Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

FatBoyNotSoSlim

Members
  • Posts

    447
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

FatBoyNotSoSlim last won the day on April 6

FatBoyNotSoSlim had the most liked content!

Converted

  • Location
    AUSTRALIA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

FatBoyNotSoSlim's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

45

Reputation

  1. I love to see the discussion happening; this is what's great about the community. All are coming together to share insights and opinions with a bit of banter. Looking at both sides of the equation here, we can see both arguments and I want to touch on these. The all-out frequency method that's historical to Overclocking and embodies a core pillar of its meaning and the new world realities of hardware, stability and what happens behind the scenes to make it happen. We have the current method, which is historically accurate to overclocking: Maximum frequency, maximum volts, all the tweaks, none of the dead weight, get that highest score with no regrets. This might entail better cooling, like LN2 or LHe, or better tweaks or OS like XP, or even disabling cores/HT to get that maximum frequency. This is, in my mind is a pillar of overclocking and one that is best shown in the frequency records on the CPUz validations. This is one style of overclocking and one that I think should still be around for the future. On the other side, maybe with some pressure from vendors and OEMs to show what the hardware is capable of, their desire to have enabled all cores/HT on the hardware when setting records, especially when it comes to new hardware generations. These companies are throwing massive money into Research and Development, and world record scores would surely be a KPI against the iterative improvements they're making each generation. I DO NOT BELIEVE this has any influence on this decision or Hwbot directly, as some others maybe have insinuated. So what does the future hold? I don't know, but I do want the all-out frequency method to be around and viable for the long term. If changes are to be made, let's take some suggestions from the world of sports, and maybe look to have classes or categories? A class for all out, one that's got stabilitiy requirements, and naturally the one true class, Fully stock cooling and XMP memory settings. All out category? CPUz maximum frequency validation. Fully featured? All cores/HT and validated with a stability test of X from Y application? ... others? Stock cooling and XMP memory only? Validated in real-world settings? Maybe some game benchmarks or something visual for the Youtubers and hardware reviewers. (My personal favorite, as it's no longer pay to play) More can be said on how to validate and enforce these. I don't have any opinion worth sharing about this now, but I would be open to exploring how it goes. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
  2. Upon review, I concur with these changes. LGTM, ship it.
  3. First you had my respect, now you have my attention. MYCGA 2021.
  4. Unless Coronavirus shuts down world travel, I'll collect that Whiskey for Matt. He's not coming to Computex this year. Also, stop hax0ring. It gives love a bad name.
  5. Mr @Leeghoofd Sir, please revert and provide access to the YCruncher. My reputation depends on it. Thanking in advance, regards, Australia's #1 Overclocker
  6. XTU for locked CPUs? Love me some hour long XTU runs.
  7. WTF Ozzie, you come into my sub and disrespect me in front of MY FAMILY. This is war.
  8. You're 10 ply bud, fuck off and try and do better on your own 8086k on AIO.
  9. Ahhh, ok, thanks for looking into it for me. I'll keep at it on some other stages then.
  10. When possible, could someone please check this submission of mine, it's not appearing in the grouping for Australia, yet the stage confirms it's submitted for the round: http://hwbot.org/submission/4026123_
×
×
  • Create New...