Rauf
-
Posts
1304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by 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.
-
Thanks for the feedback everyone. This week I will try to run another Adjustment test with:
- keep the less steep slope for globals
- keep reduced threshold for globals
- not increase the maximum points for globals*
- improve slope for hardware
- reduce threshold for hardware
(*): it is inevitable that the the global points contributing to your total will increase if we make the point slope less steep and reduce the threshold as both actions increase the points for positions below 10 by quite a lot.
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...
- keep the less steep slope for globals
-
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
-
I'm glad I didn't order any AFR, just released and a dinosaur already.
Not to mention the pile of crap one apparently has to plough through to get something decent. Been there, done that with MFR.
+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.
-
Thanks for the feedback everyone. This week I will try to run another Adjustment test with:
- keep the less steep slope for globals
- keep reduced threshold for globals
- not increase the maximum points for globals*
- improve slope for hardware
- reduce threshold for hardware
(*): it is inevitable that the the global points contributing to your total will increase if we make the point slope less steep and reduce the threshold as both actions increase the points for positions below 10 by quite a lot.
I like this change, seems good and would address many of the current drawbacks!
- keep the less steep slope for globals
-
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
-
Not to sound like a sore loser but it looks to me like a few of those subs came from the same HW. The pics are nearly identical.
I didn't think we were supposed to share HW/ subs on that kind of scale
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!
-
Good score! No sign of degradation? Maybe just my chip that was bad.
-
Yes, delidded
-
guys, in the last 2 days i had 2 sessions without a single crack!
TIM was Grizzly under IHS and between IHS and CPU pot of course. i did not change anything like the numerous unsuccesful sessions before but one thing: i tried the "Vivi method", sanding the die! i did not glue back the ihs just gently sanded the die until the reflection lose about its shine and starts to be scratched.
i used the green side of the regular washing sponge
Vivi's photo
so totally confirmed from my side. if you are facing serious TIM crack issues like i did give it a try. tested with 2 different CPU's in 2 different mobos under 2 different CPU Pots. i did not even care about slow pouring! straight go to -120 start light benches and go forward to -150-160C range. no problem at all with both setups. 1st CPU had cbb at -150 other at -160C. benches were running about -165-170C and finally CPUs starts to fly.
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...
-
You can check dino result I believe in the 5ghz skylake thread
Thanks, here it is from sofos:
-
It doesn't work that way in the first stage, its simply an accumulation of points, only in Stage 2, 3, and 4 force you to gather subs in each of the categories. There are always going to be things that are unfair to one set of overclockers or another.
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?
Adjustment for Global Points - Work in progress
in HWBOT Development: bugs, features and suggestions
Posted
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.