Massman

It's starting to fill up ...

There is no reason why they would bother making an engineering sample with i7 silicon and name it i3. The whole point of engineering samples is to validate functionality and the "Core i7" and "Core i3" are nothing more than strings. Branding i7 silicon with an i3 string for validation purposes would only make things more confusion.

Small update: I've made a draft proposal for the new algorithm and sent it to Frederik to get technical feedback on how long it would take to implement, scalability and server load.

Fixed Thanks for the heads-up.

I think there is one thread with the list of "most valuable rankings". I updated it periodically, but I guess with the embed stuff it could just be updated all the time (if the query isn't too hard on the database).

Should be resolved I think ?

I'll just accept the fact that all my Nvidia 3D subs will soon have less points. Nice to see you around Kenny!

You can get the overall usage figures for each of the graphics cards by either checking the participants in the hardware rankings (per benchmark) or hardware pages (total submissions). By using the search function and selecting the option "Best submission" under "other" you can count the amount of users. It's a bit of work, I know. Specific lists like the one I posted here are only possible with database access.

5/7 Perfect guide

FYI, all the versions ending with .1xx is MSI version. For example: 5.1.0.101 All the .2xx are ASUS (but there are no official versions released)

Nice one!

FYI, here's a list with all the graphics cards that had more than 100 overclockers use it, in order of popularity. GeForce GTX 970 GeForce GTX 980 GeForce GTX 980 Ti GeForce GTX 760 HD Graphics 4000 GeForce GTX 770 GeForce GTX 960 GeForce GTX 780 GeForce GTX 750 Ti GeForce GTX 780 Ti Qualcomm Adreno 330 GeForce GTX 660 GeForce GTX 980M GeForce GTX 970M Radeon R9 290X GeForce GTX Titan X GeForce GTX 670 Radeon R9 290 GeForce GTX 680 GeForce GTX 860M Mobile HD Graphics 5300 Radeon HD 7970 Radeon R9 280X Radeon R9 390 GeForce GTX 660 Ti GeForce GTX 580 Qualcomm Adreno 320 GeForce GTX 750 HD Graphics 4600 GeForce GTX 560 Ti GeForce GT 740M HD Graphics 3000 Mobile HD Graphics 5500 GeForce GTX 650 Radeon HD 7950 Radeon R9 270X GeForce GT 750M GeForce GTX 570 Mobile HD Graphics 5000 Qualcomm Adreno 305 Mobile HD Graphics 4400 GeForce GTX 480 ARM Mali-400

Sure, done!

Yes, plenty of ideas. Now I only need to find the time to make the formulas and get the devs to try something on UAT ...

Nice one Boris!

GPUPI is an extreme example, but there are plenty of benchmarks that fall in between. For example 3DMark06 scales with multi-threaded CPU but only up to a certain point. It doesn't make sense to have a distinction to 8C and higher if the benchmark only scales to 4 CPU cores. (this is also the case for multi-gpu in benchmarks like 3DMark01) Another consequence of this system is that the popularity index for each of the rankings will hurt, meaning a lower amount of points for each category compared to what 1xGPU is now receiving. But that can be addressed with a threshold adjustment as discussed in the technical thread. Another consequence, but more related to perception, is that the "top single gpu" score will most likely not have the highest points anymore since it would fall out of the category with the highest participation. Technically it can be solved by creating an intermediate ranking of "single gpu", but this adds an additional layer of complexity. Not exactly a prime example of the KISS principle. Also, this will not address any of the concerns that the most expensive graphics card is required to be competitive in 3D benchmarks. If anything, it opens up more global rankings for the GTX 980 Ti to dominate. For the GTX 970 owners, this has no effect whatsoever. Certainly the cost has been reduced from $1000 to $400 for the CPU, but the $1000 graphics card is still a factor. $1400 for CPU+GPU in 3D is still triple the $400 for CPU in 2D. In that regard, the Class idea was addressing this problem much better (data output here).

LOLWTF

Do you have any insight on if things are improving at AMD? I always felt the things you did for what basically are their enthusiast customers was under-appreciated. I don't know what went on behind the scenes, so I might be completely wrong. But if they want to re-capture some enthusiasts with the AM4 CPU and APUs, they'll need someone to give diehards the tools they need ...

Just some quick numbers for your suggestion @Rauf //edit: what do we do with benchmarks like GPUPI where CPU doesn't matter and participation is also not like the 2D benchmarks? 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Categories by GPU count (4 total) GPUs Max Users 1 14432 1040 2 22824 542 3 27910 157 4 34252 108 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Categories by GPU and CPU count (30 total) GPUs CPUs Max Users 1 1 236 1 1 2 8280 113 1 3 2224 1 1 4 12614 759 1 6 10440 375 1 8 14432 231 1 10 3383 1 1 12 3813 4 1 16 6597 3 1 20 4711 1 1 64 9896 4 2 2 2452 3 2 4 19048 302 2 6 17528 247 2 8 22827 134 2 12 10015 3 2 16 5304 1 2 20 8667 1 2 24 10262 1 2 64 5027 1 3 4 12887 33 3 6 20244 88 3 8 27910 64 3 12 4302 2 3 18 14626 1 3 20 11857 1 4 4 15600 23 4 6 25332 60 4 8 34252 55 4 64 25020 2

Found issue, working again

Good luck everyone!

Moved to public section of the forum

Oops, try: http://downloads.hwbot.org/downloads/BIOS/X99/E7881IMS.A21

This topic of the efficiency challenge may be a good topic for the CCTF @xxbassplayerxx, @Rasparthe, @ObscureParadox, @zeropluszero, @Don_Dan

Best of Single Core CPU <script src='http://hwbot.org:80/js/embed.js'></script><div id='9b4922c7-868c-48b3-a68d-b83fcfd2f344'><script type='text/javascript'>hwbot_embed('9b4922c7-868c-48b3-a68d-b83fcfd2f344','','embedTable')</script></div>