Praz

I think you misunderstood the intent of my post. I don't disagree with what you are saying. Nick has stated pretty clearly what he wants and expects. For the entries to be submitted at the last minute to him via email. If this is how it's going to be there is no need for anybody else or any other organization to be involved. Poor way to run something when the spectators are just as important then the competitors.

Why would HWBot even be needed for this competition? It seems pretty clear now that the correct method of submitting scores, regardless of where they are posted, is to wait to the last moment of the current round of competition. If this is the case a simple forum post somewhere will more then suffice. I'm not sure why anybody other then the competitors would be interested in an event with this type of structure but that's not our decision.

That should be really upsetting. Seems to be coming from someone who is intimately familiar with the definition.

MFT is the best thing to happen to SSD drives for both server and desktop use. I don't think anyone is disputing that. When used with PcMark is the score an actual indication of system performance or is it some artificially inflated value? I get 6000 MB/sec in HD Tune on a single MFT enabled SSD. If PcMark is being affected in a like manner I don't think there is anyone that can justify it's use.

Although MFT does artificially inflate hard drive benchmarks there are also tangible real-life performance increases also. That is it's sole purpose of existence besides it's excellent wear-leveling capabilities. Seems what needs to be determined is if the increased scores of PCMark because of MFT is a reflection of real-world results or artificially inflated like drive benchmarks are. My comments are not because of unfamiliarity with the program. I have used it off and on since the first beta for Windows.

The use of MFT is a hard one to call. Unlike most ramdisk usage MFT is a valid 24/7 app. It's main purpose is for servers and EasyCo does quite well in that market segment with a long list of customers. Which is also why desktop development is slow. They are concentrating on where the money is. The negative side is MFT does artificially inflate benchmark scores. A single MFT enabled SSD will post a 6000 MB/sec score in HD Tune which we all know is not possible. How this translates to programs such as PCMark I don't think is known at this time.

@westsider Thinking like this is why there are wars. HWbot really isn't the place for these type of comments. I would have thought that HWbot would have been somewhere these issues could be left behind. You didn't follow the rules. Can't get much simpler then that.

You bring up a perfect example. People are posting upward of 200,000 point scores on the net for 03 using 2x4870x2 cards because they are bugged runs. As newer hardware becomes available and these programs become obsolete this will only be more common. But it seems like 32% of the voters have no problem with this.

It will be a sad day for HWbot and the benchmarking community if this is going to be the outcome. The end result will be HWbot being the home of world records set with obsolete software because users are too cheap to spend $20.00. Probably a pretty safe bet if Orb submissions could be done with cracked software the poll would be a bit different.

You have countered your own argument. As has already been pointed out Vista is free for several months of use so the cost incurred for the operating system is none. There's a couple of other things that need to be looked at when making this decision. One is the benching software being free. When that decision was made the world was in a different state. In today's economy there are few companies that can devote man-hours to anything that will not result in a return of investment. If HWBot holds to this principle sooner or later the benches being used will be completely outdated and will be the first step towards its demise. The other thing being overlooked is Futuremark itself. When asked they made a concession as to the functionality of 3DMark Vantage. True, the outcome is not what quite a few or maybe even most had hoped for but Futuremark did compromise none the less. This should be kept in mind when a final decision is made reguarding the awarding of points.

A 70% majority may be needed but that does not negate the fact that the majority that have voted want it almost 2:1.

The cost of Vantage is a weak point to use to contest the inclusion of it for points. People spend the same amount of money for a single 120mm fan. To place high enough for any significant points using any of the benchmarks requires the continual purchasing of hardware. So another $20.00 spent is minor when looking at the big picture. The poll as it stands now does show that the majority of users want Vantage included for points. Looks to be the only decision to be made is how Vantage will be run.

It is sad. After the decision is made, whatever the outcome, I bet a lot more users then 173 complain.

Seems the only logical way to look at it. The poll is really two parts depending on the total votes. Before it is decided what configuration the benchmark is run it needs to be determined if the majority even want it used. So the total number of votes for the three configurations should be compared to the votes for not counting the benchmark for points. If the no votes win then there is no Vantage benchmark. If the yes votes win then the category with the most yes votes should dictate what will be used for points.

http://www.ocxtreme.org/forumenus/showpost.php?p=49876&postcount=91 Enough said.