Massman

With 4 days of competition left, we already broke the all-time record for submissions in a HWBOT competition: 887 so far. Pretty hardcore

Just added it to the backlog: http://bugs.hwbot.org/browse/HWBOT-649 Not planning it for this sprint; all the points are accounted for.

Yup, that's the plan

You're running XP X64 ? Here's a link to the Aquamark3 X64 patch: http://91.121.148.119/downloads/benchmarks/AquaMark3_Vista_X64-Patch.rar

First result: [hwbot=2234491]submission[/hwbot]

Heads-up: use the Catalyst 11.7 drivers. In 2x CF, I have ~2300pts with the 11.8 to 12.1 drivers and 3500 with the older 11.7 drivers.

Difference between enabled and disabled is only 300p or so. Nice!

Well, then we reach the point where we have to ask the question: "Does the ORB provide sufficient anti-cheat detection mechanisms in order to serve as verification platform?" The answer is "no". There are plenty ways to get faulty submissions to generate a verification link. Just a few months ago, there was a clearly faulty submission (score was off) entered in one of the competitions (deleted before the competition ended). Requiring a verification link is: more work for validation, not necessary for 99% of the benchers and not really adding that much more security when it's really necessary (to catch a cheater). Also, we'd still have to manually check each link to verify if everything ok. Fyi, you can still use the v1.0.1 for the ongoing competitions: http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2418797

The rules definitely need a complete re-write; it's complete chaos. Something to do in 2012 ! Imho, 'back in the day' whoever said ramdisk should not be tolerated in PCMark05 was wrong. Who are 'we' to say that a user should not optimize his configuration by making the most of the DRAM he's using? It only makes sense to use DRAM for lower latency if your HDD is not up for the task. The same goes for the browser: why on earth would you not allow people to change their browser if it's too slow. The rules for PCMark05 won't change in that respect; for that it's way too late. But for PCMark7, we can do it differently. As long as you don't change the benchmark code, everything should be allowed. Btw, the software tuning aspect is present in every benchmark: changing desktop resolution for higher 3DM03 in W7, enabling LSC, flashing 3DM01-boost BIOS, copy-waza. The difference with PCMark is just that all those tweaks are in the open, whereas PCMark7 is still largely uncovered. In the olden days, there were a lot of "3Dmark tweaking guides" floating around ... we'll just have to wait for a PCMark7 tweaking guide to appear .

Everything goes. If you can validate on FM, it's a valid run

Sure, it's available in beta. Go for it!

What's wrong with math equations in a desktop background?

- GIGABYTE GA-X79-UD7 --- F4f: download - Asrock X79 Extreme9 --- V1.90: download

Interesting choice of hardware, nice

Sometimes things go wrong when trying to implement new features. With this new feature, hwbot users will not only be able to report submissions, but entire profiles! So, you better have a clean profile!

So, how are people planning to win this thing?

Nice tweaking !

Had some requests lately for the HWBOT logo. So, here are different sizes and a PSD file for all you creative spirits out there ... - 300x274: download - 500x456: download - 1000x912: download - 1460x1332: download - Photoshop (.PSD): download Have fun! The HWBOT logo cannot be used for commercial purposes

January 3rd 2012 09:00UK / 10:00EU

I gave up on the Intel board rather quickly, to be honest ...

FM verification links were required for top-20 global, that's correct. But not for that other 99% of the submitted results. I'm unsure how FM will change the rule exactly, but currently you can still get a verification link for 1.0.1, 1.0.2 and 1.0.3 results. If the older versions would not allow you to create a link anymore, it would be one step. But, it doesn't solve the issue for that other 99%.

Good question, I opened a discussion thread at the staff forum about it. In essence, it's the same issue as with tesselation: we can't get any info from the GUI, so we can't be entirely sure based on a screenshot. IF we disallow 1.0.1, we have to enforce verification links (which is something we've never done before and comes with its own set of problems). If we just go with all versions allowed, just like we allow tesselation as tweak, we have no worries at all. I wouldn't mind the latter; we've never really followed FM's policies historically speaking (allowing LoD, disabling SI, non-FM approved drivers, tesselation, etc) and I don't think it's HWBOT's ambition to only serve FM-allowed submissions. This site's mainly about enthusiasts pushing systems.

Newer BIOSes shouldn't have an issue with this, I think.

Damn!