Rauf

WR points will always be the same no matter number of submissions or level of competition.

That just seems like free points... The thing is 3-4 way will never really be competitive because of the cost. No way people will buy four titans or 980ti, put them on like a 1000l ln2 to run them through all benchmarks just because the points increase. I have thought about creating "classes" in 3D, in which each class gets global points. Like one class is high end or unrestricted, one mid end (Gtx 970 for example and amd corresponding), and one low end. Each new generation of gpus would be divided into these classes.

My best one so far does HWBot Prime at around 6350 on OCF. Can do 06 4C/8T at around 6.25 on Impact. Lower on OCF. Around 6.4 in 05 on ASUS board. Again, lower on OCF. Of the boards I have tried I have found that ASUS (only tried Impact) is better than MSI (Xpower) which is better than OCF, when it comes to CPU speed. Number of voltage settings related to CPU is ASUS>MSI>OCF. My guess as to the reason for this. But some CPUs don't seem to need/scale with the additional voltage settings. So, of course it depends on CPU.

I'll take the number 7 as well

Congratz!

Great cpu! ...but no screen? Does b-die make that much of a difference or maybe soc f very efficient?

Cool!

Hmm,so not even b-die is easy 741

Great score! And scary high vcore for xtu

Very nice! Correct vcore reading in cpu-z?

Agree! Agree, think we came up with 100, 85, 75% a few pages back and noone disagreed... I think this might be good, but only do one unrestricted cpu ranking and one 4c (unlimited threads) ranking. Might make 3d a little more popular. Agree, you're only fooling yourself if you think you're better than you are or that the pros get their results withput effort or for free. Agree, a 3d ranking can be a curiosity (like the 3d king thread) but should not be separate rankings. Don't know if a poll will provide any useful results unfortunately. The way threads like this go there will never be a majority that will support any change, because all proposals are garbage... In real life authorities propose a change, get the public and expert opinions, and then make the changes they want anyway In the end I think hwbot has the best grasp of what will be the best course.

Yes, I'll take it Thought it was e-mail only. Read it correctly now. I've also e-mailed you about some other products. Hopefully some of it can be arranged to be shipped together... Thank you for all you keep doing for oc community!

I've e-mailed you about #3: 33X0033

Interesting, I like the changes. A big change to hw-points, not shure what impact that will have but it is also necessary because hw-points will only continue to be more and more problematic is it is now. But if the points are dependant on the number of participants each submitted score will require a full recalculation anyway, won't it? Maybe you could lighten the server load by having scheduled recalculations? Once a day would be enough. Could of course also be split up by category, benchmark etc if a full recalculation is too heavy.

I also have fourth place points

In F1 they have hardware restriction exactly for the reason to make it more exciting. They put the rules in to level the competion because some companies spent so much money to develop better cars they became too good and races were not exciting any more. I'm not saying we should take the binning aspect out of OC, it is and always will be the most deciding aspect. But maybe it would be good to tone it down a notch. Perhaps 100, 85, 75 and then a bit more slowly downwards.

Any final result soon?

It's a step in the right direction. But too big a step. This would take too much of the competition out. Not rewarding enough to go for the top rankings. If the current slope is a black skiing slope, the one tested here is a blue. Then we want to go green or maybe red I think. Hw slope is fine. But threshold is still to high.

Been thinking more about possible changes. I think adjusting the slope for globals is very important and can also have a positive effect on 3D-popularity. As it is now once you reach into the mid thirties on your lowest globals, benching is not very rewarding. You have to have a top 5 cpu to really gain points (more than 5-10 points) in the 2D-department. If you look at 3D you have to have a top 3 position (exept last gen 3Dmark) to really be able to gain points. If you look at multi-GPU it's often only first or second places that have considerably more points than 35-40. When you consider a majority of "3D"-benches is actually a CPU-bench it gets even more discouraging. It's either find a top 5 CPU or quit. If the slope is adjusted so that it's more rewarding to get a top 10 position this should help 3D especially because it's here the "competition" is at its lowest right now. More points to top 3-10 positions should help make a lot of the 3D-benches more popular. However, placing 1-3 should of course still give significantly higher points than the rest, but not as much as now. Maybe first is X points, second is X*0.85, third is X*0.75...

Leeghoofd has already ruled on this. He is a results moderator if you didn't know.

Come on now canada. Stop this, it is just embarrassing. Systeminfo is not even required...

It was not hard to find good e-die. Even on cheaper kits. Hoping for the same on b-die

+1 on that. Retail afr seems like it takes some serious binning. Plus you have to go cold for them to be decent. Samsungs seems the winners for the time being.

I sense some grasping at straws here... It is clear that the igp submissions without the MB-tab have all the proof they need in GPU-z. But I get that some wants those results gone based on a technicality. Thanks for leeghoofd for clarifying the rules.

I like this change, seems good and would address many of the current drawbacks!