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.

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

Gprhellas We have a saying here in the states. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. Posts like this not only make you look bad but your whole team. I am sure the scores posted by OCX are as legitimate as the scores of your team. So try to make up the points difference by benching rather then attempting to have opponents points removed.

The top 20 entries I saw have verification links to actual screenshots also. If a photo by itself is not valid it has to be for more of a reason then the possibility of the system frozen. There are a couple of really nice utilities that allow quick screen captures. They use no resources, are activated by a hot key and auto save. Much quicker then snapping a photo.

If it is decided that the HD3870X2 is a two card solution what happens if a 2 PCB version is released. Will it be classified as a quad? Because a quad-core CPU has a performance advantage in benches like 3d06 and wprime users aren't forced to compete in a separate class. The best rules are also the most simplistic, both in the present and with an eye towards the future. The classification of video cards as dictated by the current rules satisfies this. Crossfire and SLI should be decided by motherboard support and the number of physical slots required. If a single card is capable of running on a board without specific chipset support it should be classified as a single card. Unfortunately, to stay at the top requires the continual purchase of the latest technology. This latest round of released and soon to be released video cards is no different.

This was done with a G92 card not a 8800 GTS 640 Mb. Wrong section. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=679707

Look at all the other scores below first and second place . Both of these submissions were done with SLI. http://www.hwbot.org/searchResults.do;jsessionid=3E33640C0D6E87BEF73C062D014D37C6?direction=&applicationId=12&teamId=0&userName=&gpu=GeForce+8800+GTS+640+Mb+%283616%29&numberOfVideocards=one&cpu=&chipset=&model=&manufacturer=&minScore=&maxScore=&gpuId=1042&cpuId=0&chipsetId=0&modelId=0&manufacturerId=0&offset=0&displayAdvanced=false&countryId=0&dateFrom=&dateUntil=&minGpuCoreFreq=&maxGpuCoreFreq=&minGpuMemFreq=&maxGpuMemFreq=&minCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&system=&minTotalPoints=

Seems to be an on-going problem. Probably another six or eight top twenty entries in the 3d benches without FM verification links.

Why the points were posted really isn't important now. What matters is the issue was rectified as well as could be after the fact. Up until now the posts by the HWbot crew indicated that this was within the rules. It should be obvious to all of us that things were going on behind the scenes to bring this into the confines of what the majority feel the rules dictate. Seems like it's time we all go back to benching. After all, that's what we come here for.

If by banning the account you mean the the overall account then yes that would be wrong. But removing the sub-team scores should not be an issue. I have looked through the top 20 teams. It was a quick glance so if this is not accurate I apologize. No other team appears to have submitted scores by a phantom member made up of existing members with posted scores. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is even if there is no rule explicitly forbidding this type of entry 19 out of 20 teams know that ethically and morally this would be against the spirit of what HWbot is about. If I were to create a sub-team and submit a score and it was later discovered that I was the only person of that so-called team you would have no issue with deleting my score as a minimum response. This situation is no different other then the fact that the entry consists of two members with countable scores instead of just one. Everyone that is a member of HWbot knows that only one score is countable for any one type of given hardware. To allow this type of score to remain is not only a slap in the face of all other teams but also to HWbot itself. I, no we ask that you do the right thing in this matter so that this type of thing cannot happen in the future. Several of the top 20 teams have already voiced their disapproval of allowing this type of behavior. The only right thing to do in this matter is to delete the scores of the sub-teams and state that this is not allowed. Or freeze the sub-team's points at it's current value and give all other teams the same amount of points.

3dmark 2003 Global ranking #11 No link to Futuremark thus no way to validate according to the rules. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=631766

Sounds like it has already been decided. Nothing is ever cast in stone though. Maybe this decision will be reversed in the future.

harleybro You pretty much summed it up in that post. I think most teams would view what you proposed with your gf the same as BE did. For the majority of teams there probably doesn't need to be a rule covering this type of submission. It's clearly a form of double dipping so to speak. But now that at least one team has cast ethics aside and it has been approved by HWBot most teams are going to have to rethink their position. Because at the end of the day the playing field has to be level.