Massman

Very nice!

Updated statistics: X99 Statistics Last updated: 07/12/2015 42098 overclocking results 2554 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) (50.19%), All-in-one (17.10%), Liquid Nitrogen (12.25%), Air Cooling (10.94%), Single Stage (6.87%) Most results with X99 Haswell-E (user): IntelGuy (1680 results) Most results with X99 Haswell-E (team): HW Legend OC (2651 results) Most results with X99 Haswell-E (country): United States (9436 results) Most different CPUs used (user): Sn0wMe (10 cpus) Most different CPUs used (team): OCCR (10 cpus) Most different CPUs used (country): United States (16 cpus) Most different mainboards used (user): Bruno (8 mainboards) Most different mainboards used (team): Team MLG (20 mainboards) Most different mainboards used (country): United States (63 mainboards)

Sandb-b-b-ag Nice one Daniel!

Owh, missed the reply. Max out = only points for the top score. Other XTU stages should have all the points everyone deserved.

New background

New background

New background

New background

New background

New background

New background

So I spent a little bit more time exploring this appoach. The problem with 3D is two-fold. 1) Its decreasing popularity and 2) no "difficulty" parameter in the Points equation. Let's focus on the second problem. It's not easy to define the difficulty of a certain benchmark. There are many aspects that we have to take into consideration to conclude benchmark A is more difficult than benchmark B. Let alone compare the efforts of Person X in Benchmark A to the efforts of Person Y in Benchmark B. For an algorithm to work on mass-scale (ie. a database of 1.5 million submissions) we need objective parameters. Adding more or less points based on a vote is highly subjective and seeds for even more discussion in the future. So, here's another try defining the difficulty of a benchmark as: amount of LN2 pots used in the top-20 of each benchmark category. It's a slightly different approach than what was tried earlier. The main differences are: Top-20 instead of top-50 No normalization of difficulty by not counting GPU LN2 pots for CPU benchmarks Choosing top-X is arbitrary. The only reason why I would choose 20 is because we include 20 results in the 'first page' of every benchmark ranking. Not normalizing has a bigger effect: 3D benchmarks will typically be assigned a higher difficulty level because you can have CPU+GPU+MEM on LN2 whereas 2D benchmarks have only CPU+MEM. The table below is what the new point spread would look like. The algorithm is: maxPTS = MAX(P+(250-P)*D;10), with P = current maxPTS ~ popularity of benchmark category D = [sUM(IF(CPU=LN2;#CPUs) + IF(GPU=LN2;#GPUs) + IF(MEM=LN2;+1) / SUM(MAX(#CPUs,20) + MAX(#GPUs,20) + 20)] ~ difficulty of benchmark category D will be 100% if all CPUs, GPUs amd memory of in the top-20 of a benchmark ranking is cooled with liquid nitrogen. Caveat: 2D benchmarks can never have 100% difficulty since they don't have LN2 on GPU. (Note; might want include all extreme cooling and not just LN2) [table=head]Benchmark | Category | P index | D index | MaxPTS 3DMark - Fire Strike|1|138.6|0.633|209.2 XTU|4|166.4|0.5|208.2 3DMark11 - Performance|1|124.7|0.633|204.1 3DMark03|1|116.7|0.633|201.1 3DMark - Fire Strike Extreme|1|119.2|0.617|199.9 Aquamark|1|120.9|0.6|198.4 3DMark2001 SE|1|107.9|0.635|198.1 3DMark05|1|113.2|0.617|197.6 3DMark Vantage - Performance|1|118.3|0.583|195.1 XTU|6|165.7|0.333|193.8 HWBOT Prime|4|162.9|0.333|191.9 SuperPi - 32M|4|132.6|0.483|189.3 Catzilla - 720p|1|125.6|0.483|185.7 SuperPi - 1M|4|142.1|0.4|185.3 Unigine Heaven - Xtreme Preset|1|119.3|0.483|182.5 3DMark06|1|118.1|0.467|179.7 CPU Frequency|8|148.8|0.267|175.8 PiFast|4|125.1|0.383|173 3DMark - Fire Strike|2|102.7|0.475|172.7 Cinebench - R15|4|127.6|0.367|172.5 3DMark03|2|77.4|0.55|172.3 Cinebench - R11.5|4|120.3|0.367|167.9 XTU|2|166.4|0.017|167.8 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|4|114.4|0.393|167.8 HWBOT Prime|2|125.8|0.333|167.2 XTU|8|115.4|0.35|162.5 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|4|106.8|0.383|161.7 3DMark Vantage - Performance|2|87.7|0.438|158.7 wPrime - 32m|4|118.1|0.3|157.7 3DMark11 - Performance|2|88.3|0.425|157 wPrime - 1024m|4|109.7|0.333|156.5 Cinebench - R15|2|105.6|0.35|156.1 Catzilla - 1440p|1|83.3|0.433|155.5 Cinebench - R11.5|2|107.6|0.333|155.1 wPrime - 32m|2|106.9|0.333|154.6 Unigine Heaven - Xtreme Preset|2|82.5|0.41|151.2 3DMark - Fire Strike Extreme|2|90.3|0.375|150.2 HWBOT Prime|6|100.6|0.317|147.9 Cinebench - R15|6|99.3|0.317|147 GPUPI - 1B|1|123.9|0.183|147 HWBOT Prime|8|101|0.3|145.7 wPrime - 1024m|2|97.8|0.3|143.5 wPrime - 32m|6|81.3|0.367|143.2 Cinebench - R11.5|6|92.3|0.317|142.2 wPrime - 1024m|6|75.2|0.377|141.1 Aquamark|2|79.5|0.361|141.1 Cinebench - R15|8|93|0.3|140.1 3DMark05|2|77.6|0.346|137.3 wPrime - 32m|8|80.4|0.333|136.9 Cinebench - R11.5|8|87.3|0.3|136.1 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|6|78.5|0.333|135.7 Catzilla - 720p|2|88.7|0.288|135.1 wPrime - 32m|1|77|0.333|134.7 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|8|75|0.333|133.3 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|2|97.8|0.233|133.3 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|8|74.5|0.3|127.2 wPrime - 1024m|1|64.2|0.333|126.1 wPrime - 1024m|8|76.8|0.283|125.9 Cinebench - R11.5|1|71.3|0.3|124.9 3DMark06|2|78.9|0.25|121.7 3DMark Vantage - Performance|4|48|0.353|119.4 3DMark - Fire Strike|4|51.2|0.342|119.1 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|2|82.5|0.217|118.8 Unigine Heaven - Xtreme Preset|3|44.9|0.36|118.7 3DMark - Fire Strike Extreme|4|48.8|0.342|117.5 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|6|74.3|0.233|115.3 3DMark2001 SE|2|64.2|0.266|113.6 Unigine Heaven - Xtreme Preset|4|41.1|0.339|112 3DMark11 - Performance|4|46.3|0.302|107.8 HWBOT Prime|1|85.6|0.133|107.5 wPrime - 32m|3|35|0.333|106.7 3DMark Vantage - Performance|3|52|0.258|103 wPrime - 1024m|3|28.6|0.333|102.4 Catzilla - 1440p|2|63.1|0.188|98.1 Cinebench - R15|1|58.3|0.2|96.6 3DMark - Fire Strike|3|57|0.19|93.7 3DMark03|3|40|0.25|92.5 wPrime - 32m|12|28.6|0.288|92.3 HWBOT Prime|3|38.4|0.233|87.8 Catzilla - 720p|3|53.1|0.175|87.6 GPUPI - 1B|2|82.8|0.026|87.2 3DMark11 - Performance|3|50.4|0.181|86.5 Catzilla - 1440p|4|40.6|0.216|85.7 3DMark - Fire Strike Extreme|3|53.5|0.16|84.9 Cinebench - R11.5|3|36.2|0.2|79 3DMark06|3|39.5|0.186|78.6 3DMark06|4|39|0.186|78.3 Cinebench - R15|3|38.4|0.183|77.2 wPrime - 32m|5|14.2|0.267|77.1 Aquamark|4|37.3|0.185|76.6 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|1|60.5|0.083|76.3 3DMark05|4|35.6|0.181|74.4 Aquamark|3|36.2|0.175|73.7 3DMark05|3|38.4|0.165|73.3 3DMark03|4|33.8|0.164|69.2 wPrime - 1024m|5|13.2|0.233|68.5 CPU Frequency|1|55.3|0.033|61.8 3DMark2001 SE|3|32.6|0.13|60.9 Catzilla - 720p|4|42.1|0.086|60 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|1|56.6|0.017|59.8 Catzilla - 1440p|3|39.5|0.093|59 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|3|34.4|0.1|56 wPrime - 1024m|12|19.8|0.154|55.2 CPU Frequency|4|51.3|0.017|54.6 GPUPI - 1B|3|48.4|0.03|54.4 HWBOT Prime|5|31.9|0.1|53.7 Cinebench - R11.5|5|13.2|0.15|48.7 3DMark2001 SE|4|27.1|0.092|47.6 GPUPI - 1B|4|37.9|0.042|46.9 Cinebench - R15|5|12.1|0.117|39.9 XTU|16|37.3|0|37.3 Cinebench - R15|12|30|0.027|35.9 Cinebench - R11.5|12|29.3|0.025|34.8 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|3|29.3|0.017|33 HWBOT Prime|12|26.4|0.025|32 HWBOT Prime|16|24.1|0|24.1 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|12|23.3|0|23.3 XTU|1|22.5|0|22.5 XTU|12|21.7|0|21.7 Cinebench - R11.5|16|20.8|0|20.8 Cinebench - R15|16|20.8|0|20.8 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|12|20.8|0|20.8 wPrime - 1024m|16|20.8|0|20.8 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|32|12.1|0.033|20 HWBOT Prime|32|12.1|0.031|19.5 wPrime - 32m|16|19|0|19 Cinebench - R11.5|28|11|0.033|19 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|16|18.1|0|18.1 XTU|18|18.1|0|18.1 wPrime - 32m|24|12.1|0.022|17.2 wPrime - 1024m|24|12.1|0.021|17 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|5|16.2|0|16.2 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|18|15.2|0|15.2 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|18|15.2|0|15.2 Cinebench - R15|48|14.2|0|14.2 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|5|14.2|0|14.2 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|16|14.2|0|14.2 HWBOT Prime|10|14.2|0|14.2 HWBOT Prime|48|14.2|0|14.2 wPrime - 1024m|48|14.2|0|14.2 XTU|32|14.2|0|14.2 Cinebench - R11.5|48|13.2|0|13.2 Cinebench - R15|18|13.2|0|13.2 Cinebench - R15|20|13.2|0|13.2 Cinebench - R15|36|13.2|0|13.2 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|48|13.2|0|13.2 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|24|13.2|0|13.2 HWBOT Prime|20|13.2|0|13.2 HWBOT Prime|64|13.2|0|13.2 wPrime - 1024m|36|13.2|0|13.2 wPrime - 32m|36|13.2|0|13.2 wPrime - 32m|48|13.2|0|13.2 Cinebench - R11.5|10|12.1|0|12.1 Cinebench - R11.5|18|12.1|0|12.1 Cinebench - R11.5|20|12.1|0|12.1 Cinebench - R11.5|24|12.1|0|12.1 Cinebench - R11.5|36|12.1|0|12.1 Cinebench - R15|10|12.1|0|12.1 Cinebench - R15|24|12.1|0|12.1 Cinebench - R15|28|12.1|0|12.1 Cinebench - R15|32|12.1|0|12.1 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|24|12.1|0|12.1 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|36|12.1|0|12.1 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|48|12.1|0|12.1 HWBOT Prime|18|12.1|0|12.1 HWBOT Prime|28|12.1|0|12.1 wPrime - 1024m|18|12.1|0|12.1 wPrime - 32m|18|12.1|0|12.1 wPrime - 32m|32|12.1|0|12.1 XTU|10|12.1|0|12.1 Cinebench - R11.5|32|11|0|11 Cinebench - R11.5|64|11|0|11 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|32|11|0|11 HWBOT Prime|24|11|0|11 HWBOT Prime|36|11|0|11 wPrime - 1024m|14|11|0|11 wPrime - 1024m|28|11|0|11 wPrime - 1024m|32|11|0|11 wPrime - 32m|14|11|0|11 wPrime - 32m|28|11|0|11 wPrime - 32m|64|11|0|11 Cinebench - R11.5|14|9.9|0|10 Cinebench - R11.5|15|9.9|0|10 Cinebench - R11.5|40|9.9|0|10 Cinebench - R11.5|45|9.9|0|10 Cinebench - R11.5|60|9.9|0|10 Cinebench - R15|14|9.9|0|10 Cinebench - R15|15|9.9|0|10 Cinebench - R15|30|9.9|0|10 Cinebench - R15|40|9.9|0|10 Cinebench - R15|45|9.9|0|10 Cinebench - R15|60|8.7|0|10 Cinebench - R15|64|8.7|0|10 Cinebench - R15|80|8.7|0|10 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|10|9.9|0|10 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|14|9.9|0|10 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|15|9.9|0|10 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|20|9.9|0|10 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|28|9.9|0|10 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|30|9.9|0|10 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|40|9.9|0|10 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|45|9.9|0|10 Geekbench3 - Multi Core|60|9.9|0|10 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|14|9.9|0|10 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|15|9.9|0|10 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|20|9.9|0|10 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|28|9.9|0|10 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|30|9.9|0|10 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|36|8.3|0|10 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|40|9.9|0|10 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|45|9.9|0|10 GPUPI for CPU - 1B|60|9.9|0|10 HWBOT Prime|14|9.9|0|10 HWBOT Prime|15|9.9|0|10 HWBOT Prime|30|9.9|0|10 HWBOT Prime|40|9.9|0|10 HWBOT Prime|45|9.9|0|10 HWBOT Prime|60|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 1024m|10|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 1024m|15|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 1024m|20|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 1024m|30|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 1024m|40|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 1024m|45|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 1024m|60|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 1024m|64|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 1024m|80|8.7|0|10 wPrime - 32m|10|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 32m|15|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 32m|20|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 32m|30|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 32m|40|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 32m|45|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 32m|60|9.9|0|10 wPrime - 32m|80|8.7|0|10 XTU|28|9.9|0|10 XTU|30|9.9|0|10 [/table]

Whoah! You've been really at it lately. Nice benching!

Just following up, all info is collected and forwarded :celebration:

Possible for David to provide Jagat with a test sample to verify @Lucky_n00b?

:(

Spend some time crawling the 3DMark archives: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/3dmark03

Let me specify this for you

Winning!

:celebration: :celebration: :celebration:

I think you're referring to this thread: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=145745. The relevant chart is in Post #4. One of suggestions that keeps coming back (saw it recently on Facebook too) is to give points based on the amount of pots necessary for a certain benchmark. That idea was explored and quantified in Post #11. In Post #21 I posted a picture of the front-page with 9 out of 10 scores which were 3D. Some facts: 3D overclockers: 870 in Q3'15; 1939 highest ever (Q1'11) 3D submissions: 53.5K in 2008; 51.9K in 2014; est. 49K this year XTU submissions by registered overclockers: 45K last year; ~70K this year If you look at the sheer amount of submissions coming from XTU, it's normal those categories get maxed out. The points are calculated based on the position in the ranking and the amount of participants in the ranking. For example, something as rare as the Core i5 4200U you find in Ultrabooks gets 49.7 HWpts. But as I said in the other thread, commenting on a reply that said there is "no problem with the points": I think we should have a closer look at the evolution of single GPU benchmarking since the beginning around the year 2000. The points awarded at HWBOT are not the cause of the problem, but I think are a symptom of an underlying issue pushing people away from (competitive) 3D (extreme) overclocking. I haven't done too much research on the topic, so it's not easy to comment. But I think Hivizman's post on MLG regarding benching brings up a couple of interesting points. How can you entice people to bench 3D if the top scores are achieved with external power cards but promoted as genuine products? Very recently Rbuass made a point about allowing vendors (and their paid/sponsored/hobbyist reps) to compete with tools (bios/mods) that are not available to the general public. On Facebook, Splave (and others) made a good point about the hardware (binning) cost of 3D benching. Who wants to buy an LN2 card you suspect is a reject of someone who's competing in the same league as you? We discussed this internally at length with great input from @der8auer at the beginning of last month. There are two major problems. 1) The scaling with hyper-threading depends on the specific benchmark. In most cases that will give benefit to genuine 8-core processors to have an advantage over 8-threaded processors. For example, compare 2x QX9775 at 5.5G and 1x Core i7 4790K at 6.4G. There's 4 generations of Intel architecture between those setups and the Haswell based still needs 1 GHz more. It's not quite ideal if we end up in a situation where 5 year old Xeons without Hyperthreading beat a current-gen Core i7. 2) There's an increasingly grey area of the definition of 'thread'. Just think about Bulldozer (4 cores, 8 cores, 8 threads?), the APUs (4+8 cores) and the very recent Shasta VISC architecture.

Sadly enough, I think the only real solution for your problem is getting an SSD

Happy birthday!

Hm, okay. Looking into this ... //edit: okay, our bad! Expect some emails incoming soon

Please be a bit more respectful towards your fellow community members, @ozzie. Thanks