Massman

Scores were sold or CPU was sold?

The HWBOT OC Challenges have been, from the start, about focussing on hardware that doesn't play a huge role in the overall rankings. Geforce4, Athlon XP, Pentium 4, AMD DDR1 overclocking and so on. HWBOT is not all about encouraging evolution in hardware. It's about the pleasures of overclocking ... be it low-end old-skool or high-end brand-new.

Hey, Now that the competition engine is up and running quite good it may be time to use the engine to gather information of the past and future live overclocking events. I'm sure it will be interesting to see who attended what event and how he/she did on the event. For that, I need as much information as possible about these events documenting pictures, videos, rankings, articles etc. Let's use this thread to gather as much info as possible. 1. GIGABYTE A. GOOC 2007 - invitational world wide event? - Quick 'n' dirty overview of videos of GOOC 2007 WorldWide B. GOOC 2008 1. NORTH AMERICAN REGIONAL FINAL - Quick 'n' dirty overview of videos of GOOC 2008 North America 2. WORLD WIDE FINAL - Quick 'n' dirty overview of videos of GOOC 2008 WorldWide - Hardwarecanucks event report - XS thread C. GOOC 2009 1. COUNTRY FINALS - japan, france, benelux/dach, ex-yu, spain, hungary, thailand, uk - Quick 'n' dirty overview of videos of GOOC 2009 Country Finals 2. REGIONAL FINALS - north america, europe, pan-asia, china - Quick 'n' dirty overview of videos of GOOC 2009 Regional Finals 3. WORLDWIDE FINALS - taipei - XS: long thread - XS: WW picture thread D. GOOC 2010 1. COUNTRY FINALS - live: france, - online: benelux/dach, nordics, iran, Serbia (ex-yu) - HWBOT: Iran online competition - HWBOT: Serbia online competition 2. REGIONAL FINALS - Latin-America, Europe, Pan-Asia, China - XS: pan-asia thread - XS: china thread 3. WORLDWIDE FINALS - taipei E. P55 OC Challenge 2010 1. COUNTRY FINALS 2. REGIONAL FINALS - Europe, USA - XS: european final thread - XS: usa thread - XS: another eu thread F. TWEAKING EVENT - Europe - XS: tweaking thread - Madshrimps: event report - Bit-Tech: event report - Quick 'n' dirty overview of videos of tweaking europe final 2. MSI A. MOA 2008 - Quick 'n' dirty overview of videos of MOA 2009 europe final - Quick 'n' dirty overview of videos of MOA 2009 worldwide final B. MOA 2009 C. MOA 2010 3. ASUS A. AOCC 2007 B. AOCC 2008 C. IIIxIII OC Summit D. ROG OC Showdown 4. OTHER LIVE EVENTS A. AOCM 1/2/3 B. Tomshardware Overdrive

Then please give input on how you define "quality" .

SELECT manufacturer.name BRAND, memoryproductgroup.label PRODUCT, result.mem_productgroup_id, AVG(result.memClock) CLK, AVG(result.memTCas) tCL, AVG(result.memTRCD) tRCD, COUNT(result_id) RESULTS FROM result JOIN memoryproductgroup ON (memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id = result.mem_productgroup_id) JOIN mem_productgroup_model ON (mem_productgroup_model.memproductgroup_id = memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id) JOIN manufacturer ON (memoryproductgroup.manufacturer_id = manufacturer.manufacturer_id) WHERE (status_id<10 AND memClock<1350 AND memClock>500 AND application_id!=19 AND application_id!=21 AND mem_productgroup_model.mem_id=1 AND result.memTCas>5 AND result.memTrcd>4) GROUP BY result.mem_productgroup_id HAVING COUNT(result_id)>25 ORDER BY CLK DESC LIMIT 50;

FYI, Knopflerbruce IS hwbot crew

Another attempt. Some guys pointed out that, next to tCL, tRCD plays a huge role in the overclockability and therefore should also be taken into account in an overclockability chart. So, I made a new chart based on: - Average frequency - Average tCL - Average tRCD - Score = 1000 x (tCL + tRCD) / MHz - Excluding the following benchmarks: MaxxMem, Memory Clock - Upper memory clock = 1300 - Lower memory clock = 600 - tCL must exceed 5 - Need to add a bit more science into the equation. Since now the equation says that the importance of tCL = tRCD, which isn't the case. More testing is needed to get the right factors for tCL and tRCD. - Also need to find out exactly how much data is skewed because people use the incorrect format to enter memClk data. - Feedback? SELECT manufacturer.name BRAND, memoryproductgroup.label PRODUCT, AVG(result.memClock) CLK, AVG(result.memTCas) tCL, AVG(result.memTRCD) tRCD, COUNT(result_id) RESULTS FROM result JOIN memoryproductgroup ON (memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id = result.mem_productgroup_id) JOIN mem_productgroup_model ON (mem_productgroup_model.memproductgroup_id = memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id) JOIN manufacturer ON (memoryproductgroup.manufacturer_id = manufacturer.manufacturer_id) WHERE (result.memcooling_id<4 AND memClock<1300 AND memClock>600 AND application_id!=19 AND application_id!=21 AND mem_productgroup_model.mem_id=1 AND result.memTCas>5) GROUP BY result.mem_productgroup_id HAVING COUNT(result_id)>50 ORDER BY CLK DESC LIMIT 25;

Cross-manufacturer flashing only works if the PCB is the same. SOC is custom pcb, so it won't work.

You can use only 2 cores for benching, that's no problem, but your scores will always count towards 4-core categories.

What did you say? I can't read your message because you're invisible

Yes. That's the principle I'm using to make these ranks. The easier it is to reach frequency X, the more likely people will use it as safe clock. The higher the safe clock, the better the product. It's not perfect, but it's something to start from. I need more input on how you guys rate memory to make better charts. Besides price ... Here's another attempt, taking into account the average Cas Latency used and average frequency to calculate latency time. Latency = (1000 x tCl) / MHz SELECT manufacturer.name, memoryproductgroup.label, AVG(result.memClock), AVG(result.memTCas), COUNT(result_id) FROM result JOIN memoryproductgroup ON (memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id = result.mem_productgroup_id) JOIN mem_productgroup_model ON (mem_productgroup_model.memproductgroup_id = memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id) JOIN manufacturer ON (memoryproductgroup.manufacturer_id = manufacturer.manufacturer_id) WHERE (result.memcooling_id<4 AND memClock<1250 AND memClock>600 AND application_id!=19 AND application_id!=21 AND mem_productgroup_model.mem_id=1 AND result.memTCas>5) GROUP BY memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id HAVING COUNT(result_id)>50 ORDER BY AVG(result.memClock) DESC LIMIT 25;

It's a good question. I had the UD9 for about a week on the desk here when I realized it was the rev0.2 PCB, not the rev1.0. Therefore, I decided not to push the board to the limit, because any of my findings could be swept from the table pointing to the rev0.2 ... even if the findings are correct. I heard a rev1.0 arrived at Leeghoofd's place, so I might be doing a re-test in the next couple of weeks. What I've experienced with the XPower is that there might be some issues after a couple of intensive benching. I can't pin-point the exact problem, it's as if the components get tired and want a rest. On MOA EU, for instance, we had to re-do the insulation maybe seven times spread over the two days, which is quite a lot. At home, I had a similar issue after around 4-5h benching. The UD7 was most certainly a decent board. The first revision of the UD7 board was a very good Bloomfield board (imho), but I'm afraid it's not really ready for the Gulftown (had some issues when I tested it months ago). The 2nd revision is build like the UD9 and Hicookie's already proved it's working very well with Gulftown. One thing you have to note though: for 3D, the UD9 might be a tad slower because of the NF200 latency. For 2D benching, the Xpower is certainly capable of matching the UD9 and UD7. For 3D Vantage (high load, multithreaded), the UD9 will probably yield an extra few MHz due to PWM design. As far as I know, that's only around 6.2GHz and only for Vantage ... 3DMark06 CPU test was the same here. If you don't have to pay for the boards, you might as well give both a try, though. In the end, it's mostly about personal preference. Some like GBT, some like Asus, some like ... a challenge

Cleaned up the 8Ghz achievement

I certainly can't, maybe RB. The problem is that calculating achievements is a very resource-intensive task. So, instead of re-calculating them all the time, the achievement is added to your profile from the moment you have it once. Of course this is a problem when achievements are given on a single-event basis (eg: one time LHe or one time 8GHz).

I quickly tried a query to show what I mean Note: a lot of incorrect data at the moment. Needs to add some filters. SELECT manufacturer.name, memoryproductgroup.label, AVG(result.memClock), COUNT(result_id) FROM result JOIN memoryproductgroup ON (memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id = result.mem_productgroup_id) JOIN mem_productgroup_model ON (mem_productgroup_model.memproductgroup_id = memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id) JOIN manufacturer ON (memoryproductgroup.manufacturer_id = manufacturer.manufacturer_id) WHERE (result.memcooling_id<4 AND memClock<1250 AND memClock>600 AND application_id!=19 AND application_id!=21 AND mem_productgroup_model.mem_id=1) GROUP BY memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id HAVING COUNT(result_id)>50 ORDER BY AVG(result.memClock) DESC; Or tCl=7 results SELECT manufacturer.name, memoryproductgroup.label, AVG(result.memClock), COUNT(result_id) FROM result JOIN memoryproductgroup ON (memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id = result.mem_productgroup_id) JOIN mem_productgroup_model ON (mem_productgroup_model.memproductgroup_id = memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id) JOIN manufacturer ON (memoryproductgroup.manufacturer_id = manufacturer.manufacturer_id) WHERE (result.memcooling_id<4 AND memClock<1250 AND memClock>600 AND application_id!=19 AND application_id!=21 AND mem_productgroup_model.mem_id=1 AND result.memTCas=7 ) GROUP BY memoryproductgroup.memproductgroup_id HAVING COUNT(result_id)>50 ORDER BY AVG(result.memClock) DESC LIMIT 25;

The idea is to have charts available that are a good representation of the overclocking and performance capabilities of hardware. My last post was an attempt to make a memory overclocking chart based on the principle: "the easier to reach X frequency/timing, the more likely it's going to be used". - 2500CL7 is not easy to reach => not going to be used a lot - 2000CL9 is very easy to reach => going to be used a lot The chart would then be something like: 1. Adata XPG+ --- 2000MHz --- 10 users 2. Adata XPG --- 1900MHz --- 5 users 3. Corsair GTX2 --- 1800MHz --- 10 users By using non-memory benchmarks, we can filter out the overclocking results that are virtually unstable (eg: maximum memory clock). It's not because one person ran 3V through the memory kit at -196°C and got super results that an 'overclocking capabilities' ranking should be ranking those 1st. We could also restrict memory cooling to 'air' only, but then we might have to deal with faulty data (people forgot to enter LN2).

Another approach, instead of looking at the highest possible scores, is looking at 'how easy it is to reach a decent result'. For instance, for the memory: instead of using the memory benchmarks (MaxxMem and Memory Clock), we use the memory frequencies indicated in 2D and 3D applications. The underlying thought here is: the easier to reach X frequency/timing, the more likely it's going to be set in non-memory dependant benchmarks. Example: GTX2 can reach 2000CL7-8-7 very easily, so I use this in 3D benching. Valueram can only reach 1600CL8 each, so I use this for 3D benching. Maybe the valueram can reach 1800CL8 with a lot of tweaking ... but I will not run it 3D because it's not so important. Of course this can be split up in 2D/3D/Suicide or so.

Cleaned up the achievements. IIRC, no one has submitted a LHe score with picture yet, so technically no one should be having this achievement .

The Vdimm is not the problem. I was running 1.7V all the time. A few days ago I got the 980X back. I'll see if I can set something up this weekend.

What kind of statistics do you want? The purpose of this thread is to find out what we have to include in the new API

For the VGA chart, we've used the average clock of the best submission per user per card. So for instance if Hicookie got 1350, 1400 and 1500MHz submissions, only the 1500MHz submission will be taken into account. We've also not taken into account the multi-gpu submissions ... only the single-GPU. I think that's good enough to compare the overclocking capabilities of VGA overclocking series? Maybe we also have to factor in the spread of the achieved clock frequencies. For CPUs, I think a performance chart can be build from the raw results we have in our database already ... shouldn't be a big issue since there are no custom CPUs made. For Memory it's a bit more tricky ... applying same concept as with the VGA charts should be possible, though. For mainboards it's véry difficult. Still pondering on how to make a valuable chart for this part.

Do note: we are focussing on OVERCLOCKING and PERFORMANCE here. Not daily usage and power saving

Hey guys, Very recently, my mind was blown when I realized a lot of people draw conclusions based on the overclocking results of one or two people. Just an example: reaching high spots in the 3DMark Vantage benchmark equals "very good mainboard". Reaching the highest clock in 3DMark03 means "the best videocard". Obviously, things aren't as simple as that. The results of one person may be an indication of the overclocking capabilities, it doesn't mean that it's the best per definition. The question is now ... how do you compare hardware in terms of overclockability? What do you take into account for making a hardware ranking? Once the questions are answered, we'll try to create some sort of 'hw ranking' based on the feedback. We've already been experimenting with this with the R5870 cards and it looks okay (apart from the chart size, sorry for that) Since algoritms for mainboard, memory, videocard and cpu will be different, feel free to split up.

All I know is that M.Beier just proved I kick his ass in SuperPI 32M :-D

Hm, okay. I had that exact issue with the first beta bioses: auto was 13 and I couldn't lower it to 'disabled'. What mem are you using?