbot or any other individual. It's defined by things like the limitations of the internet as communication medium, or market-driven companies that need their investment to result in profit, by the technical limitations of the products we use and bench. Now, add these uncontrollable variables to the different opinions we all have and you'll realize it's not (as) easy (as some people pretend it is). So, when I sigh, it's because I know how this kind of discussion starts, because I know what type of different opinions will be posted, because I know all these opinions make sense in their own way and because I know pretty much all of them just come with the game. So, you could fix a reported problem like someone suggests, but that 'solution' will bring even more problems than we had before. For example: "hardware X is for pro" leads to "more people in pro", which leads to "pro is not really pro, but more like average". Or, as someone already pointed out: "higher points for AMD cpus" will lead to "higher points for Nvidia vgas" which will lead to "more points for my prefered brand", which eventually leads to no relative change (everything is still "worth" the same compared to the other). Or another one: "don't award global points to shity records like 3xGPU 3Dmark01" leads to "I pushed for this record and all I got was this lousy 2p", which leads to "hwbot does not recognise a good score" ... We just keep going 'round and round again. Never a solution, always a reason to bitch.

Rebranding is a bitch, but it has been for years so nothing new. I don't see how this newsarticle would have to make us change the way we have been managing the database.

Competition archive: http://hwbot.org/competitions/archive He won the K10 stage: http://hwbot.org/competition/hoc_nov11/stage/298_cpu-z_amd_k10/

I like the idea of photo verification, but do you require photo verification for all submissions? Even those that are clearly not very competitive at all (let's say: 10k PCM05 with i7 990X). Not everyone has a camera around when he's benching. I kind of like the idea of making pictures mandatory for all submissions; not just the PCMark05. We discussed this option before and then the conclusion was that it would hinder people too much. I guess pretty much everyone has a digital camera nowadays, so it should be that difficult. One thing though: we can't automatically identify a picture and judge whether it's a system picture or not. Also, people can just download pictures from the web, I guess. Here are the rest of my opinions on this mess: The XP startup was a difficult call: "Short comment on the cap: it was 50/50 on keeping it or not. Either way would've made some people unhappy. So, as the cap has pretty much been with PCMark05 since forever, I decided to keep it. It's a part of what defines PCMark05 as benchmark." (link) Originally, the cap was set by Futuremark on their ORB to keep software ramdisks out.

FTW !

OC Gods? So, wait, people ask us to change rules so it would improve (?) the League at HWBOT and thinking about it is not okay? This thread made me SIGH ...

You need to add a little "KISS" to your ideas. The more complex a system, the less interesting it will be to follow and participate. That weighed system might seem closer to the 'true' ranking, but it's too complicated.

That will be revealed in the super-exciting mega-shuffle video report !

No. X2 555 only for dual core category.

So, the winners list was: - Christian Ney - Mare87 - Attix - FtW - I.M.O.G Uploading the random.org exciting lucky draw mega-shuffle right now. Video's at 10% upload, so in about half an hour it should be ready

I don't understand how this wrapper would affect Aquamark3 stability with artifacts. The wrapper doesn't change anything to the benchmark. It just grabs the numbers when the bench finishes.

Radeon HD 7970 was launched officially. People bought retail sample with their own money. Of course they should not be forced to the Pro League. The only argument you could maybe make is that they should wait for the retail launch (09/01) before getting points. But then again, technically all AMD branded cards are not at all under NDA.

But these Greeks bought their hardware ... just like you would.

We have a plan to add the ability to create knock-out competitions, but it's quite a complex task that requires two weeks full-time development. So, it will not be for the first months.

If it's not about skill anymore, can someone explain to me why Shamino got his card upto 1700/2000 MHz? Surely, the ability to figure out hardware modifications falls under 'skill', just like it did in the days where Hipro5 modified the crap out of his s479 Dothan adapter. Unless, of course, you think it's only 'skill' if you just have to follow a modding guide ... In addition, have you guys ever considered that the fact that overclocking has become a lot about sample selection is a consequence of more people having mastered the skill to work with liquid nitrogen? In general, the skill of the extreme overclocker has gone up a lot in the last couple of years. We've now reached a point where cpu or cpu/gpu on LN2 is no longer an issue ... just look at the recent MOA results. It's a bit strange, though, that you think it's now worse because the overclockers are more skilled now ... //edit: A quote that says it all: ~ http://kingpincooling.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18953&postcount=23

There are a couple of ways to prevent sand-bagging in competitions, but we must beware of demonising last-minute winning submissions. It's not because the winning submission was made in the last 5 seconds of the competition that the person who made that score doesn't deserve to win. If, in soccer, a team is trailing by 2-0 five minutes from the end but keeps pushing and eventually end up scoring 3 goals in the last couple of minutes, that's a deserved win in my opinion. The biggest problem with sandbagging is that certain people don't show anything until the last second. That was one of the biggest issues of F1OC ("5 minutes of excitement") and is still an 'issue' in pretty much all competitions. A system where you have to submit one score a week is a nice idea, but won't solve the excitement part of this issue: people would just start with uber-crap score, then submit a lesser crap score, then a normal score and in the last week their insane score. Another idea would be to grant points on a per-week basis, but then you just make the competition about who's able to submit the fastests rather than who is able to produce the best score. Next staff meeting, we'll look into the complexity of a competition format that excludes the 'worst teams' after a certain period. I can't recall the exact terminology, but it's like this: - competition last 4 weeks - 1st week: all can submit - 2nd week: best 20 teams continue - 3rd week: best 10 teams continue - 4th week: best 5 compete for the stage win. This way, you'll have to make sure your score is good enough 4x in one competition to be eligible for the next round.

You are using the 1.0.3, right? When did you download it? Yesterday? Or a couple of days ago?

At HWBOT, we're currently planning a Team OC Cup competition with a set up similar to the the yearly Country Cup. The plan is to feature several seasons per year, each season with different hardware, different benchmarks and different limitations. As said, we're currently in the design phase trying to gather everything we learned from the past three Country Cups and figure out how to improve the competition format. I expect the first season(s) to be quite similar to the Country Cup. In the second half of 2012, I hope we will have a functional version of a neat application we're working on that should make this kind of competition more exciting. We're still thinking about the ideal length of a season. The Country Cup is fine in length, but because it's very intensive (10-day stages), 6 weeks is a little stretching it for most. I think we're looking at a 2/3-month season with stages ~ 3 weeks (with maybe one 'blitzkrieg'-stage of 1 week). Anyway, I'm hoping to get the first season going around April this year, with finalized format/rules before March 1st (so there's roughly one month to prepare for the contest). If you have any suggestion or ideas, just post UPDATE: Start: June 1st. End: September 1st. - 1 competition, 6 sub-competitions, 43 stages. - 19 GPUs, 17 CPUs, 7 MEMs. More exact info soon.

So, I assume this is a problem when submitting online directly from the application? Or is it a problem submitting a saved file?

Yes, we tested on XP, Vista and 7. We also had betas spread for testing. Did you install FW4.0 and applied der8auer's fix?

Nice, 8G!

Sorry for making challenges sometimes a little bit different.

How many cards binned before you find this one?