How about 3D

[rbuass]

That's the actual Overclocking scenary...

It has been for a long time

2D....2D....2D....2D...

http://prntscr.com/97qbru

 

 

XTU is the king of the Hill and no more space to 3D...

Wprime, Cinebench, etc.... today has much more power than 3D.

No matter if is related to GTX 980Ti, or simply cards... missing "3D" power in the league.

I have posted the same few days ago...

I thank the league for innovation, considering that there was a great evolution and many improvements.

But while there is no incentive to 3D, or even the separation of 2D and 3D, all will remain the same.

Eventually becomes boring for those who focus on 3D benchmarks, which I consider much more technical and require more dedication.

Just a personal opinion.

rbuass

 

Sorry the bad english

Edited November 27, 2015 by rbuass

[Lays]

I think @steponz brought this up a while back, idk if anything came from it though.

[newlife]

The whole problem with 3D is cost because cards such as the 980ti are priced far higher than high end gpus were in the past which makes people loss interest

 

As for XTU it's pointless to use it as an example because it has far too many subs that inflate its points too much which has always annoyed me but it brings in a lot new the hwbot whom aren't limited to just 2d

[Rauf]

As Lays said, there was a post about it some time ago. I think massman pulled some statistic to show that except for xtu, 3d was actually giving better points than most 2D.

[der8auer]

It's just the result of a natural progress. It's a lot cheaper to do 2D than 3D. For 3D you need X99 + 5960X + at least one High-End GPU. So that's a 2k€ Rig.

2D starts with a 150€ Board, 150€ RAM and a decent CPU which might cost 300-400€. So that's 700€ vs 2000€. It's pretty obvious that a lot more people will go for 2D because not everyone can afford X99 + High-End GPUs.

 

Rewarding special points just for 3D would shift the points even more to sponsored guys who can afford multiple GPUs without any problems.

[rbuass]

Why don't give more power to Single Card, and even lower models?

For a long time is very hard to find 4Way SLI or XfireX...

 

After years

http://prntscr.com/97w2pi

 

We have 108 scores Fire Strike Extreme Full Out ... since benchmark was launched, is really very few.

It's clear very few people will push four cards... so why keep as the main highlight for 3D benchmarks.

Just give more power to single card...

For a CPU you have 1 core, 2 cores, 3 cores, 4 cores , 6 cores, 8 cores... sure will be cheaper options.

 

In my opinion, should be single card > SLI >>> 4 Way ....

One more thing is to give more incentive for lower cards (R9 270X, GTX 950, etc)

That's from today (again)

http://prntscr.com/97w5wn

 

@raulf ... statistic, just follow the last months and you will see 3D need more incentive in the league.

Not related to cut or pull down 2D, but instead, give more power to single card, give more power to lower cards, and maybe we will find a good solution.

 

Maybe something like Motorcycle Championship, where we can find 250cc, 500cc, Superbike

[Mr.Scott]

IMO, post #5 says it all.

Even on cheap low end cards you still need expensive high end board and processor to even be close to competitive.

Point count is irrelevant.

[rtsurfer]

It's just the result of a natural progress. It's a lot cheaper to do 2D than 3D. For 3D you need X99 + 5960X + at least one High-End GPU. So that's a 2k€ Rig.

2D starts with a 150€ Board, 150€ RAM and a decent CPU which might cost 300-400€. So that's 700€ vs 2000€. It's pretty obvious that a lot more people will go for 2D because not everyone can afford X99 + High-End GPUs.

 

If only there was a way to decrease the cost of 3D benchmarking....

Oh wait there is

 

Hwbot can't tell Intel to decrease the cost of 5960X, so we can have more competition, what it can do is disable point for 3D Benchmarks where CPU is more important that GPUs (some 3D benchmarking that is) & you need the most expensive Intel Processor to compete.

 

For Example, remove points for regular FireStrike (maybe even Extreme) , 3D Mark11, etc & enable it on some benchs where you can compete with a regular 4core CPU, something like Firestrike Ultra.

 

Most Gamers (also casual benchers) buy an i5 or i7 CPUs (maybe even lower) and a Single GPU. If we have more Benchmarks that focus around that config, you'll have more submissions, then you have more points.

 

Of course, then there is the whole Backlash(justified) issue with disabling/removing points on the other benchs. Someone will need to think a solution for that.

 

 

Last time this came up, I also suggested to @Massman to consider splitting 2D Bench points based on total HT+real cores of the CPU, instead of the real core count. This would decrease the points one would get for just owning a good 6700K or a locked i3 & would also things more "fair" for the non-HT guys. He said he was gonna look into it. Dunno what he did.

Edited November 28, 2015 by rtsurfer

[Doug2507]

I think 3d is still highly competitive, maybe not in global but hardware is constant with subs for older gear. No need to remove points from 11, it's a great bench to run and doesn't always need greater than 4c.

 

Obviousy cost is an issue with running latest for 3d global. 780 was hugely popular but 900 series not quite so much. Maybe because apart from price from a gamers perspective the 700 lot already max fps on current gen gaming. It's the multitude of subs by gamers etc using FS etc which bump the top end points. With this series that's probably missing.

 

And for most benchers, binning 980 at there current price point is unattainable. That's life.

 

If points are the main concern, bench some 2d as well. Top tier should be skilled in both!

[rbuass]

Nothing against 2D points and 2D subs...

2D don't need nothing more... just competitive enough...

Problem related is that looks for 90% of submissions today is 2D...

The best in my way of view, is separate 2D and 3D... so we will have best 2D and best 3D subs every day....

Also will be nice to have something like we have for CPU (1core, 2cores,3cores, etc)... for VGAs (low end, mid range, high end)... I don't know and I don't have solution... just think will be more attractive for people that bench 3D, and you know, even for gaming related community, since they are focused in FPS, similar to 3D benches.

[Noxinite]

Nothing against 2D points and 2D subs...

2D don't need nothing more... just competitive enough...

Problem related is that looks for 90% of submissions today is 2D...

The best in my way of view, is separate 2D and 3D... so we will have best 2D and best 3D subs every day....

Also will be nice to have something like we have for CPU (1core, 2cores,3cores, etc)... for VGAs (low end, mid range, high end)... I don't know and I don't have solution... just think will be more attractive for people that bench 3D, and you know, even for gaming related community, since they are focused in FPS, similar to 3D benches.

 

Hmm, actually separating it so we have both the top 2D and 3D scores on the front page and in the weekly updates doesn't sound half bad.

[buildzoid]

I see 3D having a major problem that 3D never stays truly 3D. Unigine is now a single core CPU test. FS/FSE are dominated by 5960Xs.

 

Also FSE is a paid benchmark. Catzilla 1440p is also a paid benchmark. Most old free benchmarks are CPU tests for the most part and many of them won't even run on win 7 much less 8 or 10.

 

Then the another problem is that there are so damn many GPUs. 1 generation is at least 8 cards per vendor. These 8 cards get spread across the 60K community of HWbot and because of that the Hardware points that you can get with most of those cards are garbage. Say you put a GTX 950 under LN2. That's worth a whole 2 points. If there was some way to group GPUs together so that the HWpoints were less spread out then more people would bench 3D. For example the 7790 260X should be together. The 260 and 360 should also be together. The 285 and 380 should be grouped. You get where I'm heading with this right?

By grouping as many re-branded GPUs as possible the HW points for them would go up and 3D would be a little bit more worth it. Because right now even really popular cards like the 680/780 are worth only 20-30 HWpoints.

 

The best way to get points on 3D ATM is to buy old cards and run them with way overpowered CPUs.

[Noxinite]

Another good point. I love 2D, but I have dabbled in 3D and I hold the majority of scores in new(ish) benches on r9 270x. It would be nice to have more competition (and hw points) by grouping the rebrands in too.

[Alan_Alberino]

I think that there should be a 2D Masters and a 3D Masters league similar to the hardware masters league so 3D Benchers got they recognition there in their own ranking.

[Lays]

I'd like 3D to be changed maybe, @steponz brought up having like 2 core / 4 core / 6 core / 8 core, so people with 4790k or something don't get absolutely demolished by 5960x's.

[Massman]

I think @steponz brought this up a while back, idk if anything came from it though.

 

As Lays said, there was a post about it some time ago. I think massman pulled some statistic to show that except for xtu, 3d was actually giving better points than most 2D.

 

I think you're referring to this thread: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=145745. The relevant chart is in Post #4. One of suggestions that keeps coming back (saw it recently on Facebook too) is to give points based on the amount of pots necessary for a certain benchmark. That idea was explored and quantified in Post #11. In Post #21 I posted a picture of the front-page with 9 out of 10 scores which were 3D.

 

Some facts:

• 3D overclockers: 870 in Q3'15; 1939 highest ever (Q1'11)
  
• 3D submissions: 53.5K in 2008; 51.9K in 2014; est. 49K this year
  
• XTU submissions by registered overclockers: 45K last year; ~70K this year
  

If you look at the sheer amount of submissions coming from XTU, it's normal those categories get maxed out. The points are calculated based on the position in the ranking and the amount of participants in the ranking. For example, something as rare as the Core i5 4200U you find in Ultrabooks gets 49.7 HWpts.

 

But as I said in the other thread, commenting on a reply that said there is "no problem with the points":

I wouldn't go as far as to say there is no issue. Because intuitively I think (personal opinion!) that single GPU benching is more difficult than single CPU benching. So, intuitively, I do think the single GPU categories are undervalued compared to the single CPU stuff.

 

I think we should have a closer look at the evolution of single GPU benchmarking since the beginning around the year 2000. The points awarded at HWBOT are not the cause of the problem, but I think are a symptom of an underlying issue pushing people away from (competitive) 3D (extreme) overclocking. I haven't done too much research on the topic, so it's not easy to comment. But I think Hivizman's post on MLG regarding benching brings up a couple of interesting points. How can you entice people to bench 3D if the top scores are achieved with external power cards but promoted as genuine products? Very recently Rbuass made a point about allowing vendors (and their paid/sponsored/hobbyist reps) to compete with tools (bios/mods) that are not available to the general public. On Facebook, Splave (and others) made a good point about the hardware (binning) cost of 3D benching.

At $800+ a peice I'd rather try 2 and a half skylakes than try to competed with guys I know that are getting ln2 binned hardware or access to 100s of cards that then go on sale hoping I find a good one that fell through someone else's fingers.

Who wants to buy an LN2 card you suspect is a reject of someone who's competing in the same league as you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last time this came up, I also suggested to @Massman to consider splitting 2D Bench points based on total HT+real cores of the CPU, instead of the real core count. This would decrease the points one would get for just owning a good 6700K or a locked i3 & would also things more "fair" for the non-HT guys. He said he was gonna look into it. Dunno what he did.

 

We discussed this internally at length with great input from @der8auer at the beginning of last month. There are two major problems.

 

1) The scaling with hyper-threading depends on the specific benchmark. In most cases that will give benefit to genuine 8-core processors to have an advantage over 8-threaded processors. For example, compare 2x QX9775 at 5.5G and 1x Core i7 4790K at 6.4G. There's 4 generations of Intel architecture between those setups and the Haswell based still needs 1 GHz more. It's not quite ideal if we end up in a situation where 5 year old Xeons without Hyperthreading beat a current-gen Core i7.

 

2) There's an increasingly grey area of the definition of 'thread'. Just think about Bulldozer (4 cores, 8 cores, 8 threads?), the APUs (4+8 cores) and the very recent Shasta VISC architecture.

[Rauf]

I see some are suggesting to scale the points according to number of pots or GPUs for example. Wasn't this a huge failure once when points where too heavily focused on 4way sli/cf? If this would be the case then anyone with 4 stock cooled 980 ti will easily make it into top 10 even among the elite... There would also be no reason whatsoever to bench 2D.

 

I say scrap the system with global points accumulation based on number of submissions. There is no accurate way to determine the "quality" or "competitiveness" of a result anyway. Make all global benchmark points the same. Or maybe, make all 2D points the same, and make all 3D points the same, but higher than 2D.

[Bruno]

I am one of them that suggest the points should scale with the number of components involved in overclocking. My reason is as follows:

If i invest in 4x 980 Ti and an X99 platform (plus the pots and liters of LN2), i would surely want to see some points from them. And that points should be higher than a score for XTU with a i3-6320. It's simple: you invest more skills to oc cpu+vgas, you should gain points accordingly. If points for one VGA are better than for 4x VGAs (as it is now for 980 Ti. Look at the first place for FS as example), why would i bother to bench 4? In my opinion, the points should be higher as the score is higher, and with more cards you get higher scores. On the other hand, getting more points for a benchmark, as more users are using that, it seems wrong to me as it doesn't motivate people to get more cards.

The story can be applied to Global and Hardware points as well. More legacy VGAs should get more hardware points.

 

Top 10 overclockers worked their ass out to get there and invested a lot of time, LN2, etc. If you want to be there with them, you fairly need to do the same.

 

Probably it would help if 2D and 3D get separate leagues and different points calculation. That way someone can bench 2D and compete with others for CPU scores while 3D lovers can have their league and run 4-way GPUs and get points accordingly (although the guys who bench 3D have best CPUs also, so they will probably be in top 10 of both rankings). As that is extremely hard to be done, I suggest HWBot to make separate 2D and 3D ranking tables (if possible from their db). Maybe that should be easier and it would take us a step further to the right decision.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Bruno

[Bruno]

somehow my post get doubled. erased one.

[der8auer]

It's simple: you invest, you should gain points accordingly.

 

No, that's exactly the wrong approach. Why would you award money over skill? Skill in the way that the competition is much higher and tougher in a single GPU category.

[Bruno]

No, that's exactly the wrong approach. Why would you award money over skill? Skill in the way that the competition is much higher and tougher in a single GPU category.

 

I'd say you need skills to get better scores, so money will be just a way to get the hardware, not to get you in top.

And I can ask why would you buy LN2 and not use a water loop. It's money investment either way for getting a better score.

Invest doesn't mean only money, but time to tweak the platform, time to find the right drivers, settings, etc. It even means to borrow a card from a friend to get a better score.

 

 

You are probably the biggest investor in the overclocking world, by building a lot of tools (pots, delid mate, etc). I see it as another kind of tweaks, but they also cost money. It's the work that should be rewarded, not the amount of money.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Bruno

[Splave]

Points should be where the competition is, more benching 2d more points 2d, more benching 3d more points 3d not where you "feel" they should be.

 

Maybe I think that maxmemm and max memory mhz is harder than 2d as well so should it get more points because you are using 2 pots instead of 1? I think not.

[Doug2507]

It even means to borrow a card from a friend to get a better score.

 

Eh, does that not break the hardware sharing rule?

 

Anyone with golden gpu that wants to be my friend please pm me.

 

Seriously though, more points to 4 way than 1 way etc, that's just making a corner for money bags to compete in with little competition.

 

Time to tweak the platform, drivers, settings etc applies whether or not using one gpu or 10. In fact you probably need to spend more time with single gpu as theres actually some competition there, not just raw horsepower. And how many cards do you think the top person had to bin to get that top spot? Probably more than 4.

 

Then comparing time and skill 2d v 3d isn't valid. How many hours do guys spend benching ram to within an inch of its life along with system tweaks (cue 32m) compared to some of the 3d? Pot kettle /apples oranges.

 

I think it's just a mute point tbh and points should be allocated based on level of competition. Everyone has the same opportunity to bench whatever they want, it's up to the individual. Pretty sure the majority of the 'top 10' are balanced across 2d/3d which is what put them in that position.

[rbuass]

There are no issues to 2D.... 2D are running very well to all.

The problem I related to the topic, is because is clear power and incentive to 2D, and more and more rare to see benchmarks like FS, FSE, UH, to bring nice scores.

The comparison under 2D and 3D (what is hardest or what need more skill, regardless I have my point of view, no matter).

Missing power to see more scores 3D, not only for the top guys, but also from newcomers, rookers, and all that loves 3D benchmark.

 

Also the reason of the topic is not conlflict 2D x 3D fans... imho should be separated leagues... but if not... sure, award more for 3D and even more incentive.

[steponz]

I see 3D having a major problem that 3D never stays truly 3D. Unigine is now a single core CPU test. FS/FSE are dominated by 5960Xs.

 

Also FSE is a paid benchmark. Catzilla 1440p is also a paid benchmark. Most old free benchmarks are CPU tests for the most part and many of them won't even run on win 7 much less 8 or 10.

 

Then the another problem is that there are so damn many GPUs. 1 generation is at least 8 cards per vendor. These 8 cards get spread across the 60K community of HWbot and because of that the Hardware points that you can get with most of those cards are garbage. Say you put a GTX 950 under LN2. That's worth a whole 2 points. If there was some way to group GPUs together so that the HWpoints were less spread out then more people would bench 3D. For example the 7790 260X should be together. The 260 and 360 should also be together. The 285 and 380 should be grouped. You get where I'm heading with this right?

By grouping as many re-branded GPUs as possible the HW points for them would go up and 3D would be a little bit more worth it. Because right now even really popular cards like the 680/780 are worth only 20-30 HWpoints.

 

The best way to get points on 3D ATM is to buy old cards and run them with way overpowered CPUs.

 

 

Do you have any idea what your talking about.. 1 core? Get a clue man... Submit some stuff first then.... talk about what ya know.