Rauf

Of course it's stupid. I would say remove all WR points, CPU and GPU alike. It's too much about free win by emptying your pockets, or benching on hw borrowed from your work. But WR points are only accessible to like 1% of the users anyway. So I guess most don't see them as a problem that affects them.

Following the discussion in: “How to fix the rankings †(http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=160448) and “Adjustment for Global Points - Work in progress†http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=150289 Also considering things that have happened in the last few months; lot's of people have quit, MSI has scrapped all overclocking programs, the feeling that OC'ing (at hwbot) in general is struggling, fewer vendor competitions, rules are complicated or unclear, buggy benchmarks, ultra-expensive hw, etc… I've come to the realization that the upcoming hwbot Revision 7 is meaningless, it won't do anything to improve or save overclocking. It's just more of the same, with small tweaks here and there to improve points distribution and reduce server load. What I believe is necessary is a total rework of how we compete at hwbot. Scrap the global points system. Keep the hw-points for those who want to pursue those, it still has a great value for many. WR's and GFP's will still have their glory, but it will not necessarily contribute to your ranking. What I would like to see is the following: - Do seasonal rankings instead of the eternal ranking system we have now. Divide into leagues based on your performance. Move up and down in the leagues between seasons. Don't divide by cooling. If you do well in aircooling you will be moved up to a higher league. Get better cooling or don't do so well. Then we won't have the problem of "ambient" watercooled cpus running 1.7 volts and a load temp of 35C. The seasonal rankings have a defined start and end time. There will be more action. It’s the way every other sport works. We need to address sandbagging of course or it will not be very fun, but it is not an impossible problem to solve, I have an idea. - The leagues can have a set number of benchmarks which are the only ones that gives points (in the leagues). The benchmarks can change from season to season. There can be hw-limits. But keep it simple, just anything below the level of xxx. Vendors can provide prizes if they like, if not we will compete for eternal glory But absolutely no vendor limitations! - Never have benchmarks which produce bugged scores in competitions or leagues. Also move away from screenshots. Move to benchmarks which have online validation. I’m so tired of rules, rules, rules. They are so complicated that even pros make mistakes. Keep it simple to make it accessible for everyone, especially the gamers. - Adapt to the present and the future. PC gaming is stronger than ever and will continue to grow. Move to game benchmarks instead of synthetic ones. Once when I was benching on LN2 some guy got interested and asked me how many FPS I got. I said that it was an irrelevant question and what mattered was how many 3Dmark points I got. But then I got to thinking, wasn’t it the right question after all? Back when OC’ing started it was all about getting more FPS. That is what really matters if we want to take overclocking back to its glory. - etc… There are tons of changes I would like to see, but the general idea is to move to leagues instead of one eternal ranking. Keep everything simple to make it accessible. Simple verification and hw-limits which reflect the hw most people (gamers) own anyway. Move to relevant benchmarks instead of super-synthetic ones.

Another "I wan't everything to stay the way it is" post without any valid arguments... And also another "just do what is fun". It's an argument that is meant to disarm any idea of improvement in a way that puts blame on the other person because he will feel like he is stealing the fun away from others. What you do not consider is that many people want something more. By refusing all changes YOU take the fun part away from those people. "Just do what is fun" is not a valid argument. It's an argument for those who do not care. Also, I think we should listen more to the new people around here. Being disrespectful to someone and making him feel like his thoughts do not matter just because he is new (once again without any argument other than you're new, so you're wrong) is not the right thing to do in my book. But I also feel that this stale old community needs to listen to newcomers because they are the future, and they have an open mind as to how things should work. A mind that is not clouded by how things always have been, or that sees only problems with every change.

set beta runner to NOC

Follow asus guide. Remember to press f5 and choose mps multiprocessor if bios don't have acpi. Don't know if xpower has working acpi, itx doesn't at least. Install in ide mode if you can't get it working, I think xpower has ide mode? 4k+ is possible, but a little hard to do on xpower. Maybe your imc or ram are at their limit on this board?

This is what bugs me the most about the hwbot community. Most of the people involved with the site as mods or senior members just want everything to stay the way it is now. If someone makes a suggestion they all say it can't be done, or it will not work and comes up with arguments that would kill 50% of the benchmarks we have today if that argument were to be applied to those benchmarks as well. You say it won't work but have no real arguments as to why it won't work. And you also have the stomach to say that we should think things through before suggesting something. You don't think your own arguments through when you say it won't work. You don't even present any arguments. Or maybe the fact that some vendor may price their product a little bit higher than ref. cards is such a terrible obstacle that can't be overcome? It is of course MSRP that should count if hwbot decides to implement that idea...

Not going to work you say...ok, let's look at CPU leaderboards. Highest points goes to 4core CPUs. By far the most popular and loved category. But surely it doesn't work... It would be much better if all benchmarks would be ranked vs 96core xeons. That would be great for hwbot!

I also have this issue. It happens when I click on one of the menus, especially the "Benchmarks" menu. It takes many seconds to load the benchmarks list, no matter if I don't select subcategory, or if I select for example "Processor" subcategory. "Hardware" menu is also slow, but not as slow as "benchmarks". Tho others seem to have ok speed. Browsing by phone is even slower.

I don't think people actually read through the posts here, because there is lots of misinformation. The thing I find most appealing is that we will create the GPU equivalent of the 4 core cpu category. The most popular category, and thereby the one which gives the most points, will not be decided by hwbot, nvidia or AMD. It will be decided by what has been, and will be, benched the most by the community. My guess is that lower priced GPUs will be most popular, and how can that be a bad thing?

Of course, but BW-E was benched on Win 10 at computex. There are tons of submissions on hwbot with win 8/10, including from head of moderation... Of course the responsibility is each benchers, but more than 30 min heads up would have been nice. Don't know who else missed this but if there really are half missing, then maybe we could prolong this stage?

@pepinorang We need XOC bios for i3 on XPower. The 173 can't do full pot because PLL volts are limited at 2.0. The GOC bios won't go higher than 125 bclk.

Sounds perfect to me. What is relevant is prize and performance. Since prize will always follow performance this way to categorize will handle itself.

Long term is not an issue since it's globals we're talking. We don't reclassify an old 4 core CPU as a 2 core just because there is a new 2 core that performs as well as the old 4 core one. You want globals in high-end/mid-end whatever, buy a last gen GPU. You want to bench for longer lasting point, go hw-points.

If we have both amd and nvidia ranking it will be double the amuont of rankings. That will probably be problematic. I have previously suggested we could categorize into low end, mid end, high end and ultra high end. Might be easier and more "fair" as it reflects real world performance at the time they are released.

The special tweak you mentioned is bs and you know it. Otherwise you can tell the mods and they will verify it. 742 run is 2 points more than normal run of 740 (739-741 is what you most get when trying for 742. Thats 0.27% more than normal run. You get 1775-1780 at 5G and that mem speed, lucky run is 1885-1887. That's already 0.47% increase over normal run. 1797 is 1.1% above normal run.

What hw would you be interested in? A SS would be really nice, but I don't need one enough to buy one in cash...

There is sufficient proof along with previous experience I think. Good that you answered and explained. Mods will decide.

It doesn't happen on cold, even with unstable memory. And it's pretty easy to spot. Hope the mods agree, but they have removed these types of scores before.

It has been brought up before. When you run core or maybe primarily cache at its limit for being stable, especially on air or water cooling, you sometimes get slightly bugged runs which are way too high compared to the normal scores. It is normal to get around 5 points variance in runs, but when you get 20+ more points it is a bug as you cannot replicate it on a fully stable system.

Did a little testing tonight on the big board (XPower) on LN2: All tests 5G/5G and subs which are really good for XTU: 1933 12-12-12: 2000 12-12-12: (lack of scaling is due to the big board not handling RTL as good as smaller boards and needs higher) 1933 12-11-11: 2000 12-11-11: (again higher RTL) No way the run is legit...

I'm sorry but this looks like a bugged run. Like the ones that were removed from the skylake low clock challenge... No way you can get 1797 for real with that mem speed and cache freq...

Like others have pointed out, it depends much on return policies and if that is not good in your country it depends on second hand market. In Sweden you can try your product and then return it to get a full refund, except for return shipping. But if you do it too much you will get banned from the stores. But second hand market is bad in Sweden. Easily a 100€ loss on a single 6700K that has just been tested on air, with full warranty still left. A few tricks I have learned is that some products don't have a seal, or at least a proper one Then you have no problems with returns. But sadly CPUs have a good seal... and trays aren't available in Sweden at all. When the binning reaches Caseking levels, it is very hard to compete privately. Talking probability, it is quite easy to find the best out of 50 or 100 chips when binning yourself. That will get you a 6.4-6.5 GHz CB R15 chip. But when Caseking can find a few best of 1000 chips that do 6.55-6.6 GHz private binning is not enough. If you aim to actually beat the Caseking cpus you have to find a 1 in 5000 cpu or so, and you can't bin thousands of cpus on your own... When Kaby lake comes out I will hope to get a really good Caseking CPU, but of course I will bin as many as I can myself also and hope for luck

Because the community at hwbot is mostly made up from old overclockers who like things to stay the way they are. Whenever someone suggests something they are met with: "it has always been this way", or "can't be done" or the worst one, which is absolute silence a.k.a. no one cares. I mean, this is just the third time I bring this idea up... But if you are persistent sooner or later you get through The how to implement it needs to be thoroughly investigated. I don't think we should favour AMD to get them to make a comeback. Actually I don't think we will have to as the biggest points will never go to the latest highend cards. The lower end categories will have the majority of the submission and therefore the highest points. The key aspect in my opinion is to make 3D benching cheaper. Ideally most of the categories will evolve naturally so that each new generation of GPUs will reign in their respective category. We also need to make it so that it doesn't favour multi-gpu setups as that wouöd make it too expensive. Also we need to keep the categories to a minimum so that it doesn't kill the ranking system.

Yes, I looked at some figures. Multi-GPU setups will beat single GPUs if we categorize by ROP. Haven't looked at shaders but I doubt multi GPUs will beat any singles there. But we can still have SLI/CF like it is today, it can be linked to the number of ROPs/shaders a single card has, and then we have 2way, 3way etc for each rop/shader class. The goal is to lessen the impact of ultra high end hw, and to bring cheaper GPUs into play.

It's the prize of course. Same with 6950X, most would surely be glad if we excluded it. But excluding hw doesn't seem right. CPU categories are working well, why not do it for the GPUs as well?