Rauf
-
Posts
1304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Rauf
-
-
Very nice! Found a good cpu!
-
How about this: http://hwbot.org/newsflash/3327_upcoming_broadwell_e_core_i7_6950x_may_cost_up_to_usd_1500
Don't know if FS scales with more than 8 cores, but even if it does not next gen from Futuremark probably will. 1500$ cpu is out of the question, even for me
Something needs to be done, not only with the points but also with categories. 4 core CPU with FS/FSE etc would be really nice!From what I read so far, I think the general idea is that:
- 3D should have equal points like 2D
- Hardware points should be as important as Global points
- There should always be a bonus for the top rankings
- The point distribution for Hardware Rankings is fine as it is now
How competitive a global ranking is in terms of amount of participants is not so much a factor, I think. At least, I haven't seen much arguments emphasizing this aspect.
Any major point I'm missing?
What happened with the lowered threshold and adjusted slope for globals? Most seemed fine with that.
Also don't know if anyone but the HW-benchers think HW points should be more important in the rankings. HW points (top spots) is mostly about running average GPU clocks and pair it with a golden last gen CPU. It is not so much about the HW the points indicate (the GPU).
- 3D should have equal points like 2D
-
Online qualifier for the last two spots would be very good
-
Sanded die?
Great chip you got!
-
A 4 core CPU category for FS and the other non-legacy 3D benches would be very nice.
I have two 980 ti that I ran on ln2 for the goc qualifier. After that only legacy 3D. And I actually have a Rampage V Ex and memory, only missing a good 5960X. There is just not enough incentment to spend much money on a good 5960X. Then a heap of ln2 to bench for very little points (my cards are not that good).
-
What volts do these b-die like? Still not available here, but soon got some coming.
-
Hideo always runs 4 sticks!
Nice work on the ASUS, and nice to see 11-11-11! -
Insane, that chip would even be good for some 3D...
-
...
Main problem is that this would be a LOOOOOT of new global rankings. But it would certainly make 3D more appealing. Note that by separating it this way, the participation for the top categories (ie. GTX 980 Ti) would be a lot lower too. This can be address through WR points though.
That's why I suggested grouping cards in more artificial "classes". Three seems like a reasonable number to me. Any more would probably create more problems than solve them. The amount of compute cores is not really relevant to performance and constantly changing.
-
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
-
-
Great cpu! ...but no screen? Does b-die make that much of a difference or maybe soc f very efficient?
-
-
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?
-
This thread seems to have gone from looking for a solution to balance 2d/3d to a complete reworking of the bot!
Back to OP....all imo...
1. Lower threshold on 3d to better balance with 2d. That right there makes it a fair playing field for everyone to bench 2d/3d whatever takes their fancy.
Agree!
2. Improved scaling of points...Agree, think we came up with 100, 85, 75% a few pages back and noone disagreed...
3. Joe's suggestion for core grouping in 3d sounds good if the aim is to get more people benching a wider variety of 3d. I know just in my team alone many won't bench vantage etc as 5960 is out of reach for a lot of guys. Only downside I can think of with that is ending up with way too many benches if all current ones are kept then split into per core...?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.
4. Pros don't need a separate league. There's already distinction between extreme/elite etc. Ok, you might not get 1st place ranking in a bench but you still compete in your own league. Enthusiast was highly competitive when I was active a couple of years back and I don't think we cared one iota what the xoc guys were doing. We were still fighting for top h2o honours.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.
5. If point 1 is sorted then there shouldn't be a need to create separate 2d/3d leagues. Unless your suggesting separate for each then an overall ranking? Danger with that one is it maybe ending up pushing guys more in one direction than they are already. I.e, only concentrating on one league rather than utilising both 2d/3d to gain points.Agree, a 3d ranking can be a curiosity (like the 3d king thread) but should not be separate rankings.
I definitely think some sort of a poll should be setup as not all will want to speak publicly in this thread I'm guessing. At the end of the day, you can't please everyone and that'll be the biggest hurdle. Some will take it for what it is, hopefully with some middle ground for all. Others will just moan and whine regardless as they won't recognise any middle ground and won't be able to take it on the chin if they don't agree 100% with any changes.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
Adjustment Global Points - General Discussion
in League Discussions
Posted
Well, statistics shows that the collective wants to bench 1 GPU with 4 core CPU
Done deal! 
Problem with this is that it will result in A LOT of benchmarks that gives globals if we have unrestricted CPU category as now with 1,2,3,4 GPUs. And then add 4 core CPU with 1,2,3,4 GPUs...
GPUPI is 2D so it's not affected by CPU cores