Rauf
-
Posts
1304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Rauf
-
-
The problem is that way too many benchmarks are legacy ones. But too many old overclockers love the old benchmarks too much to do the modernization that is needed.
To be honest a benchmarking site, where most of the benchmarking is done on modern hw, should measured relevant contemporary performance. We praise new generations of hw, and bench then using 10-15 year old instructions and benchmarks.
-
1
-
-
-
Only asmedia ports work.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I like that you banned Asrock!
-
1
-
2
-
-
MOCF sold, I'll keep the ITX board. Close please!
-
Bump, 250€ for mocf
-
-
1 hour ago, suzuki said:
Anyone tested GOC 2016 Oc Lab Edition with Gene ?
No boot with 3 modules even at stock settings.
Tryed 0057 and 0802..
Yes, mine work.
-
-
-
Tbh, I dont see where hw-points fit in in a seasonal ranking whatsoever. To me hw points are supposed to be the "stable" points.
And if you add background requirements, correct cpu-z version, full screenshot... You will get 90% of rookie submissions reported.
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, GeorgeStorm said:
Also @Rauf I can see where you're coming from, but by limiting it too strongly you're still making it a money game, just instead of hw breadth it's hw depth so to speak, with needing to bin/buy binned hw at a premium.
As @richba5tard said, it'll be impossibly to keep everybody happy, but hopefully a compromise can be made
No more compromise! Define a clear objective and make it happen!
BTW, isn't "hw depth" what competitive overclocking is all about? Shouldn't the best overclocks be rewarded? I'm all for making it cheaper, but you can never factor out binning
-
36 minutes ago, richba5tard said:
That's a bad example. All submissions with a 1070 which scored about the same use extreme cooling. This is not an example of unfair points, but of either a very good chip or a user which did not change the "stock cooling" default to the cooling he used.
Chilled water: https://uat.hwbot.org/submission/3929098_totalnet_3dmark___fire_strike_geforce_gtx_1070_20653_marks/
The more you limit the amount of submissions, the more money comes into play. Yet you suggest the opposite. What is more expensive? Using LN2 and top end cpu/memory/mobo to get the most out of your GTX 1070 for one benchmark, or using air/water and do 10 benchmarks with your GTX 1070? Obviously the latter is cheaper.
HWBOT has always been about the compromise between showing of world records which are crazy to achieve both in skill and money, and making it fun for the community who just wants to mess around with decent oc's and improved cooling. We don't benefit from excluding either party, but we can't make it ideal for both.
How can an example that shows exactly what I mean be "bad"? I'm sorry but you just don't know what you're talking about. The clocks are normal for a pascal GPU on stock cooler. There's a reason why these cards don't scale so well on extreme cooling, but it's besides the point. Check 970 then, it's the same story:
or 770: https://uat.hwbot.org/submission/3629333_h2o_vs_ln2_3dmark___fire_strike_geforce_gtx_770_10426_marks
or 780: https://uat.hwbot.org/submission/3761539_h2o_vs_ln2_3dmark___fire_strike_geforce_gtx_780_14287_marks
or 680: https://uat.hwbot.org/submission/3061153_pulse88_3dmark___fire_strike_geforce_gtx_680_10007_marks
or 670: https://uat.hwbot.org/submission/3823010_shar00750_3dmark___fire_strike_geforce_gtx_670_8631_marks
Need more?
For CPUs it's the same. There are many examples of stupid hw points. Check this profile for example: https://uat.hwbot.org/user/pkbo/#Points And there are many examples of stupid globals also, I've written about them before.
The question is WHY do we have points and rankings? WHAT is to be rewarded and what should the rankings show? As long as I have been a member no one has been able to answer this. It's always been a little bit of this and a little bit of that, which meant a system that has no clear purpose. If you don't know the why and what you want to do, how can you do it properly? For me a ranking and points system should always award the best achievements. Not just hand out points arbitrarily to "everyone who wants to mess around with decent oc's".
-
11 minutes ago, avalanche said:
He's talking the odd processors or laptops with no bios OC features that run stock & make like 30 points in benches.
It was mentioned before BUT that member still makes the effort to setup & run bench. ie valid
There is this also. And ofc it is valid, but is this what hwbot is about? Spamming meaningless results?
-
6 minutes ago, richba5tard said:
It's not ok if the crew decides the limit and it's not ok if the community decides the limit.
Can you give a concrete example where you can buy 10 new pieces of hardware and them a stock speed to gain thousands of points? No vague complaints please.
If the limit is stupid it does not matter who decides it. Here is one example of a stock cooled VGA and a very easy OC of an air cooled CPU: https://uat.hwbot.org/submission/3557369_gorod_3dmark___fire_strike_geforce_gtx_1070_20223_marks
It gets 33 hw points. You can run the 1070 through all modern or semi-modern 3D and get around 30 points easy with all air/water and very small OC. For reference you can just check h20vsln2's profile to see what kind of good hw points you can get through an all air/water setup. 50x30 points = 1500 points total. And I did not say thousands, I said A thousand points. And this is just hw points. If you want to see good globals which are "easy" to get you just check the same user profile. The newest intel CPU and latest Titan will always get incredible globals even on stock cooling, but the fewer global subs that count, the less impact this has.
For me the fewer results that give points the more you have to focus on quality of your subs and makes it less of a money game. Even if it always will be a money game, you can limit it as best you can.
-
1
-
-
Looking at the votes...for instance 50 hw submission in seasonal ranking... It seems hwbot always wants to promote spamming results. I thought overclocking was about PUSHING HW TO THE MAXIMUM. With rev 8 it will turn even more into rewarding users to run large amounts of hw at stock or just slightly overclocked. How do we promote actual overclocking by this? Tell a new user to spend one week optimizing OS, drivers, cooling etc and he gains 10 points. Another users buys 10 new pieces of hw and runs them at stock through all benchmarks - he gains a thousand points...good balance?
I really want to like and support hwbot, but with every new revision hwbot is killing itself more and more.
@richba5tard BTW, looking at the rankings I see several top results are missing since the rev 7 migration. Will you make sure this does not happen again? For example almost all of my single 1080 ti submissions are missing: FS, FSX, catzillas, 3Dmark11. I also see that results from Kingpin are missing so it is not isolated to me...
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, AutisticChris said:
The Z390 Phantom ITX has an XOC bios?
Yes
-
Hi
Up for sale are two MBs:
1: Asrock Z170 MOCF, modded for newer gen CPUs also. Working well (even if it belonged to XA before I bought it ?). The two usual pins are burnt from the modding. Price 280€
2: Asrock Z390 Phantom gaming ITX. Has XOC bios flashed. Only used board for two sessions, once at home and then during GOC 2018 finals. Board is insulated with silicone grease, so it is washable. Price 150€
Shipping is not included, buyer pays fees etc etc...
-
2
-
-
36 minutes ago, richba5tard said:
Any major remarks regarding rev8 now that we changed the algorithm to "sum top 30 globals + top 30 hardware submissions" instead of top 30 total points?
Too much quantity, too little quality. Who has time to do 30 good globals and 30 good hw subs per year? And who can do 10 comps in a year? Max 10 globals and 10 hw per year, and max 3 comps.
For career 30 hw is fine, but as globals are changing almost every year i think 30 subs for globals is too much even for career.
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, subaruwrc said:
what helped with eff? I try to find a not so fucken worse eff in 2k11 since years
Newest version is better with 2080ti
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Splave said:
This looks great to me. Current WR points are silly.
One could argue if 2d is easy just bin a cpu and sit back for 30 seconds, one could argue get binned vgas from a manufacturer sit back for 2 minutes and collect 450 points
(not trying to offend)
popularity should bring the points imo if 2d is more popular it should be worth more
2 cents
I didn't mean to offend either
But to be fair benching 3D requires binned cpu AND vga
But seriously, maybe hwbot should take a more passive role and don't take a stand to subjective opinions on what should be rewarded and what not. Just give same points to all benchmarks regardless 2D, 3D, "skill", cost, popularity etc. If popularity is rewarded we just end up with XTU situation again... This should also make algorithms easy and reduce server load and maintenance
-
-
14 minutes ago, Bones said:
WTF???
A 3D bench is and always will be a 3D bench, doesn't make sense in the way you put it.
If someone wants to have a go for globals with a GTX 780 I say let them have at it, it's their time, money and hardware to run and all that to waste if they want. Thing is some CAN do it, doesn't make sense to simply cut them out of contention based on the age of their hardware alone.
More competiton is competition no matter what form it takes as long as it's done within the rules set in place.
BTW we've walked this path before..... And don't understand why we have to again.
For me a 3D-bench measures GPU performance. They are after all in the "videocard" category...legacy 3D benchmarks measure mostly CPU performance. But the definition is not really the point here, and you are missing it. I don't want to limit anyone from using whatever setup they want. My point was that removing globals from 3/4-way setups does not affect anyone who uses older/cheaper hw, as they don't get any globals anyway.
For legacy 3D there might be a reason the allow SLI/CF setups of older/cheaper cards as they are capable of doing well enough for globals with a strong CPU. And I don't see why you could not allow any GPU-config for legacy 3D if community wants it. Just don't have separate rankings for it, as it does not scale, and gives way to many 3D-rankings to get easy points in. The problem might be coding it, as hw-points still need separate rankings for diff SLI/CF setups.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ale_belo said:
Limit costs? ... for those who have 2080ti free yes.
Eliminating the global 2/3/4 vga means forcing people to take only top of the range videocardsI don't understand, you want to bench for globals on GTX 780 sli or what? Take a look at Time spy 2-way ranking. the first non titan or 2080ti/1080ti setup is a dual 1080 setup. It's still pretty high end and it gets 2 global points...
If you mean legacy benchmarks I can understand it, but they are not really 3D anymore... Maybe one solution would be to have one ranking for all legacy 3D benchmarks, where you can use any number of GPUs, since they don't scale with GPU power anyway. That would open up to the use of older setups... But in general, for me older hw=hw-points...not globals
CSN7 - Titan RTX @ 2265/2112MHz - 19903 marks 3DMark - Time Spy
in Result Discussions
Posted