Massman

No benching in the office ... it's distracting.

See backlog

No, a bug we're trying to squash in R4.2.4

Heh. I'd like to see the overclocking community to agree on a person or a committee that is considered impartial :D . "Is HWBOT paid by Nvidia to pick this particular card so the sales would be up??!!" :D

If that was the idea ... I'd be open to it! I wonder if there's a majority open to this idea, though. I recall the discussion arguments when a HWBoints rev change heavily reduced points for multi-GPU videocards and, well, it wasn't pretty.

Your idea is more exclusive to new overclockers than the current implementation. Now anyone can join with any setup they might have, but in your suggestion they first need to buy eligible hardware to start participating. If you don't have the hardware, you can't compete. Also, why would we disallow anyone from trying to break a record in some hardware class?

The points don't define how good someone is 100% accurately; it's merely an estimation using some algoritm that weighs in the amount of competition and the position in a certain category. The idea of "good" is very subjective and everyone has a different opinion about it. For you, "good" may mean having a Single-GPU record, for others "good" might mean scoring top positions on various platforms and architectures. Let's take some examples of those so-called "shitty" records: - Single core Wprime 1024M record (sempron over 6.1GHz) - Kingpin's 12xCPU Wprime32M record (2 cpus at 5.6G+) - SF3D's 3xGPU 3DMark11 score (3 GPUs over 1350MHz core) - Mtech's 4xCPU PCMark05 record (overall record) Each of these scores have some level of difficulty here, but are awarded too little points because there's no competition in the ranking. If someone would try to beat any of these scores, it would take a lot of time and effort to get there. Now, if someone were to be the holder of these 4 records, it would give that person ~ 240p. Do you honestly believe that, for instance, Single GPU 3DMark06 + Single GPU 3DMark05 (together ~320p) is actually underrated in comparison to those 4 other records? How much importance you attributed to a certain ranking depends on how you personally feel about benchmarks, how the benchmarks behave (cpu-limited 3D benchmarks), etc. We all know how the Sandy Bridge has affected the benchmarking scene or how Gulftown affected the scene.

Yes, but you only have 15 slots for Global points for your league ranking.

An overview is coming in R4.2.4 and will be visible under the points tab in your profile. Example: For MOA and GOOC we need additional code to support competitions that are not based on the hwbot database. The code is planned for R4.3 release.

? It's 'unreasonable' that the points gap closes when more people compete in a ranking?

Competition points are implemented, but not very transparent. R4.2.4 has some extra overview options for it. FYI, the difference between "shitty overall wr" and a "single gpu wr" is over 100p: 59.8p (eg: 3x CPU wprime) versus 168p (eg: 1x GPU 3DM06).

FYI, the point distribution comparison between "uncompetitive Wprime32M 3xCPU" (global points) and "competitive 8800GTX 3DM01 1xGPU" (hardware points). Beating lots of people in a hardware class yields more points (in general) than beating few people in a global class.

Need to make new ones then. You can also check out the attached picture to Richba5tard's new 6850 OC result: http://hwbot.org/submission/2220424_richba5tard_unigine_heaven___xtreme_preset_dx11_radeon_hd_6850_506.8_dx11_marks

Contacting MSI today. The delay is all because of me, sorry for that. I went over the submissions yesterday and had to delete the #1 Wprime of Christian Ney because of insufficient verification. The other results are just fine. So: - winner: Zzolio - 2nd: Christian Ney - 3rd: Trut_bar - Lucky Draw: Patagonian (http://hwbot.org/submission/2218754_) and chi-zu33 (http://hwbot.org/submission/2214296_)

No, because this change only affects MEMBER points.

As mentioned earlier in this subforum, we have been looking at the feedback we received from the transition to HWBOT R4 and the changes it brought to the point algoritm. We're currently in the process of finetuning the boints and will introduce all changes in one big package which will be included in either R4.2.4 (due 19/11) or R4.3 (due 01/12). FYI - next to the updates mentioned below, we will also implement a fix for the existing problems with the Global Team Powerpoints as described here. The fix is currently planned for R4.3, but the development is R4.2.4 is going so incredibly smooth that we are considering moving the fix to the current development sprint. If we can't include the GTP fix in R4.2.4, we will postpone the fixes described below and package them in R4.3. Just a matter of keeping things coherent. Changes: Currently, we have installed two updates to the member hwboints algoritm for global rankings: 1) participation weight based on 12-month period instead of 6 months 2) introduce min_participation constant Background information: The current hwboint algoritm used for calculating the points awarded to global member rankings is, just like the very first hwboint revision, mainly based around the amount of competition there is within the ranking. In Rev4, we introduced a time limitation to calculated the level of competition within one ranking. From Rev4, competitivity is determined by the amount of different users who have submitted to a certain global ranking over the past 6 months. Based on feedback such as "I'm losing points in Wprime if I submit more results", we found out that a six month period is quite short. We also found that the drop in points is quite big if, for some reason, a benchmark is suddenly not so popular anymore. Extreme scenarios can be found in Wprime where the global points for #1 position dropped from 133p (without 6-month period) to 13,1p (with 6 month period). To resolve this situation we've prolonged the period for calculating the level of competition in a specific ranking as well as introduced a minimum participation level for every global ranking. Practical consequences: Most importantly, practically this means that pretty much everyone is gaining points. Hooray! On a more serious note, these two updates do have some interesting consequences. For one, in case a benchmark is no longer popular, the points will drop at a much lower speed than they did now. Secondly, this also means that every global ranking has a minimum amount of points. For every #1 global rank, you will now receive a minimum of 59,8 points. This is quite interesting for: - people who frequently run 3/4-way setups, but not subzero - for enthusiast league members who score top scores in overall benchmark rankings - 1xCPU multi-threaded CPU applications (where competitivity drops due to lack of newly released single core cpus) - unpopular but challenging benchmarks (eg: pcmark) In general, you can just think about this update as a guarantee that a global #1 will always receive a minimum of 59.8p. I also want to stress again that these fixes only affect the points awarded in global member rankings and that the formula for calculating the league ranking is not affected. In other words: the game is completely the same, only a few more ways to be competitive. Test environment: This weekend, we'll updated our test server environment with a new dump from the result database and open it up for you to check it out and see your rank. For now, here are just some examples. Some examples: - Booj' 3xGPU Heaven DX11: 5.1p -> 59.8p - Ananerbe's 1xCPU Wprime 1024M record: 11.0p -> 59.8p - **DP**'s 3xGPU Vantage record: 8.1p -> 59.8p - Nacho_arroyo's 6xCPU Wprime1024M record: 9.6p -> 59.8p - Moonman's 3xGPU 3DMark01 record: 6.3p -> 59.8p Example of the updated leagues. Note: this is using an outdated dump of the production database. It's very likely that your latest submissions are not taken into account yet.

FYI, this is the data I kept from air pretest runs.

1.6V for 4G

I got the boost when I changed two things, but didn't have enough LN2 to check which of the two was causing the actual gain. I did: - run NB 1:1 with HT Link - lower memory multiplier from 1:4 to 3:10 I spoke about this gain with Macci and the best we could come up with is that choosing a lower memory multiplier is tightening up the memory in some way. This probably in combination with a highly overclocked CPU and NB. I didn't see this kind of bottleneck on air cooling. I think Leeghoofd is picking up the gear tomorrow evening and can't keep the cards for much longer anymore either, so further testing will be for another time, I think.

4G NB also worked, but couldn't get the clocks up to 7G then.

For the "Dual Core UCBench2011"-stage, you need 5 scores on 5 different setups with the setup defined by the cpu core. So, Wolfdale + Conroe + Allendale + Regor + Callisto would be allowed.

Daaaaaaaaaaaaym !

Boy oh boy, did I waste a lot of time with inefficient settings ... Fiddling in the BIOS gave me this:

The idea behind giving more points to stages which require less people is that it's not always easy to find 5 people with 'highly competitive' scores. So, we put more stress on the stages for which you need less quantity and more quality scores.

The PCMark7 stage is probably the one which requires the most $$ to compete (as you need 3 scores). However, I think you can work around that by having a team session and combine the SSDs you have. That's just team work. The AMD stage also requires some $$, but you only need one score per country. Surely someone in the country has 3 or 4 cards to run it with.