Massman

The full World Series rules will be published in the next two weeks

The difference between 1.25V and 1.27V isn't that big. It's possible that your CPU just needs a bit more Vcore for 4.5 GHz than the ones you're comparing with. What kind of benchmark scores are you seeing?

The last time we had a 6.4G bench stable Core i3 was with Clarkdale ... in January 2010

What the ...

Whoah! Milestone!!

Just leaving this here for you guys. 3DMark Fire Strike - Kaveri Leaderboard Embed code: <script src='http://hwbot.org:80/js/embed.js'></script> <div id='c97f5905-dc49-48fe-ad47-e9befc9a00d1'><script type='text/javascript'>hwbot_embed('c97f5905-dc49-48fe-ad47-e9befc9a00d1','','embedTable')</script></div> 3DMark Fire Strike - Godavari Leaderboard Embed code: <script src='http://hwbot.org:80/js/embed.js'></script> <div id='5fbc857b-6cd8-471c-b867-3f573b82ba8a'><script type='text/javascript'>hwbot_embed('5fbc857b-6cd8-471c-b867-3f573b82ba8a','','embedTable')</script></div>

@xxbassplayerxx, all uploaded: http://downloads.hwbot.org/downloads/benchmarks/Intel%20XTU/XTU-Setup_3.1.201.5.msi http://downloads.hwbot.org/downloads/benchmarks/Intel%20XTU/XTU-Setup_1.3.182.0.exe http://downloads.hwbot.org/downloads/benchmarks/Intel%20XTU/XTU-Setup_2.0.143.16.exe http://downloads.hwbot.org/downloads/benchmarks/Intel%20XTU/XTU-Setup_2.1.408.41.exe http://downloads.hwbot.org/downloads/benchmarks/Intel%20XTU/XTU-Setup_6.0.2.1.exe http://downloads.hwbot.org/downloads/benchmarks/Intel%20XTU/XTU-Setup_6.0.2.2.exe http://downloads.hwbot.org/downloads/benchmarks/Intel%20XTU/XTU-Setup_6.0.2.8.exe http://downloads.hwbot.org/downloads/benchmarks/Intel%20XTU/XTU-Setup_5.2.0.14.exe http://downloads.hwbot.org/downloads/benchmarks/Intel%20XTU/XTU-Setup_6.0.2.301.exe

... and benchmark breaking?

What you mention is connected to one of the problems with GPU categorization that is causing all but the most top card to be competitive. The problem is that we separate the graphics cards by GPU Core and not the Compute Cores in the GPU. For the processors, we do it differently. That's why we can have a very competitive and cheap dual core CPU category. A way to address this would be to group the graphics cards by compute cores. Below an example listing the fastest scores per compute core quantity. 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme 1xGPU Cores Score GPU MHz GPU 4096 10556 1381 Radeon R9 FURY X 3584 8446 1140 Radeon R9 FURY 3072 12342 2050 GeForce GTX Titan X 2880 6421 1332 GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 2816 14432 2203 GeForce GTX 980 Ti 2688 8109 1830 GeForce GTX Titan 2560 8864 Radeon R9 290 2496 8950 2025 GeForce GTX 780 Ti 2304 7732 1907 GeForce GTX 780 2048 10459 2300 GeForce GTX 980 1792 5371 1400 Radeon HD 7950 1664 7113 1962 GeForce GTX 970 1536 6042 1500 GeForce GTX 980M 1344 2827 1120 GeForce GTX 680M 1280 3996 1144 GeForce GTX 970M 1152 4592 2007 GeForce GTX 760 1024 3216 Radeon HD 7850 960 3209 1600 GeForce GTX 660 896 2528 1400 Radeon R7 260X 800 536 725 Radeon HD 7670M (GDDR3) 768 3635 1590 GeForce GTX 950 720 1037 985 Radeon HD 6770 640 3363 2157 GeForce GTX 750 Ti 576 892 1032 GeForce GTX 645 (OEM) 512 2608 1710 GeForce GTX 750 480 800 880 Radeon HD 6670 GDDR5 448 1731 900 GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 384 1333 1241 GeForce GTX 650 352 1747 1053 GeForce GTX 560 Ti OEM 336 1245 795 GeForce GTX 570M 320 935 1425 Radeon R7 240 GDDR5 288 834 GeForce GTX 560 SE 284 606 Radeon HD 7660D 256 764 GeForce GTS 450 GDDR5 192 709 1078 GeForce GTX 550 Ti (192b) 180 237 970 Radeon HD 7470M 160 278 1100 Radeon R5 230 144 518 650 GeForce GT 440 GDDR3 192bit 128 306 Radeon HD 7480D 96 524 1102 GeForce GT 630 DDR3 (GF108) 80 245 1470 Radeon HD 5450 (GDDR3, 64bit) 64 4496 1840 GeForce GTX 960 48 908 Iris Pro 6200 Graphics 32 4446 GeForce GTX 670 24 3485 GeForce GTX 660 Ti 20 797 1250 Radeon HD 5670 (GDDR5, Redwood) 16 780 841 Quadro K1100M 12 125 HD Graphics (Braswell) 12EU 8 773 1344 Radeon R5 Graphics 6 255 1150 HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) 4 712 1400 Iris Pro 5200 Graphics 2 335 1950 HD Graphics (Haswell) SELECT * FROM ( SELECT GREATEST(gpu_model.pipelines, gpu_model.stream_processors) Cores, ROUND(score) Score, ROUND(result.gpucore_oc) "GPU MHz", gpu_model.model GPU FROM result JOIN gpu_model USING (gpu_id) WHERE application_id=58 AND effective_cores=1 AND status_id<10 GROUP BY result_id ORDER BY Cores, score DESC) AS tbl GROUP BY Cores DESC; Main problem is that this would be a LOOOOOT of new global rankings. But it would certainly make 3D more appealing. Note that by separating it this way, the participation for the top categories (ie. GTX 980 Ti) would be a lot lower too. This can be address through WR points though. //edit: Full list with multi gpu included: Cores Score GPU MHz GPU 22528 18168 1088 4x Radeon R9 295X2 16384 27927 1128 4x Radeon R9 FURY X 12288 33229 1840 4x GeForce GTX Titan X 11264 34120 1815 4x GeForce GTX 980 Ti 10752 22731 1700 4x GeForce GTX Titan 10240 13203 945 4x Radeon R9 290 9984 26417 1700 4x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 9216 25554 1515 3x GeForce GTX Titan X 8640 15001 1300 3x GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 8448 27910 1703 3x GeForce GTX 980 Ti 8192 30098 2025 4x GeForce GTX 980 8064 16886 1381 3x GeForce GTX Titan 7680 15588 \N 3x Radeon R9 290 7488 18130 \N 3x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 7168 9638 1000 4x Radeon HD 7950 6912 15568 1474 3x GeForce GTX 780 6656 15383 \N 4x GeForce GTX 970 6144 23990 1900 3x GeForce GTX 980 5760 10280 1250 2x GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 5632 22827 1980 2x GeForce GTX 980 Ti 5376 12801 1581 2x GeForce GTX Titan 5120 11890 1252 2x Radeon R9 290 4992 15011 1775 2x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 4608 12056 \N 2x GeForce GTX 780 4096 17198 2000 2x GeForce GTX 980 4032 8730 1106 3x GeForce GTX 670 3584 9666 1400 2x Radeon HD 7950 3456 8048 1333 3x GeForce GTX 760 3328 11044 1461 2x GeForce GTX 970 3072 12342 2050 1x GeForce GTX Titan X 2880 6421 1332 1x GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 2816 14432 2203 1x GeForce GTX 980 Ti 2688 8109 1830 1x GeForce GTX Titan 2560 8864 \N 1x Radeon R9 290 2496 8950 2025 1x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 2304 7732 1907 1x GeForce GTX 780 2240 1786 970 2x Radeon HD 6870 X2 2160 347 \N 3x Radeon HD 6750 2048 10459 2300 1x GeForce GTX 980 1920 4563 \N 2x GeForce GTX 660 1792 5371 1400 1x Radeon HD 7950 1664 7113 1962 1x GeForce GTX 970 1536 6042 1500 1x GeForce GTX 980M 1440 622 \N 2x Radeon HD 6750 1344 4446 \N 1x GeForce GTX 670 1280 3996 1144 1x GeForce GTX 970M 1152 4592 2007 1x GeForce GTX 760 1120 1582 \N 1x Radeon HD 6990M 1024 4496 1840 1x GeForce GTX 960 960 3209 1600 1x GeForce GTX 660 896 2528 1400 1x Radeon R7 260X 800 536 725 1x Radeon HD 7670M (GDDR3) 768 3635 1590 1x GeForce GTX 950 720 1037 985 1x Radeon HD 6770 640 3363 2157 1x GeForce GTX 750 Ti 576 892 1032 1x GeForce GTX 645 (OEM) 512 2608 1710 1x GeForce GTX 750 480 800 880 1x Radeon HD 6670 GDDR5 448 1731 900 1x GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 400 575 902 1x FirePro V4800 384 1333 1241 1x GeForce GTX 650 352 1747 1053 1x GeForce GTX 560 Ti OEM 336 1245 795 1x GeForce GTX 570M 320 935 1425 1x Radeon R7 240 GDDR5 288 834 \N 1x GeForce GTX 560 SE 284 606 \N 1x Radeon HD 7660D 256 1032 620 1x Quadro 4000 192 709 1078 1x GeForce GTX 550 Ti (192b) 180 237 970 1x Radeon HD 7470M 160 278 1100 1x Radeon R5 230 144 518 650 1x GeForce GT 440 GDDR3 192bit 128 306 \N 1x Radeon HD 7480D 120 75 400 1x Radeon HD 6380G 96 524 1102 1x GeForce GT 630 DDR3 (GF108) 80 245 1470 1x Radeon HD 5450 (GDDR3, 64bit) 64 253 875 2x Radeon HD 7470 48 908 \N 1x Iris Pro 6200 Graphics 32 927 1240 1x Quadro K2000 24 372 950 1x Mobile HD Graphics 5500 20 797 1250 1x Radeon HD 5670 (GDDR5, Redwood) 16 780 841 1x Quadro K1100M 12 125 \N 1x HD Graphics (Braswell) 12EU 10 335 1950 1x HD Graphics (Haswell) 8 773 1344 1x Radeon R5 Graphics 6 255 1150 1x HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) 2 91 \N 1x HD Graphics (Bay Trail) SELECT * FROM ( SELECT (result.effective_cores * GREATEST(gpu_model.pipelines, gpu_model.stream_processors)) Cores, ROUND(score) Score, ROUND(result.gpucore_oc) "GPU MHz", CONCAT(result.effective_cores,"x ",gpu_model.model) GPU FROM result JOIN gpu_model USING (gpu_id) WHERE application_id=58 AND status_id<10 GROUP BY result_id ORDER BY Cores, score DESC) AS tbl GROUP BY Cores DESC; //edit: full list with participation Cores Score Users GPU 22528 16937 3 4x Radeon R9 295X2 16384 20118 2 4x Radeon R9 FURY X 12288 29137 15 4x GeForce GTX Titan X 11264 26837 49 4x GeForce GTX 980 Ti 10752 20089 14 4x GeForce GTX Titan 10240 11389 2 4x Radeon R9 290 9984 20123 23 4x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 9216 22538 14 3x GeForce GTX Titan X 8640 14267 2 3x GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 8448 16629 46 3x Radeon R9 290X 8192 27242 47 4x GeForce GTX 980 8064 16886 15 3x GeForce GTX Titan 7680 13651 6 3x Radeon R9 290 7488 14889 19 3x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 7168 7957 2 4x Radeon HD 7950 6912 15568 21 3x GeForce GTX 780 6656 14225 2 4x GeForce GTX 970 6144 9990 88 3x Radeon HD 7970 5760 9870 5 2x GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 5632 14423 108 2x GeForce GTX 980 Ti 5376 11153 55 2x GeForce GTX Titan 5120 11487 35 2x Radeon R9 290 4992 10165 80 2x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 4608 12056 78 2x GeForce GTX 780 4096 7508 159 2x Radeon HD 7970 4032 8730 6 3x GeForce GTX 670 3584 7106 19 2x Radeon HD 7950 3456 7892 1 3x GeForce GTX 760 3328 10569 31 2x GeForce GTX 970 3072 5839 159 2x GeForce GTX 770 2880 6385 13 1x GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 2816 6542 261 1x Radeon R9 290X 2688 7088 126 2x GeForce GTX 670 2560 6281 91 1x Radeon R9 290 2496 6018 189 1x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 2304 5934 173 1x GeForce GTX 780 2240 1786 1 2x Radeon HD 6870 X2 2160 347 1 3x Radeon HD 6750 2048 5329 357 1x Radeon R9 280X 1920 4375 5 2x GeForce GTX 660 1792 4823 64 1x Radeon HD 7950 1664 6395 98 1x GeForce GTX 970 1536 3496 158 1x GeForce GTX 770 1440 622 1 2x Radeon HD 6750 1344 3516 71 1x GeForce GTX 670 1280 3575 82 1x Radeon HD 7870 (Pitcairn Core) 1152 3573 54 1x GeForce GTX 760 1120 1582 1 1x Radeon HD 6990M 1024 3070 42 1x Radeon HD 7850 960 1944 30 1x GeForce GTX 770M 896 1196 21 1x Radeon HD 7790 800 443 3 1x Radeon HD 7670M (DDR3) 768 2171 26 1x GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost 720 989 8 1x Radeon HD 6770 640 2417 60 1x GeForce GTX 750 Ti 576 892 1 1x GeForce GTX 645 (OEM) 512 1145 30 1x Radeon R7 Series (512 Shaders) 480 568 15 1x Radeon HD 6730M 448 1731 4 1x GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 400 253 2 1x Radeon HD 6620G 384 1058 66 1x GeForce GTX 745 352 1747 1 1x GeForce GTX 560 Ti OEM 336 1229 3 1x GeForce GTX 670M 320 830 9 1x Radeon R7 240 GDDR3 128bit 288 785 2 1x GeForce GTX 560 SE 284 606 4 1x Radeon HD 7660D 256 655 22 1x GeForce GTS 450 GDDR5 192 370 16 1x Radeon HD 8470D 180 182 4 1x Radeon HD 7470M 160 191 8 1x Radeon R5 230 144 451 2 1x GeForce GT 545 GDDR5 128 64 14 1x Radeon HD 8210 120 75 1 1x Radeon HD 6380G 96 287 24 1x GeForce 710M 80 75 19 1x Radeon HD 5450 (GDDR3, 64bit) 64 253 1 2x Radeon HD 7470 48 241 5 1x GeForce GT 610 32 219 4 1x Radeon HD 7470 24 297 4 1x Mobile HD Graphics 5500 20 467 38 1x HD Graphics 4600 16 451 32 1x HD Graphics 4000 12 125 1 1x HD Graphics (Braswell) 12EU 10 335 17 1x HD Graphics (Haswell) 8 281 2 1x GeForce 615 6 255 9 1x HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) 2 91 1 1x HD Graphics (Bay Trail) SELECT Cores, Score, COUNT(DISTINCT USR) Users, GPU FROM ( SELECT (result.effective_cores * GREATEST(gpu_model.pipelines, gpu_model.stream_processors)) Cores, ROUND(score) Score, ROUND(result.gpucore_oc) "GPU_MHz", CONCAT(result.effective_cores,"x ",gpu_model.model) GPU, user_id USR FROM result JOIN gpu_model USING (gpu_id) WHERE application_id=58 AND status_id<10 GROUP BY result_id ORDER BY Cores, score DESC) AS tbl GROUP BY Cores DESC;

Not quite following your train of thought. Surely, 3-way GTX 980 Ti is much more expensive than single GTX 980 Ti, but you're suggesting to add more points to it anyway?

The Old School comps make me realize I really need to find a store in Taipei that deals in old hardware ... Nice going!

We didn't look for that part of the logistics this year, but if there's a large group who wants to go to one specific hotel in the area I have no problem to help organize a "group buy" and maybe try to get a lower price per room. @Trouffman, do you know of any affordable places around Montreal we could contact for this?

Where are you from Nerd 4 l1f3? Maybe you can find some fellow overclockers in this thread: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=149160

Nice! Core i3 dominating the front page today. How does it feel benching "on the cheap" again?

SICK!

First batch of uploads. Also updated the statistics ... X99 Statistics Last updated: 01/04/2016 44343 overclocking results 2740 overclockers 72 mainboards 71 mainboards used 7 manufacturers Top-5 most popular brands: ASUS, MSI, GIGABYTE, ASRock, EVGA Top-5 mainboard by submissions: ASUS Rampage V Extreme, MSI X99S SLI Plus, ASUS X99 Deluxe, GIGABYTE X99-SOC Champion, MSI X99S Gaming 7 Top-5 mainboard by users: ASUS Rampage V Extreme, MSI X99S SLI Plus, MSI X99S Gaming 7, ASUS X99 Deluxe, GIGABYTE X99-SOC Champion Top-5 mainboard by LN2 users: ASUS Rampage V Extreme, GIGABYTE X99-SOC Champion, MSI X99A XPOWER AC, GIGABYTE X99-SOC Force, ASROCK X99 OC Formula Top-5 most popular CPUs: Core i7 5960X, Core i7 5820K, Core i7 5930K, Xeon E5 2698 V3, Xeon E5 2699 V3 Top-5 most used CPU cooling: Water Cooling (Custom) (50.28%), All-in-one (16.96%), Liquid Nitrogen (12.14%), Air Cooling (11.17%), Single Stage (6.79%) Most results with X99 Haswell-E (user): IntelGuy (1802 results) Most results with X99 Haswell-E (team): HW Legend OC (2694 results) Most results with X99 Haswell-E (country): United States (9970 results) Most different CPUs used (user): Sn0wMe (10 cpus) Most different CPUs used (team): OCCR (10 cpus) Most different CPUs used (country): United States (19 cpus) Most different mainboards used (user): Bruno (8 mainboards) Most different mainboards used (team): Team MLG (21 mainboards) Most different mainboards used (country): United States (64 mainboards) BIOSES - Supermicro C7X99-OCE-F --- C11: download - Evga X99 FTW --- 1.18: download - Evga X99 Micro --- 1.18: download - Evga X99 Micro2 --- 1.02: download --- 1.01: download --- 1.00: download - ASUS X99-M WS --- 0502-S1512101: download (up to 2.3VDIMM) - MSI X99A XPOWER AC --- A.2B1: download - MSI X99A Gaming 9 ACK --- 3.1B3: download --- 3.1B2: download - MSI X99A Godlike Gaming --- 1.3B1: download --- 1.2B3: download --- 1.2: download - MSI X99A MPOWER --- M.7B3: download

Will check tomorrow. Just found this one in the database: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/z170h4-ea/

Hm, strange issue. Checking it out. Thanks for reporting!

Destroying everything

First of all, let me once me re-iterate that this is not the final version of the points as it will be adjusted based on the feedback. Took the time to plot the two rankings you mentioned: Do I get your feedback correct if I read that you ask for: Reduce amount of 50-boint categories (increase threshold) Make it more rewarding to be at the top of the leaderboard (increase slope angle) FYI, currently there are 313 hardware rankings where first place yields >=48 hardware points. The distribution per benchmark, in case you're wondering: amount name 38 3DMark06 32 XTU 28 3DMark05 27 SuperPi - 1M 27 3DMark03 25 CPU Frequency 23 3DMark2001 SE 22 3DMark Vantage - Performance 20 Aquamark 19 wPrime - 32m 12 SuperPi - 32M 10 PiFast 8 wPrime - 1024m 5 3DMark11 - Performance 3 Cinebench - R15 3 Cinebench - R11.5 3 HWBOT Prime 2 Unigine Heaven - Xtreme Preset 2 PCMark 2005 2 Memory Clock 1 3DMark - Fire Strike 1 MaxxMem Read Bandwidth

First of all, let me once me re-iterate that this is not the final version of the points as it will be adjusted based on the feedback. The hardware points ranking would be like this Rank Points Score 1 50.2 36998 2 46.2 36591 3 31.7 33853 4 26.4 33009 5 13.8 30363 6 12.5 30110 7 12.5 30109 8 11.9 29992 9 0.1 26881 10 0.1 26261 11 0.1 25862 12 0.1 25251 13 0.1 24801 14 0.1 24485 15 0.1 24292 I think for this category in particular, we have to take into account that PCMark05 is also a freak category. If you don't know the two or three key tweaks, you will have like 20,000 points less than everyone else. Also, bear in mind that supporting hardware like storage configurations have a large impact on the benchmark. For the E6600 it looks like 30K would be a 'normal' score, in which case there would be points up to 50th place.

No, looks like the rollback didn't cover all the rankings. Will check tomorrow.

Continued working on the algorithms today. What I worked on is the following: Moved completely to a Performance based algorithm away from Ranking based (here explained why necessary) Work out the specific parameters for Hardware, Global and WR points Test the theory on 5 different hardware items The characteristics of the rankings are: [table=head]Type | Max User Thres | Lower Pts Thres. | MaxPts | MinPts | #1 MP | #2 MP | #3 MP | #4 MP | #5 MP Hardware | 55 | 0.75 | 50.2 | 0.1 | 1.15 | 1.1 | 1.05 | | Global | 1000 | 0.5 | 149.6 | 1 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.15 | 1.1 | 1.05 WR | 5000 | 0.9 | 50 | 0 | |||| [/table] Here are some notes: To help understand, let's take the Global rankings. The maximum points is 50.2pts when the amount of users is equal or higher than 1000. To receive more than the minimum of 1 points, you need to score minimum 75% of the result of the leader in the global ranking. Being #1 in the global ranking will always give you a 30% increase over 6th place, #2 will get 20% more than 6th place, etc. I included the WR Algorithm for now to address a specific remark made by @BenchBrothers\.de in the general discussion thread. Expressing the value of each score in relation to the overall World Record of a benchmark will help us avoid this kind of situation. I'm not sure yet how to include the WR algorithm in the overall equation (part of GL or separate), as today I just wanted to lay the groundwork. The Max User Threshold determines when a ranking is maxed out. The user thresholds were discussed earlier in the thread. The Lower Pts Threshold determines when a user starts scoring points in the ranking. This is the biggest change in the algorithm as this replaces the rank parameter. I will adopt a more scientific writing in the future, but for now it suffices to say that this is the relation between your score and the top score. The ratio is a number between 0 and 1. The closer the threshold is set to 1, the closer you need to be to the top score in order to start scoring points. In the graphs below you can find the distribution of points for different levels of participants. Testing Theory with i3 6320, i7 6700K, GTX 970, GTX 980 and GTX 980 Ti To test the parameters for the different algorithms, I tested the following hardware and benchmarks: XTU: Core i3 6320 and Core i7 6700K Fire Strike Extreme: GTX 970, GTX 980 and GTX 980 Ti There are two versions of the hardware and global point chart. The first version describes the points awarded expressed as rank, the second describes the points expresses as performance. The first version is the most practical as it reflects how the results will be displayed on the site. The second version reflects the overall distribution of the points within a ranking. Some notes: The XTU 2xCPU and Core i3 6320 is really freak ranking. I included it in the test, but I really shouldn't because it does not reflect the natural behavior of rankings. A freak ranking where the top score is capped artificially because the ranking is dominated by locked CPUs is as much a paint to award points to like a ranking with only one result that is world-class The above is the reason why so many Core i3 results score high points. It's high performance (close to top score) and highly popular Hardware / Real Rank: the i7 6700K has the most natural spread of points. This is mainly because of the quantity of results. The quick drop-off in the VGA categories can be explained by a lack of top competitive results. Hardware / Performance: not much to say, you can see the spread diverges when participation hits threshold Global / Real Rank: the threshold of 1000 participants makes Fire Strike Extreme as valuable as the XTUs. The quick drop-off is mostly related to the low amount of super-competitive scores in those categories. You can also see that a 0.5 threshold isn't enough for the GTX 970 to get any global points. The top score in FSE 1xGPU is 14432 marks (2200/2170) and the top score for the GTX 970 is 7113 marks (1962/2142) (*) Global / Performance: you can see the effect of threshold (lines diverging) and level of competition (#2 in XTU 4xCPU is closer to the top than the #2 in FSE 1xGPU) (*): it's been brought up before by @xxbassplayerxx and I think this adds to his opinion that "[...] your argument here should be with Futuremark". The best GeForce GTX 970, overclocked to 2G on LN2, scores not even 0.5 of the best FSE 1xGPU. We can try as much as we can to create an environment that allows for more competition, fact of the matter is that 3D benching equals a $700 GPU and anything else is not even remotely competitive. FYI, the best Core i5 6600K XTU 4xCPU scores 1913 points which is 0.89 compared to the top score. In the test algorithm, the i5 would score 92 Global Points compared to the 150 of the top score. Moving Forward Some stuff on the to-do list: Check with dev if adding bonus for specific ranks (1-5) will affect the server load. If so, how much. Check with dev workload of new algorithm implementation Re-verify the distribution of participation in the Hardware, Global and Wr rankings (like here) Discuss: thresholds for max participation, minimum performance Try parameters on more rankings. Specifically look at WR+GL integration. Eventually deploy on UAT Revisit the balance of global, hardware and oc-esports points for Overclockers League Have a good week everyone! :celebration:

Didn't get a notification ... let me check the dropbox. //edit: got it, uploading. //edit2: check your email

Hey guys, Quick message to let you know we installed an iTrader plugin on the forum. We'll be testing it out and see if it has any value on the forum. Link here: http://forum.hwbot.org/itrader_main.php? :celebration: