Rauf
-
Posts
1304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Rauf
-
-
It’s about time, don’t you think? We now have many 3D-benchmarks which are actually 99% CPU-bound. And it is kind of frustrating to see some of the elites submit with multiple accounts using the same golden CPUs, taking up all the high points. With the points-slope being so steep that it only gives good points to the top 3 submissions, hwbot becomes just a battle between Asus and Gigabyte. I love the battle, but keep the submissions to one account please!
Examples:
Dancop`s 3DMark06 score: 65476 marks with a GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Hiwa`s 3DMark06 score: 65315 marks with a GeForce GTX 980 Ti
^^most likely same CPU
Dinos22`s Unigine Heaven - Xtreme Preset score: 10523.75 DX11 Marks with a GeForce GTX 1080
TeamAU`s Unigine Heaven - Xtreme Preset score: 10413.28 DX11 Marks with a GeForce GTX 1080
^^Can’t be sure but probably same CPU
Dancop`s Unigine Heaven - Xtreme Preset score: 10448.51 DX11 Marks with a GeForce GTX 1080
^^Probably same CPU
These are examples, maybe they are not all true, but most likely some are. And I DO NOT say that they are wrong or do not follow the rules. My point is that it isn’t exactly fair and the rules need to be changed so that they reflect the original purpose of the rules; One golden piece of hw should not be used by multiple accounts in the same benchmark.
So my idea is just to extend the hw-sharing rule to both CPU and GPU for Aquamark, 3D01, 3D03, 3D05, 3D06, Unigine. Actually, since we have physics tests for the newer 3Dmarks and CPU is not at all unimportant for at least 720P catzilla, why don’t we extend the hw-sharing rule to both CPU and GPU for all 3D-benchmarks?
-
-
-
Problems with GPU Tweak when I install all I get is sliders no writing before them at all, I have tried different drivers and some different tweak versions, I even tried a different OS install.
Any idea's?
You're on win7 right? If I remember correctly you just shut it down and restart it. This issue is only for win7, not win8 or 10.
-
I think there was a vote where people voted for all 49 people to have #1 points in such a situation.
You can always have a new vote if the first one was wrong, right Britain?
-
Sharing points equally between scores is not possible.
Ex :
XTU i3 6320 : 49 peoples at 742 marks.
Let's say a top score give 100 HWP for a unique guy.
So here, a 742 score will give ... 2 HWP for each guy !
And of course, a 741 marks has obviously to give less point, so it decrease to let's say 1.5 HWP.
Extreme example ofc, but to mean that it devalue all of the ranking if you share points between equals scores.
If 49 people can get the same GFP-score, is it really worth that many points?
Also, you misunderstand a bit. They would not share the first place points only. But all points from 1-49 would be shared equally for all 49 people.
-
I don't think he's suggesting different points for the same score, but shared points.
Both to stop lots of people getting the equivalent of first points, and also to encourage people to actually try to beat each other rather than just equal.
Exactly this. With the new points system the base points will automatically be the same I guess, but in case of a top score there will be some kind of bonus points? That bonus could be shared. Say we have two people who have equaled the GFP. Bonus points for both would be =(bonus for nr1+bonus for nr2)/2
With regard to the competition points it can be hard to tell which competitions will be popular. Maybe not that hard, but anyways... A better, non-subjective way would be to give points according to the size of the prize pool. Comps with both qualifier and final should give points in the qualifiers based on the total prize pool for both qualifier and final. Finals are harder to judge because some are decided very much by luck of hw draw, while others are more based on skill. Also, the number of participants is low, but average skill level high. Maybe the middle road would be for the finals to get the same amount of points as qualifier?
Will be interesting to see the revised R7 ideas!
-
I thought about two things that I feel would be good for the upcoming adjustment to the points system:
1. Shared score = shared points. No more 742 XTU… Also good because it can be strategic not be beat someones score sometimes if you equal it. And some benchmarks like aquamark and XTU tend to give the same amount of points very often.
2. Points for competitions are very imbalanced. 50 for winning a whole competition (most competitions) is way too low. Even competitions that are very difficult to win, like Asus or country cup, gives you 50 points. These comps should be 100 points, very small competitions can still be 50 points.
And then we have the G.Skill comp. The qualifier gave 100 points and that is too low for the level of competition. Should be 150. And then the final gave 250 points! That’s way too much. I think 100 is about right. If you are going to give points to both qualifier and final the qualifier should get the most points. The finals are all about the money
-
Very nice! But what about voltage? How high can they go?
-
-
Another rule that was added has gone by unnoticed: Sys-pic has to show memory module clearly. So i guess all results will be removed because they have fans covering the memory. What about ln2 pots on memory, is that ok?
-
I thought we were discussing the cpu-tab in the screenshot. Not the screenshot itself. We all saw what happened in challenger round 1...
You did not answer why the cpu-tab is needed for mem oc?
-
Yes, but what is the point of cpu tab? Many habe already submitted without it
-
@websmile I don't agree with you there. Hwbot is working hard to attract new overclockers. But in many competitions there are some stages where you have to be a veteran to even be able to guess the rules...
-
In vintage category, Memory Clock DDR1. It says: "This stage requires 3 submissions from different users!" All other mem-freq. stages require only 1 submission. Is this correct? It seems strange because you can not have three different types of hardware...
And also the usual questions for all mem frequency stages:
Any difference in frequency allowed between screenshot and validation?
There are no specific rules so I assume XOC is ok in validation and we don't have to show SPD in screenshot? What do we have to show in screen, only mem tab?
-
Sick cpu speed! Great score
-
I happens when you bench in a very humid environment. Try insulating all around the mems better.
-
-
Good run, nice eff!
-
Very good Isak!
-
Finally had time to test the board at home!
Took it for a quick spin to test out mem OC. This was about max on air. Only set the primaries so far.
:nana:
-
Nice mr memory expert!
-
Hey Tobias,
what do you expect? 2800C6 xtu, spi32, 3d? I have for sell few air and ln2 tested PSC kits
Well, 2800 6-10-6 with no cbb or cb would be ideal. Stable enough for xtu and geekbench. But also not looking to spend too much. PM with what you would be willing to sell and how much.
-
I'm interested in some decent LN2-tested powerchip mems.
Revision of rules for hw-sharing?
in HWBOT Development: bugs, features and suggestions
Posted
You assume people will break the rules and cheat. Yes, easily verifiable rules are optimal, but is the alternative better? People can just as easily cheat with sharing a GPU for 3D-benchmark, why don't we allow that as well? If there is one thing the top dogs know it is which persons have good cpus, so I actually think that CPUs are harder to share than GPUs.
I can't see any reason not to do this...