Massman

Sempron should take the P4 in the memory benchmarks, though.

Think?

No worries - A64 is just decent if you compare clock-per-clock GPU score performance. The most important part of the Vantage score with this type of CPU is the CPU score and A64 doesn't go high enough.

Good to see which is the best 3D platform for old-skool systems:

Interesting run. Seems like Sempron isn't scaling that well either.

http://hwbot.org/community/submission/1063373_chew_3dmark_vantage___performance_radeon_hd_5870_10188_marks Seeing this run, I wonder if the Pentium 600 series (HT, cedar mill) could play a role in the Vantage ranking at 7G+ ...

Hah! The pleasure would be all mine, I think. It's been a long time since someone did this kind of high-level benching completely on his own. I'm pretty confident we'll see you in one of the big worldwide final events in Taiwan ... Oh, and I always figured that 'benching together' implied any form of drinking. If not, I've been practicing the joined bench sessions incorrectly for the past couple of years

Impressive clocks. Same card as in the MOA final?

Heya girls and boys, Just wanted to check if we should invest time in setting up something special for the legends of overclocking. And if yes, who these people would be. Just to clarify what I mean by legends: this doesn't mean anyone who did something special for overclocking or the overclocking community. This means, in practical terms, people who you'd be nervous to talk to or you always will regard as better regardless of what results this person achieved in the past, in the present or in the future. So, in essence, when meeting these legends you feel humble as overclocker, but also as human being. For me personally, I had this when I first met Hipro5, Shamino and Macci. I'm pretty sure the same would be if I ever had the chance to meet Fredyama and K|ngp|n. Any ideas?

Well done!

Yeah, seen it's going well for you guys! As Oliver says: "keep pushing it!"

Not allowed. The idea is to have a single core system and OC the crap out of it. I'll add it to the benchmark limitations. Yesterday night I tested the GTX480 with a 3800+ Venice CPU. Managed to outperform a (much more recent) Celeron 430 in Vantage by 20%

Just saw this over at XS ... incredibly strong chip!

Not just a robot ... it was only a little baby robot!

This poll was to display that it's not possible for HWBOT to cover the basic running costs with community input only and therefore have to rely on manufacturers and other sources to generate the income needed to cover costs. If if we wanted to force the community to pay, which we don't, it wouldn't be enough. RichBa5tard's posts should make things more clear:

My thoughts on the team/community rankings (some already said by Wanako too). 1) Community consists cross-team A community should not be defined by who wants to be on one specific team but rather on who's actively participating in some kind of forum or discussion group. People are part of one team, but part of multiple communities. Breaking that up 'officially' (visible in some kind of website) is good or bad? 2) Deciding what hardware is eligible Nice idea in theory, but in practical terms the choice of hardware needs to be addressed through rules and guidelines. When revision 4 was presented to the public, hwbot was falsely accused of changing the rules to suit the manufacturers. Also, the decision to allow competitions (live and online) to be a part of the infividual rankings was attacked because we only allowed partners to hold competitions that would count to the total. If this is a problem with so few truths and nothing but perception, how big will the problems be when hwbot actually decides what hardware gets points? What if Intel joins up: will you accept if their wish is to only award points to intel-based products? What's the ratio between cpu and gpu categories, and what with memory and mainboard? Will you quit hwbot if two 'seasons' in a row, your type of hardware wasn't picked, basically limiting you from participating in the team? 3) Team spirit damaged Team players will leave the 'community' if they think they deserve a spot, but don't get one. This is a problem in professional sports and overclocking is for most of us still a hobby. People fight to be on first string not because they want to help out a bigger cause (as then they'd settle for the community rankings), but also because they want to make themselves look/feel better ("look, I'm on the 8 selected benchers of my community"). Since for most of us, the main goal in overclocking is effectively to help the team, not cutting it will give the feeling of 'uselessness' in the team. 4) Multiple similar teams As a consequence of 3, there will be an increase in similar teams (which was also a consequence of the original rev4 team ranking plan). This means that the team rankings can be dominated by one team, but several subdivisions of that team: 'pure1', 'pure2', 'pure3', ... 5) Hardware sharing This suggestion doesn't address the hardware sharing issue within teams and sister-teams. This can be solved partially by introducing the original rev4 plan as team ranking, but that will have as consequence 4. 6) Team captain problems As mentioned before, there will be people in the community that really wish to be more important for the community by joining the team, but don't get picked couple of seasons in a row. What if a team member feels left out because the team captain doesn't like him, or has that perception? Again, overclocking is a hobby, so the reward is mostly honor and friendship. If those are gone, so are your community members. 7) Overclocking teams are not 'real teams' The real teams you are describing are all teams that meet together in real life or online at a fixed time to achieve a specific joined goal. Overclocking teams, on the other hand, fight constant different battles at random timeframes using different goals without meeting together before battle. Online gaming comes closest to overclocking teams, but still they are meeting at a fixed time-frame. The analogy is not complete. This would work if manufacturers would hold lots and lots of small local events around the world, but we're not there (yet).

What Monstru said. Don't kill our little baby robot

No, I don't think it's the humor part. I'm sure some people can confirm I have quite a high-tolerence level when it comes to joking ... I'm hardly ever offended by any type of joke. I guess, yes, maybe this is an okay joke. No idea why I'm a bit offended though.

Most of you know that I'm pretty capable of dealing with a lot of things: jokes, pranks, personal slander, etc ... in most cases I just smile and either congratulate you on the joke (if it was a good one) or give a snappy reply. This avatar, however ... made me a bit uncomfortable. Not sure whether it's okay for me to feel slightly offended by this avatar. Maybe I should just take this as a joke too? Your feedback, please .

I like the idea of community rankings, but I don't think we should be rating communities by the amount of points they bring in as the quality of a community can (imho) not be caught with a concept as abstract as hwboints. We could use things like: how much active members, how much variety in benching, how much scores with points, what the ratio of blocked/verified scores are. But also things like how much people are banned from that community, etc. Maybe even put in a part where doing WCG or folding is good for the community ranking. I always liked the feature in the very old HWBOT where we could say to what forums we belong (was used for forumbot purposes, but nice anyways). I would very much like to say that although I'm part of the Madshrimps OC Team, I also contribute/spend time on OCXtreme and KPcooling etc. (shit, more work for rev4 )

Note that this system does render people's submissions meaningless as, once the team cap has been hit, any submission in the same category is worth nothing to the team. Also it leaves hardware sharing quite beneficial as any team will push to hit the cap in as much rankings as possible. If the cap has not been hit yet, sharing hardware to make that hit is beneficial.

Ah. That's what I had in mind for the PowerTeam rankings: teams get points for their position in a ranking, regardless of who submit the score. Separate tab as well, with scoring lay-out like this: http://hwbot.org/competition/hoc_oct10. So, visually it will also look as if the team grabs points, rather than an individual. Alternative 4, where you limit points for specific hw/bm combinations is quite difficult coding-wise, however. A few posts back I counted the amount of rankings we have right now: This means that we have to define max points for upto 20k rankings. Scalability is a pain with that system since adding one benchmark increases the amount of max point definitions by all possible HW categories. Also, it means we have to keep track of how much points a team has for each of that ranking ... huge database.

Just a heads-up: Alternative 2 is basically the worst of both worlds. Both hardware sharing heaven and removing team spirit. Rev3: - Is highly prone to hardware sharing - Is prone to extremely large teams - Doesn't allow much scaling in terms of amount of HWBOINT benchmarks Especially the first item is important since it annoys both the community and the staff. As said before, I added option #6 to allow people to both choose for the alternative that they think will work best AND ventilate the anger towards changing anything. I wish I had a carte blanche to do whatever I want. Also, I don't have any issue with explaining the idea and concepts behind changes. In addition, it's good to get feedback on stuff as well (the initial design for the teams league clearly was a no-go so needed to be fixed), but maybe endless voting doesn't work either. I could close this thread and just wait untill Frederik has a beta server running with all three designs: current league, powerteam league and the combination of both 'alternative 3'. The thing is, sometimes the situation how it is right now doesn't show the problems with the algorithm. For instance, Alternative 5 looks véry similar to alternative 3 when you do the calculations with the current rankings, but if you search for loopholes you find that 5 is actually very prone to hardware sharing, much more than 3. Without the theory behind the algorithm, these things are lost in numbers. How do you mean? "I win" You just described alternative 4 .

Oh! And once again, congratulations on your 2nd place in GOOC!

Current system: Top-5 hardware masters = top-6 team Top-10 hardware masters = 44k team (= 12k more than current #1 team) Estimations on how much people you need to be the #1 team in a rev4 design are very likely to be incorrect. For a good estimation, we need to see a beta version in action.