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.

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.