Massman

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>

Moved this thread as sticky in the new sub-forum

Whaaaaat?!

It used to not be visible, but I've added it to the regular places now

Sorry, just fixed it. I'll make a news post about it on Monday or so to promote the contest

You can't disable it in the user profile ?

Hey David, No worries, mistakes happen. Were you able to submit the score to Cinebench correctly afterwards? If not can you let me know (use mention with @) so I can check if there's an issue server side? Thanks and have a nice weekend! :celebration:

Some of the PSUs will be available for prizes, but for obvious reasons we can't supply every event attendee with a brand new power supply

Thread title is misleading!

Yes! Seasonic decided to back the ENTIRE World Tour this year! :celebration:

Want to jump in and make another important distinction. The algorithm may not care, but the algorithm designer certainly cares a lot. The goal of the HWBoints algorithm and the Overclockers League is to identify the "best overclockers" in the world. The specific implementation of the algorithm is intended to reflect exactly that. Once in a while the overclocking situation changes and the algorithm has to be adjusted to accommodate change. For example, in the past we had to limit the amount of hardware points for the Overclockers League because "grinders" were dominating the League. Or, the minimum points for global rankings had to be fixed for very low participation levels. Or, introducing the WR points to address poorly rewarded 4-Way benchmark world records. And so on. It is my personal opinion that benching GTX 980 TI, regardless of the system cost, is a lot more challenging than benching a Core i3 through HWBOT Prime and should be rewarded more. But I also agree that we should try to accommodate any type of overclocker and not have "wallet size" be a decisive factor in the League. From what I read so far, I think the general idea is that: 3D should have equal points like 2D Hardware points should be as important as Global points There should always be a bonus for the top rankings The point distribution for Hardware Rankings is fine as it is now How competitive a global ranking is in terms of amount of participants is not so much a factor, I think. At least, I haven't seen much arguments emphasizing this aspect. Any major point I'm missing?

That is a legitimate paradigm, I think. The main problem with this paradigm is that this makes every benchmark valued the same. So if a new benchmark came around, the points for that benchmark would be the same as for any other well-established benchmark. There would be no differentiation between any global ranking. One way to go around this is by defining a set of benchmark tiers which allows for more points if the benchmark is more relevant. Ie. - Tier A: maximum 150 pts (Fire Strike, XTU, Cinebench R15, ...) - Tier B: maximum 100 pts (Ice Storm, 3DMark03, SuperPI 1M, ...) - Tier C: maximum 50 pts (PiFast, CPU Frequency, ...) Also it would make uncompetitive rankings like WPrime 3xCPU worth as much as a highly expensive 3DMark Vantage 3xGPU. There are solutions for that too, though. For example, using a popularity threshold within a benchmark for each global category. In that case, unpopular global rankings (ie. 5xCPU) within a top-tier benchmark would get less points than the popular global rankings (ie. 4xCPU).

Haha, nice. I like clean scores like this. "No need for decimals"

The algorithm has no "opinion" about the hardware manufacturer. It judges all benchmarks the same. What matters is "how many people use it" and "how well do you score" to hand out points. A lot of people use the XTU benchmark. That's their choice. And the points are awarded in the same way like any other benchmark gets their points. (I just want to make sure that we stay on topic - for sure I agree that XTU is by far not even close to the difficulty of 3D and that the points are too high. But the conversation should be about how we award points; not why a specific benchmark should get less points)

A possible (undesirable?) side-effect of this would be that the Globals are suddenly very unattractive. Much like 3D benching right now, the reward for competing at the top would be very low compared to cost. I think you'd see a significant drop in people who are pushing the latest generation of hardware, which in turn would make less people follow the top results. I don't think this is a very desirable effect because in a sense the noise and excitement around the top overclocking results, whether that's with the Core i3 or i7, is what makes people interested in overclocking. That being said, improving the balance of GL vs HW is something definitely worth considering. We have adjusted the ratio of GL and HW for the Leagues several times in the past. I quickly threw together some numbers from the Most Valuable Submission tracker which may by interesting for you. In the graphs below you can find the distribution of average points per active overclocking in each league, on a weekly basis. In the last table you can find an overview of the average points per League per Week for each Active Overclocker. I thought of this quote by Bindibadgi in his Overclocker in Focus interview when reading your post and compiling the data below: "You’ve got to get better. You’ve got to win the series and when I see people earning 0.1 points on HWBOT as a Rookie, I kind of feel sorry for them because you want them to win big and feel encouraged to do the next step. People are so used to earning big points and big money and stuff like this, and all the gamification of all the applications that you have in 3DMark or on your phone or… whatever. there could be some optimizations within that system. Hopefully we’ll see it." Food for thought.

Actually, the algorithm has no "opinion" on 2D or 3D. In fact, the algorithm treats every ranking the same. The only variables that come into play are "how many people participate" and "how well do you score". Just wanted to clarify this.

Moved some posts from the technical discussion into the general discussion: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=150719

Moved some posts from the technical discussion into the general discussion.

:celebration:

I think you forgot some words @Leeghoofd

We can go over the competitions one by one. I did make something a while back for this: http://hwbot.org/news/11024_live_overclocking_competitions_overview/ (not updated for a while) The only question is if we should add the value of prizes like hardware too.

The hardware will be very much the same, so split up in i7 - i5 - i3 - FX - APU - ARM - Legacy. But obviously there will be Skylake this season

The schedule should be up soon. We've been working on the site lay-out a bit in the past month and waiting for the final version to push everything to production.

I don't think AOD even supports Kaveri. //ninja-edit: apparently the latest version actually does! The Stilt used to support AMD with enthusiast-grade software, but I don't think AMD is too bothered. Haven't heard of any recent tool that support the latest architectures.

Can't remember the last time the frontpage was filled with i3. Overclocking on the cheap :celebration: