Massman

Hooray for language barriers! I want less talking, more benching

Did you fix it, Jmke?

There are indeed different ways to approach the issue of defining the term "skill", but in this case, we choose for a definition that makes it possible to create an online competition between benchers based on points that was doable to code and could use the older data in our database, which was already filled with 10000 results when the hwboints were released. I still believe that the current definition of skill is the correct definition to use in this kind of competition, although we find many flaws using this definition. To resolve those flaws, we would need to re-code the framework of the complete hwbot database, which would take approximately three to four months if you'd work full time on the project. This, however, would give us the possibility to fine-tune the way points are handed out (I currently have a new suggestion ready which distributes points on 6 different levels instead of the 2 we have now) and to fine-tune the design of the complete hwbot website in itself, so that we can make more interesting rankings and create more levels to compete against each other. Please note that at this moment, no one of the crew members have to option to invest that much time into HWbot and, more importantly, that RichBa5tard is at the moment the only person who truely knows the coding part of hwbot. Actually, it's very incorrect to judge about something that you have never experienced yourself. You assume that, because you have an unlocked multiplier, overclocking is easier in comparison to with a locked multiplier. In fact, the actual overclocking difficulty stays exactly the same, the approach and end result is different though. Unlocked multiplier => Limited by MAX frequency Locked multiplier => Limited by MAX FSB Now, if you hit the MAX FSB with a locked multiplier, you have in fact hit the MAX frequency of that chip. Ergo, in both cases you will be limited by the chip itself, with that difference that an unlocked multiplier will be able to hit higher frequencies and has therefor a bigger potential in terms of performance. I think you were rather pointing at the implications of this issue: in many cases, a higher multiplier leads towards higher raw frequencies, which lead to higher performance, which leads to better scores and eventually at hwbot at higher points. So yes, it's easier to get higher points with a more expensive processor, be it in the global rankings. The hardware points were added to the algorythm to even the playing field more, because it's not fair to only award points to the top scores, often produced on the most expensive setups. (later on your post, you've said that both are equally difficult to overclock, by the way) It's not that normal to go out and buy $2000 of hardware and 'oc the crap out of it'. If you'd ask anyone, I bet 95+% would rather risk to wreck a low-end card than a high-end card. However, what people spend on hardware is something that hwbot is not responsible for. In fact, the entire problem of "more $ = more points" is induced by the hardware manufacturers, who ask more money for better hardware. If low-end hardware would cost more than high-end hardware, the rankings would still be the same, isn't it? Money spent on hardware is never a good method to rank overclockers by, but as it's directly connected to the performance of hardware, it's inevitable that money will play a role in overclocking results, as it does in nearly every other aspect of life. We limited the hardware points, because in the past we noticed that the so-called grinders would take over all top positions in the overclockers league in no time, which would be completely adverse to the definition we used of "skill". In our opinion, and hopefully in the opinion of many benchers, an overclockers league - Based on points awarded to benchmark scores for which - Higher scores mean higher points and - Higher score means higher level of overclocking should be representing the correct order of how good a person is in benchmarking. Now, this concept of overclocking can in fact only be applied when you compare identical systems, because a certain benchmark score is obviously limited by more than only the factor "skill". As there is NO way to completely exclude factors such as luck and money, we need to settle for a system that comes close to reflecting the level of overclocking (or skill). And no, the hwboint system is not thé best way to do so, but it's that way that makes it possible to keep the database somewhat clean and actually code a fully working league, which is a very important aspect of all this. Many of you tend to forget that everything has to be coded and balanced as well . The second part of the sentence (difficulty of overclocking), I have covered in the alinea's above this one. We are actually aware of this and we absolutely need to find a solution to 'praise' the people who don't overclock the expensive hardware, but bench 'the crap out of' a lot of hardware, sometimes having to put more effort in the overclock than people who just buy and bench. It's very difficult to actually rate people on results only as, in my opinion, it's not always the bare result that makes the score impressive or not. If I post in overclocking forums, I try not to congratulate based on scores only, but also on overclocking process itself. It's, by the way, completely inaccurate to only find the top scores to be excellent and, for instance, Athlon XP scores completely worthless. If you use the term 'deserve', you're talking about grading the effort people had to do to achieve a certain overclock, which is even less easy to define than the concept of "skill" and which leads in many cases to a discussion with arguments based on personal feelings and other emo-crap. Rephrase the question to "and why shouldn't they be there?" and the answer has already been given in the previous answers. Yes it is. BUT, the points you recieve in the global rankings can drop very easily when new hardware is released (check out the 1M global ranking, for instance), which requires you to invest money in every new technology and high-end hardware to stay on top of the league. We've seen that phenomenon pop up when the ATI 3870X2 was released and we (correctly) decided to consider that as a single card. In other words, it's easy as far as you know that the hardware you buy and bench will give you a lot of points in the beginning, but will rapidly drop when new hardware is released. I have you on MSN right? The main issue is coding personal, but it would take days to fully explain the hwbot source code as it's a bit messy .

Great, you have my full attention! Of course it's simplified! It's absolutely necessary to design an algorythm that represents the actual difference in skill, still is understandible for crew/users and is not that complext so that calculating the points won't cause the server to crash each hour. You are referring to the 4870X2 + 4870 issue as well: it's not that easy to add these extra categories, because the entire hwbot algorythm would have to be re-written then. In it's current format, it can only calculate points based on setups that have one type of videocard. CF-X has been released long after the first revision of the hwboints saw the daylight, we couldn't forsee this to happen. At this moment, the current rules regarding setups with different types of videocards is the most fair and most correct way to treat these scores. Have you had the guts to spend over 2000$ on a setup and bench it with extreme cooling? It's a lot harder then you'd imagine. Basicly, this discussion will never stop, because the only arguments you can use are personal opinions, which are always biased by the situation that person is in. People who spend hours and hours of benching an K6/2 will say that's the most difficult, people who have spend hours and hours of benching a QX9650 will say that's the most difficult. We decided to go the most logical way and award more points to the scores done with high-end systems being overclocked with extreme cooling. The Hardware Masters league was introduced because there is indeed a lot of skill and determination needed to bench a lot of hardware. If you really believe that, you don't fully understand how the hwboints algorythm works. If we removed the cap of 300 hardware points, the ranking would be as follows: 2094,9 - Bwanasoft 2008,4 - hipro 1996,1 - SAV 1814,5 - kingpin 1799 - Matti_oc 1787,9 - Gradus 1623,9 - Turrican 1502,7 - Alibabar 1333,4 - Sard 1314,7 - Demiurg 1212,1 - no_name 1211,1 - gprhellas 1199,8 - joe_cool 1191,8 - MickeyMouse 1162,8 - AndreyKV 1151,9 - Icecube 1109,9 - tsan 1077,3 - gautam 976,7 - sf3D 949,5 - Stummerwinter In bold, you see all the people in the top10 who weren't there before. By the way, we do know that we still can improve hwbot A LOT. Common sense is what you ask, it's mostly not what you get in return. We ask people to use common sense and not cheat, apparently people do. There is room for discussion and brainstorming, hence that's what the forums are for and what the crew is doing in each PM/mail they recieve, but what rests is many ideas but no time to develop those ideas. Please understand that this site is fully working on the spare time of volunteers.

Yes, still a work in progress. Sorry, but hwbot is run by people who can only afford to spend their free time on this. It's sometimes hard to find time to work on even the smallest request .

Yeah, that FX5700 is gpu limited like hell. It seems even that P4 scores outperform C2D

So, if I get this right, Demiurg is cheating because he is blocking your results? I don't really see what blocking results has to do with cheating as it's quite impossible to cheat someone else's results. If you have a complaint, please do it in a polite, grown-up manner. We're not playing in the sandbox here, as far as I know, this still is a playground for the real adults. Having said all this, I checked the 3DMark06 score you are so mad about. It's quite clear that the SM3.0 results are too high for your configuration, as stated: 1 x GTX260 + QX9650. Now, seeing that your AM3 result, which is blocked because you did not add the mandatory CPU-Z/GPU-Z tabs to the screenshot, is done with a configuration containing 3 GTX260's, I presume that you've also benched the 3DMark06 benchmark with a 3-Way SLI configuration. That would make your score perfectly possible at those clocks and nowhere near a cheat. You see? No real problems, you only forgot to change 1x into 3x when you were submitting your score. That's all! (I'd be glad if Demiurg recieved apoligies, he's doing a marvelous job at HWbot)

Thanks for the heads up, Dino! I've edited the frequency

As far as I can see, the results are in the correct category . Thanks for your honesty, by the way, an example for all of us!

Yes, we add hardware based on how much we like the requesting user. In fact, in the crew forums, there is a list of all the people we really dislike and we agreed by consensus that those people will never be helped out in a friendly way, let alone adding hardware to our database. OR I happen to have a bit of time left the previous days and I worked on the helpcenter tickets services, adding as much hardware as time allowed me to do. I didn't look at the date of the request, I just tried to add as much as possible to satisfy as much users as possible. You can choose what explanation you like best. The first one is pure sarcasm, the second one the actual truth.

Didn't see this thread before. 1) Westsider, don't try to mess with hwbot just for extra points. If your score is not enough to get a lot of points, bench harder, but DON'T(!!) just add your score to another category. It's quite clear that your WR is actually a CF score, not single card. I have changed your scores to the correct category. 2) If you feel that people block scores because political problems between nations, PM another moderator and he'll help you out. However, HWbot moderators DO NOT block scores for political reasons, but because something does not seem right. We sometimes make mistake, we are humans, and we will correct them. 3) We do not participate in witchhunts at all; if you spend a little bit of time making sure your screenshot is correct, you will never have any problem. Just have a look at my profile if you want to see examples ;-).

Not really, people share bios files or maybe just a coïncidence.

Gothrek: there are more than 1 2900 Pro cards sold in Russia ;-).

Athlon XP has multi-socket motherboards as well

John, check secure for solution.

That is no problem, you're still banned Jigit.

MM has reported scores via the reporting utility, this thread is not some sort of instant rage.

I'd consider you pro. You have acces to free hardware to bench with, hence the reason why you can test all these cpu's and motherboards. The international events are GREAT for the overclocking community, but a little shit for those who only bench as a hobby. I don't know about you, but I really like to see the massive scores people submit after they return from OC events. I know I have my place in the overclocking league and I know that it will be very difficult to hit top20, let alone top10. But that doesn't make me like benching less; I still like to occasionally bench extreme with friends. For instance, since I returned from MSI Amsterdam, I have planned to bench with Blind_ripper multiple times next month. I don't know where it will put me in the ranking (hoping for top30 of course), but if I beat someone who has acces to more hardware than me, I'll be friggin happy about it . When I tested my first E8500 ES (loaned from a shop), I got some very nice results, which I considered to be crazy at that time. Here's an article about the scores, you cannot believe how happy I was . I completely understand, however, your point. As a matter of fact, I will try to come up with a system that makes HWBot more interesting for both hobbiest, for whom I have the utmost respect, and the pro-bencher, for whom I have a lot of respect as well. Don't expect it to show up really soon, because it takes time to work it out and takes time to discuss within the crew and to discuss with the coder as well. It all takes a lot of time, spare time really .

Pro league = people who get hardware to bench with for free. So: people who work for manufacturers, who have acces to hardware in shops, who get review samples ... all those who get hardware on a regular basis (be it once a week/month/year). The pro-league will be quite filled, I think Maybe a solution is to keep one league, but give these 'pro' benchers a special status, so that people who look at the ranking know that these people get hardware.

We could overcome this problem by creating different categories (something I picked up from Fubarswe) or leagues: the amateur league and the professional league. The amateur league would only have those who don't recieve any hardware at all, the professional league would consist of all benchers who do get hardware. We'd have to rely on honesty, but it's somewhat manageable. I have no idea how long it's going to take to be able to code this feature, though, so don't quote me on this one.

Added. For future requests, please use the helpcenter forum!!

Still work-in-progress. We all have daily jobs and very little free time to work on new features.

Why delete scores? To improve your points/results ratio? Older results are good information for people who are benching in the same ranking.

Have done the same thing

Doesn't really seem fair to you, as the score isn't really that much higher than the rest, not for those clocks. I'l put it back, BUT please remember to put the resolution in your screenshot next time. It's important to guarante legitimate verification. By the way, even without a FM 3Dmark06 serial, you can create an account on the FM page to create a validation link. Would it be possible to upload a score to the orb close to the 20900 you scored earlier on? Would definitly help in proving your point