Massman

I have too much respect for Hipro to come up with a sarcastic answer or alternatively a aggressive answer. So, just a normal 'no'.

I hope you see that your run is just way out of line ...

I need a couple of drinks now. Shutting down the laptop untill tomorrow.

We tried to fit that into the release, but it didn't make it. It's on top of the to-do list for sure.

I'm motivated because benching is fun. I like to contribute as much as possible to my team, no matter how much points that may be ... even if it's 0,1P. You're making a great generalisation by stating that #1/2/3 is with LN2. Not a correct one. Furthermore, overclocking does involve tweaking with cooling and voltages ... it has been an inherent part of the game since the absolute beginning.

And we're back at square one: First: one category => complaint: SLI/CF Then: two category => complaint: dualgpu and 4x gpu needded Then: four category => PROBLEM: (if we add all global points to personal total, the balance between GPU and CPU is gone (would be 24 vs 9)) SO: four category => 1 applicable for personal total, all applicable for team total.

I can ask RB to multiply all points with a factor of one million and everyone will see an increase of points. Does that make things more interesting ... no.

This is an excellent display of the saying "you can't please everyone". Two people complaining about the same core issue ...

Hence the term -test-server. People ask to see progress => we give insight => people complain about the fact it's still only progress. People don't see progress => people complain about not having seen the progress.

There's less financial input required to make an actual head-to-head bench. From what I can see, teammate A won because he purchased more hardware.

Less attractive for what? - Gaming? - Performance? - Overclocking? - Competition? - Economical?

The screenshot clearly indicates that there's a second processor installed in the system. Check the available checkbox on the left of the #cores/#threads.

I did too

You're now 1800th of 21000th without having to go very far with any hardware. Sounds reasonable?

Yes, and in contrary to you, we have had tons of people complain that the 3D rankings are not 3D anymore and that we need more GPU-bound benchmarks ... I can understand that if you have a great CPU, you want all the benchmarks to be CPU-bound. Or, if you have a great GPU, you want all benchmarks to be GPU-bound. Trying to make something that goes in the middle will upset either types of persons for sure. You're right, it's not about the highest score per definition anymore, because we have learned that when it's only about the highest score, more people complain about the fact that huge financial input equals high and easy points. And that is a very valid complaint: why should money be the main factor in being able to compete? Furhtermore, recent events have shown that when it's just about the highest scores software coding becomes more important than the performance of hardware. I mean, if you want to see 1,000,000 in AM3, it's possible with the right tools ... the score is higher, but I'm not particularly more happy to see this higher score.

How much places did you fall in the ranking?

Yes. People who don't like it are more likely to respond.

No. You're making assumptions about future submissions not knowing the Factual effect. And if you are going to start calling names, please log off and go celebrate new year.

It's quite difficult to explain in english, but the one affects the other: the more points you give to popular hardware, the less points you're awarding to non-popular hardware. Once you've defined "popular", you've also defined "not popular". I think the biggest problem here is the drop in points. This is a psychological effect we could've worked around by multiplying all points by 10. Everyone would have a massive boost in points ... but the rankings would not change, not your personal, nor your team ranking.

How much results have you submit after Rev3 was launched?

Test server has been up for a week. Can't be more transparant about giving you an idea where you'd land. So your idea is that the new revision rewards mediocrity and the average whereas I've got several people complaining that we only award the top spots? you couldn't describe a competition better than above. Highly-popular categories are for those who can't compete with extreme cooling and extreme modifications, so they can go to the mid-popular categoires where the competition is still somewhat okay. Want competition and loads of points => go into the high-popular categories and do everything you can to get into the top10 or higher (competing against 400+ people). Want a easier challenge, find a couple of mid-popular categories and beat the crap out of your hardware to be first. It's all about competition.

we've looked into this in the past, but it's a very delicate proposal because of the outlier-problems.

What I read in that quote is that you want loads of points for doing little effort to push the card. I know it would be much more fun if all the 21,000 overclockers here at hwbot would be in the top20 ... but that's not how a ranking works . As far as I can see, you might be overestimating the people who use LN2 and push the card to really sick speeds. The maximum global points have been increase in Rev3 as well, so being top50 should give you more than in the previous revision. I'd suggest to do the normal benching in January and we can check back how things are in February. Major flaws will be addressed for sure, but as I've said before: the Rev3 have only been up 10h ... it's impossible to judge what's a flaw and what's not.

That may be somewhat fixable, but not in the large margin as you've suggested above. Fact is that from our 2y experience with Rev2, we know that people will start complaining that 0-skill scores get 0,5p or more. The algorithm wasn't designed in one day; we do have a lot of background from the previous revisions

2 -> 1 = 1 less card to buy to be able to compete "Most of us" are complaining about the hardware points here.