Massman

Updated table: - only include the benchmarks with global points in the submission counter - added country name

The dev accidentally pushed a part of the test algorithm to to production when deploying maintenance code. Hoping for a rollback as soon as possible. Sorry for this.

You want me to make a sub-forum for all the world tour stuff? Might be easier to locate the information I guess.

I am unfamiliar with skiing terminology. Right now top 3 is defined as: 100%, 95%, 92.5%, and it used to be 100%, 75%, 56.25%. I guess we can try 100%, 90%, 80%. As for Hardware Points: what would be a good target threshold for maxing out on points?

I want to make this extra clear: the comparison of production and UAT overall leaderboards has absolutely no meaning because they are based on incomplete global and hardware recalculations. It is not possible to tell "how accurate it is".

Please don't look at the global rankings ...

The URL is http://uat.hwbot.org/. But as I said, the test server is severely under-powered for resource hungry processes like calculating points for 1.5M results. So certain rankings have not been correctly updated.

Responding to @Rasparthe and @Mr\.Scott's conversation, I think we should definitely tip the scale back in the direction of skill and effort rather than the latest hardware. I am not particularly keen on eliminating the necessity to master the latest platform for being ranked high in the League. Historically speaking, competitive overclocking grew mainly because of the challenges that new hardware posed and the drive to get the highest benchmark score. That's what we saw with Bunny's SuperPI leaderboard and how the 3DMarks become so popular. The paradigm of the Overclockers League has always been to identify the most complete overclocker. That's why it takes into account the global rankings for the latest hardware, the hardware points for older platforms and the competitions for time-restraint overclocking. The binning aspect of contemporary overclocking is something I am personally not very keen on and can be addressed partially by adjusting the slope for globals. In terms of finding the right balance between global and hardware points, we can adjust the amount of scores which contribute to the league total. In the past, we have made such arbitrary decisions to balance the two by capping hardware points to 500. It's justified to consider doing it again. I like the idea of matching the maximum potential points of both categories. For example, if the maximum global points is 150 and there are 15 global score contributing to the league total, we can allow for 45 hardware scores which max out at 50 points. Important note on the hardware points: we have an incredible large spread between the least active and most active hardware rankings. It goes from 1 participant to 5650 participants. That makes it incredibly difficult to design a single algorithm which allows for healthy reward in the categories with up to 100 participants and the ones with thousands of participants. In addition, we have to keep in mind the the XTU categories have high participation so there will be people grinding the mobile rankings to get the maximum amount of points. On the topic of testing out parameter Adjustments Our UAT server is slightly under-powered to run this kind of massive calculation and it seems some ranking recalculations are getting out of sync. Regardless, I found that the XTU 4xCPU ranking was updated correctly and here are the comparisons. Global ranking: less steep slope, reduced the maximum global points to 150. Left: current; right: new. Hardware ranking: less steep slope, increase the maximum global points to 52. Left: current; right: new. (Can anyone give me a couple of reference hardware rankings to tune the hardware points? What I would need are rankings which are fairly competitive but under-rewarded and rankings which are not competitive and over-rewarded)

Caution: judging from other people's experience, it's quite likely that if you go once, you'll want to go always :celebration:

Wait, what? LN2 chiller?

Team-based

Great news! Good luck @dex94

I've seen too much internet and this sentence ruined me for the day We published the EventBrite and HWBOT X pages today. Just need to add them to the General Info post. :celebration:

FYI, this is what I was referring to regarding AVX and Haswell (not -E). PCU interfering when AVX is detected my be related to the non-K OC issues as the power management is disabled and AVX performance in XTU is low.

Thanks @sin0822. I saw the guide pop by on Facebook - looks very nice! Request: can you have a look at the relationship between the AVX instruction set and power management for Skylake? I recall AVX performance increasing the Vcore on Haswell-E CPUs and based on the Skylake non-K unlocking it seems there is a direct relationship.

Hehe @Ananerbe ... "it's getting too hot" - "wait, let me get some more cooling from outside"

Nice one Keika!

@Splave: Unigines should help a lot @Leeghoofd: spamming ^^

I had a quick peek at the usage figures for the GeForce 900 series graphics card and found something interesting. The GTX 980 has 21% more users than the GTX 970, 25% higher Max HWpts across all hardware rankings and 173% more total hardware points across all hardware rankings. It may be worthwhile for hardware rankings to calculate the popularity (partially) based on the overall usage of the hardware model rather than specifically for a hardware ranking (defined by model and benchmark). [TABLE=head]GPU Model|Users|Max HWpts|Total HWpts GeForce GTX 950|13|2|168.1 GeForce GTX 950M|2|2|44 GeForce GTX 960|99|9.4|427.4 GeForce GTX 960M|10|2|111.6 GeForce GTX 965M|1|2|2 GeForce GTX 970|395|39.8|3847.6 GeForce GTX 970M|12|2|102.2 GeForce GTX 980|477|49.6|10537 GeForce GTX 980 (Notebook, MXM)|1|2|16 GeForce GTX 980 Ti|248|28|3337.7 GeForce GTX 980M|20|2|173.7 GeForce GTX Titan X|130|16.4|1485.8 [/TABLE] //EDIT with some additional information. In the chart below you can find three data-sets: Participation: amount of users in a certain hardware ranking Max HWpts: maximum hardware points in a certain hardware ranking (typically for first place) Total HWpts: volume of all hardware points in a certain hardware ranking We see that 64.50% of the hardware rankings have up to 100 users participating in it. With 100 partitipants, the maximum hardware points is 19.6pts, which is ~40% of the absolute maximum. The 64.50% accounts for 27.60% of all hardware points. At 250 participants the Max HWpts nears the absolute maximum of 50pts. Up to 250 participants accounts for 79.25% of the results. It accounts for 51.15% of the total volume of hardware points.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. This week I will try to run another Adjustment test with: keep the less steep slope for globals keep reduced threshold for globals not increase the maximum points for globals* improve slope for hardware reduce threshold for hardware (*): it is inevitable that the the global points contributing to your total will increase if we make the point slope less steep and reduce the threshold as both actions increase the points for positions below 10 by quite a lot.

Both Australia and Eastern Europe were on the map for this year's Tour, but in the end didn't make it because 1) there wasn't a suitable venue/event, or 2) the dates of a suitable event/venue collided with the general World Tour planning. The World Tour is a really big challenge for us both in terms of logistics and economically, so we welcome every bit of help we get. What would help us a lot for planning the 2017 edition is to have local communities come to us with a venue/project. If you're already doing a workshop or extreme OC gathering it's easier to include it in the Tour As for Poitiers: there is a direct train from the Paris CDG airport.

Sure, updated with 2xGPU table

This is going to be lots of fun!

It works for all non-K processors, from Celeron to Core i7.

Since everyone's doing the same trick for unlocking the BCLK, the issues are universal. I don't see the AVX performance getting fixed by Intel, but on the side of pozer management there might be some options by vendors that integrate additional 'processors' for thermal management on their products.