Massman

For reference: Stage 1 WR - http://hwbot.org/community/submission/1014090_evocarlos_pcmark_2005_celeron_lga775_440_14442_marks Stage 2 WR - http://hwbot.org/community/submission/979243_nick.ua_wprime_32m_sempron_140_24sec_390ms Stage 3 WR - http://hwbot.org/community/submission/983388_parcifal_3dmark_vantage___performance_geforce_9800_gt_6791_marks I'm not 100% sure of the last one, but ... maybe 95%

I think Intel, AMD and Nvidia might have something to determine what CPU or GPU is being used exactly, but the question is whether they want to help the overclocking community by allowing 3rd-party access to this serial number. Also, think about the consequences: if HWBOT stores this information, it can also determine what CPU has been overclocked, so which specific CPU violates the warranty agreement. Even though we don't have any evil scheme, you can imagine that if Intel or AMD could lay their hands on this information a lot of people would not get an RMA from overclocking any more. Banning hardware sharing completely can only be done if we make it legal, but as mentioned before, that also comes with a lot of complications. Maybe the bitching about hardware sharing would reduce, but the bitching would just go to a different area. Think about it: the concept of hardware sharing rules was invented here at HWBOT to address HWBOT-specific issues. The were placed in action because users complained about it. The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards an adjustment of the current Teams League to address the hardware sharing. Not as strict as suggested in the opening post, but enough to make hardware sharing a lot less beneficial. If hardware sharing is less beneficial and the punishment remains the same, it might discourage people from doing so because reward/cost is lower. The suggestion that I found to be most transparent was this one: Every single score submission would still add points to the team's total, but the benefit from using the same hardware would be a lot lower (because not 100% of score points go to team's total). Please feel free to comment on this. Do note: I'm looking for compromises between community and staff .

Don't forget the background in the verification screenshots. It would be sad if scores are pulled because of some verification rules.

It's a parody

What is the question?

It's amazing how you can keep that bench area so clean. Everything I break out my acard for a round of PCMark, my desk turns into this oasis of hardware, cables and, for some reason, cookies.

Today I have tested the quality of my pot. Very stable temperatures!

Wow, cleane setup. Was het hier maar zo ... :-/

Well, you cannot post someone else's scores of course.

Do you have a picture of the system?

If it fits the limitations - yes

No, only native single cores

No unlocking allowed

Any ideas about multi-gpu configurations for the 3rd stage?

Oh! Very inventive, I like it!

Celeron is too weak. Waaay too weak. I'm trying to get full runs with 3-Way, but my Antec PSU is doing OCP's. Old-skool Truepower 1KW :-/

I've removed the necessity for verification URLs in this competition. The only thing it does is annoy people

But why 2 cards ... if you can have 3 cards in 3-Way SLI?

Exchanged CPU again. No rendering issues anymore, though ...

Yes. Drivers have to be official drivers from MFC (Nvidia, Ati, etc), but FM-approved is not a criterium on HWBOT.

:-D

"Weakest competition entry ever"?

Not sure about the CPC, but the Semprons can be pushed to 5G+ ... as only single core CPUs. I'm very interested to see how the Vantage thing will pan out. I'm not sure having 4 GPUs will even help; if the CPU bottleneck is too big, it's possible that 2 GPUs would be enough.

It's the combination of GPU OC % and MEM OC %