sacha35

June 12, 2009

imho he who organizes the contest has the last say;

He who organizes the contest will also upset and antagonise a lot of Manufacturers and there marketing outlets thought the world as they all need to make sales as well.

But hay what do I know

June 12, 2009

I would have thought the best bet would to have had a qualifying round like the world cup so every person and countries gets the same chance as each other.

But I guess it is all about money

June 12, 2009

I thought it was about country's

Australia

USA

Greece

Finland

Tom’s Hardware ????????????????

China

Indonesia

Russia

Team UK was a heated source of discussion. The simple reason it wasn't included for the first season was because all teams needed to have a BIG following for season 1. This comp is for all tech enthusiasts, not just overclockers.

The line had to be drawn somewhere and that was it.. we need full industry support for this. Having been at Computex it's clear which countries are being focussed on for overclocking. You know above all that extreme overclocking in the UK is not a patch on other countries - purely in terms of popularity.

June 12, 2009

Top10 teams at hwbot doesn't ONLY reflect awesomeness at benching.

? :confused:

June 12, 2009

top ten list of countries not guys

June 12, 2009

I think you only have to look at the top ten list.

June 12, 2009

The line had to be drawn somewhere and that was it.. we need full industry support for this. Having been at Computex it's clear which countries are being focussed on for overclocking. You know above all that extreme overclocking in the UK is not a patch on other countries - purely in terms of popularity.

The population:

Australia: 21,809,733

USA: 306,649,000

Greece: 11,262,500

Finland: 5,336,330

Tom’s Hardware ?

China: 1,331,115,200

Indonesia: 230,330,000

Russia: 141,812,991

Where we in the Uk only have a population of 61,708,895, with one of the biggest import export businesses in the world

If we take a good look at the statistics then it clearly shows we in the UK have a good following take a look at this list from HWbot it shows the UK have 366 overclockers compared to AUS 221

I can see no reason to leave the UK out of this other than who's face fits, as we can clearly see by the national population figures that the UK has far more people in it than a lot of the countries you have chosen.

If this is the case then I don't think the UK would want to be involved because it is a setup right from the beginning.

June 12, 2009

Looks like this will be very good, can I ask who will be validating the results for this compo, also have we looked into if some validating software can be implemented in the O/S to make sure everything is good run in line with all the competition rules so no cheating can be done, because if it is going to be run like a top rank then we need to make sure everyone is complying with all the rules.

Submission & member moderation · June 8, 2009

how come nobody ever raised hell like this when Kingpin submitted this result he got at NVISION in 2008? http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=775800

Do you think all the hardware he used was his? Or might he have been sponsored?

I brought this up was that if we all remember rightly No-Name had most of all his points removed because he benched with someone at an event and took all the points for the work done between the two guys, so if this is the case here what is the difference?

I think Kingpin is totally different in that he did do this event but for Nvision but it was only him so what is the problem for him taking the points.

like when I did the i33 event, I was given the M/B to test but because it was a joint effort I made sure the points went to the team as a joint effort and did not take any points for myself.

Anyway I don't know why you have brought this up again As I said what I have said and am happy for this to just go away now

Submission & member moderation · June 6, 2009

At the end of the day we need to step back and think about what the rules are for. As far as I'm concerned, if someone put in effort for a score, they deserve points, and hardware sharing rules are in place to prevent people from taking points for someone else's work...no?

I think you're going a bit overboard with this Paul. Rules and regulations are important but for what end if we lose sight of what truly matters?

massman and Pt1t got a great 32M run off. Who cares about where the hardware came from or who it "belongs" to anyways? I think if we waste time arguing over such technicalities, we quickly forget about the true spirit of competitive overclocking, something that's happening all too often these days.

Hi Gautam

I was not making a big thing of this but just trying to clear the rules up for everyone, it is great to see such results from hardware like this and I for one would love to see more as it shows the amount of hardwork that has gone into this bench and clock speed.

My argument was that I thought only one person could bench/submit as a single user or they must join forces and bench together and submit results under a joint name like benchbros do.

Anyway I have said I do not want to say anymore about this and am happy for the result to stay as long as all other members here on Hwbot can do the same as what has been done.

All I am asking for is farness for all teams and members.

I think Hwbot as said many times is a big success in that it has grown far bigger than anyone would have ever thought and it would be great to have an affiliated fully regulated site looking at all members submissions now as I think it has outgrown what can be fully moderated by its own success.

Anyway I will say this again I am sorry if I have upset anyone but I would like all the rules to apply to everyone here so that we all have the same benefits and gains as everybody else.

As far as I am concerned this matter is closed now.

Submission & member moderation · June 6, 2009

That's not the question.

What is the Question ? I thought the rules where clear saying if you owned a CPU then you could use it yourself for everything or let some use it for only for 3D, but as Gigabyte owned the CPU then how could you submit system benchmarks with it, and again as it was a joint effort how can only one person claim the points where they should be shared between each of you in one team only not as an individual.

I am not going to say anymore about this but I take it from now on that we can all use any hardware that we want with no regards to whom owned it providing only one person clams the points.

Submission & member moderation · June 6, 2009

Please don't change to political correctness now. You say that this is an example of how hwbot is corrupt and that example just happened to be mine, hence I'm setting an example for how corrupt hwbot is. Doesn't matter how long I've been corrupt, what matters is that you think I am now. If you think I'm not being corrupt now, there's no reason why you should state that this shows how corrupt hwbot is. It's either 0 or 1, not 0.5.

I have followed the hwbot rules as everyone else does. If anything, I follow them more than most of the benchers out there, because I know I have a responsibility as a moderator. Please do ask my team mates how I stress the hwbot rules in joined sessions.

And what if Gigabyte lends me the cpu and doesn't ask it back for a while? Is it alright then? What if I have an agreement with Intel on this?

Since when is it prohibited to bench together? As long as you follow the rules, there's no issue.

Intel would not let Gigabyte loan you or anyone else any of there CPU as they have rules.

Submission & member moderation · June 6, 2009

I followed EXACTLY what the rules prescribe: score was performed in a joined session, so only ONE person submits the result.

The account of Benchbros is nothing like what Thomas and me did in Taiwan.

What if Gigabyte sends me the CPU within a few days? Can I submit then?

Alrighty, Massman is now corrupt .

Having no involvement in benching = having no experience with hardware behavior/tech limits/benchmark behavior = no knowledge to judge regarding validity.

I am not saying you are corrupt, but I thought the rules where quite clear with regards system benches to be run with the owner of a CPU or 3D benchmarks to be run with the owner of the GFX cards.

As for Gigabyte sending you a CPU I don't think they would be allowed as they would break any NDA rule they had signed with that CPU manufacture.

I am happy for this result to stand providing that all of us on Hwbot can now start benching together with anyhardwear we can lay our hands on as thi is the same case as you have done.

Please, explain to me what is the problem again?

If two guys bench together and only other submit results to his account : No issues with rules, if that is OK for the both users. Only one will get points and there is no extra gain for both users or some team

Hardware provided by manufacturer for competition (short loan) : No issues with rules. This happens all the time. Same situation in your overclocking video. That hardware belongs to intel in the end. (If there was any ES cpu's used)

I am still expecting what that valid point will be.

The difference is the hardware is given to me directly, yes Intel can and may ask for any ES chips back at any time but to this date they have not done so and are solely for me to use only under NDA rules not for others to use so any points are benched by myself and any points are allocated to myself only other than when I did the i33 event where the points where given to the team as it was a joint effort and this platform was for resale at the time of this event.

Again I am happy for this result to stand but I think we would then have to let everyone bench together if they wanted and use any hardware they can lay their hands on as this is no different to what has been done providing only one person takes the points with that hardware used.

Submission & member moderation · June 6, 2009

HWbot does not have any problem with scores coming from different events. There is a hundreds of these results in HWbot database already, so why is this any different?

If some manufacturer give some hardware to be used in the event, there is no issues at all. They do it for reviews and the situation is exactly same. To see and show what this particular hardware can do.

Massman does have all the rights to submit this score and this discussion is totally unnecessary. If Thomas would say, that this is not OK, then there would be a problem. That will not happen, if I know these guys at all.

Give me even one valid point, why he should not submit this score to HWbot database and we reconsider to keep this thread open.

I was not aware of any other results being submitted from events as I would have brought this up at the time, but if there are then they should be look into aswell.

The problem is that the bench was run by two people so how can it be allocated to any one person, this is why we now have teams like BenchBros who share the points between themselves.

I am not taking anything away from the point this was a great clock from this CPU and all should be allowed to see results like this but for one person to take it and them submit it for points gain is totally wrong as none of the hardware belongs to them.

I think if this is left to stand then it shows just how corrupt Hwbot is when it comes to rules and this is why I stated before that we now need a real independent to run a site like this as they would have no involvement in benching at all so would be totally unbiased towards anyone or any result.

Submission & member moderation · June 6, 2009

Question: When I ask Gigabyte to keep the chip, is it okay for me to submit scores?

Even though ES chips remain the property of the manufacture some only get these chips on load others get to keep them even though they remain the property of that manufacture.

Again I think what you have done is totally wrong and it just shows us all that there is now a real need for independent moderation of a site like this.

you are the first that I know off to submit a result from an event with all the hardware not belonging to you, if we look back at all other events past I think we all could have had some great results if we submitted them from benches that we ran at them events but knowing that all of the hardware we used did not belong to use so we did not list any of the results here.

Submission & member moderation · June 6, 2009

Hardware provided by the manufacturer can be used for hwbot submissions. It's allowed to use, for instance, hardware sent for review at hwbot. This is a similar situation, although the hardware is not been used for review but for an overclocking event.

This is not the case, if a CPU or GFX card has been sent to someone then it is for them to test, but at this event the CPU are on loan from Intel so are not the individuals property.

I know this to be the case as all CPU's or GFX cards are loaned to the event organiser.

Submission & member moderation · June 6, 2009

But both yourself and Pt1t ran this bench together at the event so it is not a joint effort , like when we at benchtec ran benchmarks at events, this is why we submitted them under the benchtec name not as an individual as it was a joint effort and not just one person that ran the benchmark.

Submission & member moderation · June 6, 2009

Great result Massman and a Fantastic clock speed , but I thought the CPU had to belong to the person submitting the result, as this CPU belongs to Intel and you benched this with Pt1t at the GOOC Event I cannot see how you could have submitted it as you're a mod here and know the rules or am I mistaken here can we all use any CPU or GFX cards we want now.

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=861202

March 1, 2009

New subteam rulesDear HWBot members,

In the past we have stated that for joined benchmark sessions users could register a new account to start a subteam. The impact of these subteams, however, was more than a bit underestimated. Our Russian friends of the Russian Overs Team, Sergey13 and Mayk, clearly showed the HWBot crew how easy it was for their team to gain HWBoints just by registering more subteams. Along with the negative response posted by members on our forums, we are obliged to rewrite the guidelines.

From now on, we still encourage joined benchmark sessions, but the results must be uploaded in this way:

- For videocard benchmarks (3DMark01/03/05/06, Aquamark): upload the results to the account of the owner of the videocard.

- For processor benchmarks (SuperPi1M/32M, PCMark05, wPrime32M/1024M, PiFast): upload the results to the account of the owner of the processor.

- Uploading lower scores on other accounts than the one of owner of the hardware is not allowed.

Sergey13 and Mayk have already asked us to manualy move the results to another account and we kindly ask other members, in the same situation, to do the same.

- The HWBot crew.

19 comments - posted on 10 August, 2007 by Massman

Member Discussions · February 20, 2009

You use COST as an argument to split up the rankings, and I'm sure you see the relevance - you just don't want to admit that the GPU cost today is actually less than it used to be only 2-3 years ago.

I think what Bazx is trying to say is every year we have new single GPU cards and duel GPu cards hit the market ready for us all to buy, the problem is that the sales of single core GPU’s are not worth benching due to the points allocation that they are being rewarded with, who in the right mind would spend hard earned cash on something that cannot compete with the duel GPU cards.

The same amount of work still has to go into benching both types of cards, LN2 pots granted you would need two for the Multy GPU cards so extra expense there but the same amount of work would still be involved in running all the benches just to receive a few hardware points unlike the Duel GPU cards that run so much faster than the single core GPU cards.

I think this is a bad move personally as it will reduce the amount of single GPU cards within our market; also it reduces the amount of honest benchers out there that would be able to compete on an even playing filed not run by who has the biggest pockets.

I still think we need to show the world what are the fastest platforms but I also think we should show the world what can be done with middle of the range hardware as well.

Member Discussions · February 19, 2009

I understand what you are saying Baz, I would think it would be a good idea anyway to have single cards put into their own category as it would increase sales of single GPU's as well as Duel core GPu's.

It also gives Hwbot members the option on how they wish to bench and with what equipment.

Yes we must still have a category for the highest benches and hardware but I now think the time has come to make different leagues within Hwbot so that other members can be just as competitive in there category.

What I am suggesting is we have different categories for different hardware, yes this is a hell of a lot of work that Hwbot would have to undertake but in the end I think it would benefit everyone including hardware manufactures.

If we had a category for single GPU's, Duel core CPU's, Duel core GPU's and Quad core CPU's then the more extreme server core CPU's for Wprime.

Again I do understand how much more work this would involve, but I think for the goodness of this sport we should now be looking into running different categories with maximum points for these categories, a bit like motor sport where everyone can participate on their own budget.

We would then see the amount of benchers from around the world triple as they could bench within their own budget and be recognised for the achievements in their own category.

This is just my opinion and would welcome feedback on my comments.

Submission & member moderation · April 13, 2008

Just came across this result in wprime, I see that this cannot be reported due to mod, this is not proof of correct score and as such should be removed.

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=672718