Massman
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Massman
-
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.
-
No PMs from Dino today, sorry. You can forward your cheating accusations to our Head of Moderation Christian Ney at christian@hwbot.org. If you feel our partnerships are affecting the site's management you can always get in touch with me at pieter@hwbot.org. If you feel the partnerships are affecting my judgement you can get in touch with Frederik (the founder and co-owner) at frederikcolardyn@hwbot.org.
-
Great competition again this year! The moderation team will process the last-minute subs as soon as possible so we can make the announcements shortly :celebration: I haven't been able to read through the entire thread yet (arrived late yesterday night from long flight), but I wanted to take the time to highlight two things. 1) @Mr\.Scott is correct when saying that according to the HWBOT rules it is allowed to use one platform for 3D benching, swapping nothing but the graphics card. 2) I want to highlight Pulse88's post because he nails what the Team and Country Cup is about. I absolutely LOVE seeing overclockers from one team or country get together to share the passion for OC. I remember the team sessions we had when I was in Belgium and I can honestly say those were always the most fun (even if @Leeghoofd his girlfriend strongly disagreed). It's great to see that in Sweden and Australia this is also happening and I can only hope to see this happen in even more countries. The only thing I can think of after reading the posts from the Canadians is wonder how strong they will be next year! Getting top-5 without a coordinated session is fantastic ... imagine what's possible when the team takes it to the next level :ws: :celebration: //edit: also cleaned up a bit. I need to learn how this infraction thing works lol
-
Great board, so many good memories
-
-
Not on the planning. What are your main concerns with how hardware points are distributed? Thanks Matt. I would really appreciate specific feedback on the technical solution for the points. It's not easy to balance all the benchmarks, hardware and leagues, so it would be really great to see a general community consensus on the direction we should take.
-
The recalculation for certain global rankings finished. In the below screenshot you can see the effect of increasing the maximum points and less steep slope. Note that on the UAT server we are running an older database, so the results are a bit outdated. But you can easily compare position by position. Current vs. UAT Test
-
Lower threshold = more rankings closer to max participation, including the 3D benchmarks.
-
"will" -> "would"
-
As many of you know, recently there has been a couple of discussions about the distribution of global points. Below you can find the threads that reference this topic. Updating my feeling How about 3D .. To keep a long story short, the core of the issue is that due to XTU attracting a lot of active members, it yields the highest amount of global points. Along with XTU, the 2D benchmarks are also more popular than the 3D benchmarks in contemporary overclocking. The technical side of the problem is that the point algorithm is based on the popularity of a certain ranking to determine how much points are given. This has as effect: Due to extreme high activity, XTU is maxed out in points Due to diminishing popularity, the legacy and 3D benchmarks yield less points than 2D benchmarks In other threads there's been plenty of discussion on how to address this problem. The main stream of thought is to add a "difficulty" parameter to the point algorithm. In this thread I want to explore a different path and propose a more technical solution to the current situation. To keep things fairly simple: the HWBOT point function or equation has 6 parameters which determine how much points a given result yields. By adjusting these parameters we can change things like the maximum of points for a #1 position, the difference between the #1 and the rest of the top-10, the maximum amount of points in a given ranking, and so on. I've worked on adjusting these parameters to achieve the following goals: More benchmarks will hit the maximum participation and thus maximum points the maximum points for a #1 score increases to 200 (now 167) less steep point slope for top scores in global ranking The adjustment is currently being tested on the UAT server (recalculation in progress) but is not final in design. The main discussion points are: How many global rankings should be at maximum point capacity? How steep should the point slope be for the global rankings? I will update the thread when the recalculation on our UAT test server has completed. Below a bit more information about the various aspects of the adjustment. 1. Maximum Participation and Maximum Points The point algorithm is a natural logarithm. The equation expresses the points of a given ranking as function of participation and position. Participation is measure as amount of unique users who submitted in a ranking in the past 365 days. There is a participation threshold set at 2000 participants. The threshold prevents the points from growing infinitely. It is this threshold that caps the XTU 4xCPU global ranking with over 17,000 participants from being excessively more valued than HWBOT Prime 4xCPU with about 1,800 participants this year. The most active 3D benchmark is 3DMark Fire Strike 1xGPU with close to 1,000 participants. Note: take a moment to consider the algorithm is able to deal quite well with the XTU popularity. The parameter adjustment is to lower the threshold to 1,000 participants. This will increase the amount of global rankings that hit the maximum points from 2 to 5 and the amount of ranking that are over half capacity from 1.5% to 8.3%. The five rankings are: XTU 4xCPU, XTU 2xCPU, XTU 6xCPU, HWBOT Prime 4xCPU and 3DMark Fire Strike 1xGPU. If we would also enlarge the participation window from 1 year to 2 year, there would be 12 maxed out rankings and 14% of the rankings would be over half capacity. 2. Maximum Points for First Place As you read in the previous section, the current maximum global points is 167pts at maximum participation. In the adjustment we will increase this to 200pts. This is mainly to avoid people losing points because of the adjustment. Note that this will affect the balance between global and hardware points in the Overclockers League! 3. Point Slope in Global Ranking The global points of any submission is derived from the points of first place in the ranking using a natural logarithm, except for second place and third place which are a fixed fraction. The current implementation has a very steep slope to reward the first place in a global ranking. This is to reward being the best in the ranking in times when binning was not such a widespread practice yet. The adjument changes the slope quite drastically, increasing the points for second place from 75% to 95% of #1 and the points for third place from 56.25% to 92.5% of #1. From position 4 the points increase via updated parameters. In a maxed out ranking, this means that the the point distribution is: Pos. Points #1 199.8 pts, currently 166.4 pts #2 189.8 pts, currently 124.8 pts #3 184.9 pts, currently 93.6 pts #4 179.9 pts, currently 64.8 pts #5 171.9 pts, currently 61.8 pts #10 147.0 pts, currently 52.6 pts #50 89.1 pts, currently 31.1 pts #100 64.2 pts, currently 21.9 pts #250 31.2 pts, currently 9.7 pts #500 6.3 pts, currently 0.1 pts #1000 0.1 pts, currently 0.1 pts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Techspot has a review up with power draw figures but I can't remember the figures.
-
Yes, there are NO power saving features enabled when overclocking non-K CPU.
-
-
-