Rauf

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!

Lol, didn't notice that until now

Canadians, I know you focus on us because we beat you on the finishline. But look at the aussies. They are very successful because they get together a whole group of people and share knowledge, hw (allowed), OS etc. What was mainly shared on our part was a 2600k system clocked at 5ghz. WR hardware? If you can't beat an old 2600k on watercooling maybe you should look at what you could do better instead of accusing us of cheating. We could have used my 6700k which runs 3d06 at up to 6250 (depending on OS) and that would be allowed. But lets save that for next year

Exactly what you sound like We follow hw-sharing rules. Isn't the whole idea of country cup to help each other out?

I think the idea is basically very good! But maybe not increase the points. Have to keep hw points relevant. Also agree with adjusting the threshold, and maybe slope, on hwpoints, with every generation hw points gets a bigger and bigger problem. Or maybe the lower threshold should be just for 3D? Another thing I have been thinking about that would be massively beneficial for all parties would be to get hwbot-integration of the next 3Dmark.

Hmm, strange it can make such a difference. Mine is broken though, tried it two more times, and also with the impact. Still maxes out at 5.2 Are there any other batches than X?

Very nice!

Very nice!

Good score! No sign of degradation? Maybe just my chip that was bad.

Yes, delidded

Thanks for sharing! Did you try full pot? I haven't had much problems at -165-170. I thought I would try this myself. I tried reseal with silicon based glue and it didn't work. Cracked around -175-180 the same as without reseal. Tried using tape to simulate reaseal also but contact was too bad. No crack with tape but was seeing positive core temps with pot around -100 so it was useless. I have also had some problems with gradually degradation of kryonaut when benching at -170. Works well for 30 min, then have to lower clocks about 100mhz. Then after perhaps 1,5-2 hours it cracks completely at -170. This could be a bad batch of kryonaut though, because my first tube didn't do this.

Ah, didn't notice you were using B-die until now...

Thanks, here it is from sofos: http://forum.hwbot.org/showpost.php?p=422045&postcount=86

Yes, the first stage is why I actually thought that the other stages would be a true average based ranking as well. It also says so in the rules... Only people who have been here a long time can suspect that it is first number of submissions and then average. This is the only major problem with hwbot in my opinion. The competitions are always unclear to say the least when it comes to rules. The rules are updated, changed, new rules are added. It is hard to find the new rules because they are buried somewhere deep down in a thread with 100 replies. Rankings are not working correctly in the beginning etc.

I have missed all results with B-die. Got any link?

Wow, nice chip! 3dmark01 200k+ now?

Maybe should give globals for single core geekbench since there are so few relevant single core benches for Skylake? (no SPI) Geekbench is actually fun since it's tweakable, ram impacts quite a lot, and you can play with different frequencies for the different subtests which require some skill if you bench alone.