nickolp1974 Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 @Massman, so when is this new revision going to be implemented, do you have an approx date in mind?? Quote
Alan_Alberino Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Nice to hear news about this... I think I forgot to say this: 25 Competitions points is too much, how many people enter 25 competitions in one year? Almost nobody... Also, I think 15 globals could be extended to 20, not caring about if 2D or 3D... Quote
JunkDogg Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Will R8 have Boints for use of RGB's? This is the update I'm waiting for. Quote
der8auer Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Will R8 have Boints for use of RGB's? This is the update I'm waiting for. Only if you bench with VR headset Quote
Noxinite Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Just a quick question, is this "4) Adding/removing points from benchmarks" referring to global points? Quote
FatBoyNotSoSlim Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Agreed on the RBG and VR points. It's all the industry cared about at Computex, so I'd expect it to be Hwbots focus too. Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk Quote
Massman Posted August 11, 2016 Author Posted August 11, 2016 @Massman, so when is this new revision going to be implemented, do you have an approx date in mind?? From a community point of view: when Christian Ney has concluded that the revision can go up. From a developer point of view: earliest in September, after the final round of adjustments so that it only has to be updated once. From a business point of view: as soon as possible. This revision will very likely reduce our server costs by quite a bit. The way things are going, I think the new revision should be up and running by the time we are to enjoy Bristol Ridge, Summit Ridge and Kaby Lake. Just a quick question, is this "4) Adding/removing points from benchmarks" referring to global points? Our current point adjustment options are: Toggle Benchmark Points Toggle Global Points Toggle Hardware Points Adjust overall benchmark weight Quote
Rauf Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 Would like to once again bring up the issue of that all users that have the highest score gets equal points (xtu 742). We have seen lately that benching locked skylakes increases quiet a bit with the result of multiple users get 49hw points. If this continues we will soon have maybe 10 cpus that very easily gives 49 points and that can never be beaten. And then kaby lake comes with perhaps the same principel and hw-points will become mute. Everyone gets 20x49 points... Quote
Massman Posted August 11, 2016 Author Posted August 11, 2016 Would like to once again bring up the issue of that all users that have the highest score gets equal points (xtu 742). We have seen lately that benching locked skylakes increases quiet a bit with the result of multiple users get 49hw points. If this continues we will soon have maybe 10 cpus that very easily gives 49 points and that can never be beaten. And then kaby lake comes with perhaps the same principel and hw-points will become mute. Everyone gets 20x49 points... With R7, the following items affect this particular issue: Slope for rank 1 to 5: top-5 has higher points than the rest Points weight: depending on the weight, the points can be lower than the maximum of 49 Base principle: the points are based on the result in relation to the top results, meaning equal score is equal points The discussion on whether an equal score should get equal points is a really fundamental one and I can see valid arguments for both points of view. The right or wrong decision depends on your point of view, so it's difficult to make a 'correct' choice. Below two screenshots relevant to the XTU 2xCPU issue: Global points distribution: http://snaptest.hwbot.org/2016/08/11/2d8522ce7a6a205810d06ef0cd8c85661ca57f78.png Hardware points distribution: http://snaptest.hwbot.org/2016/08/11/cad7fc0877a808ebef7186903ab7d2a6cf9f252d.png A score of 742 in 2xCPU gives you (GL+HW) 166.7 points in R7 compared to 197 points in R6. Ranking 10th gives you 98.7 points in R7 compared to 197 points in R6. Quote
Rauf Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 It will be better in R7, but nonK xtu will still be problematic. The first person to get the "max" score gets the good points, which is fair in a way. The problem is that it cannot be beaten because it is limited in a very artificial way. The score cannot be beaten and lives on forever. A key aspect of any competitive ranking is that you can affect not only your own ranking but also take down someone else. Quote
aerotracks Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 If there's say 20 tied scores for top spot for something like XTU non-k Sky, why not award everyone the median of these ranks? So everyone is awarded points corresponding to 10th place. Race to first sounds dumb, all you have to do is buy locked processor on release day and strap it on your OCF of choice, click button and wait for lucky run Quote
Rauf Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 If there's say 20 tied scores for top spot for something like XTU non-k Sky, why not award everyone the median of these ranks? So everyone is awarded points corresponding to 10th place.Race to first sounds dumb, all you have to do is buy locked processor on release day and strap it on your OCF of choice, click button and wait for lucky run Yes, that was my proposal also. Quote
Alan_Alberino Posted August 14, 2016 Posted August 14, 2016 If any change made already, its posible to update UAT server to see? Also to check new system with all the new scores since there are lot of new scores since last UAT update Quote
TAGG Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 Sounds like this update ruins 742 for me before i even could take a shot at it... Probably better anyways, so i'll have more time for the fun stuff aka. LGA775 and DDR2 Quote
minicoopers Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 The idea to adjustment the global points sounds good but one thing I really don't understand...why all 2d scores are limited to 43 hardwarepoints? All 3d scores get an update to 53 hardwarepoint....in my opinion this is not really fair...to get a good place in the 3d hardwarerankings you need a graphicscard and even on air you will easily get more points than in a 2d benchmark...and here we have the problem "money wins" again.... I know many of you don't really like XTU...but with all cpus (excluding skylake non k) you need more than just a lucky run....I spend many hours with this benchmark and after a long time I was able to get some hardware first places with 49 points....and now revision 7 will be released soon and I will loose many points because I don't bench 3d??? How should a 2d bencher have a chance to get a good spot in the rankings without 3d?? -- There is no chance. @Massmann: Why do you want to limit the 2d hardware points? I didn't read the complete thread so if this already was discussed please just give me the link to the answer Quote
Crew Leeghoofd Posted August 16, 2016 Crew Posted August 16, 2016 You have to remember these changes are based on request of the community... As always some will be pleased, other will be disgusted. Anyway one has to admit that XTU with Lasso and co is becoming the new PCMARK, where it isn't even required anymore to push max clocks to grab gold. As you mentioned it is about having the right gear and a lucky run Your ranking will always evolve with release of new hardware and/or HWBOT revisions... People always think that the solution is either you chime in and bench the latest or just forget about the ranking and just have fun... Like me and many other you can also bench cheap old hardware, mod it and grab some points too... Quote
zeropluszero Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 haters gonna hate. lets implement the changes already. Quote
Rauf Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 You have to remember these changes are based on request of the community... As always some will be pleased, other will be disgusted. Anyway one has to admit that XTU with Lasso and co is becoming the new PCMARK, where it isn't even required anymore to push max clocks to grab gold. As you mentioned it is about having the right gear and a lucky run I don't know that to decrease 2D hw points have been requested. I think if anything to balance things out 2D hw-points should be given a boost as it is much more difficult to achieve. 3D hw-points in many cases is just about decent GPU-clocks and skyhigh cpu-clocks. Also, you can't fix a broken benchmark by altering the points it gives in the rankings. XTU should be put on hold until intel fixes it so that it doesn't bug out AND (wishful thinking) so that it actually measures some kind of performance. Quote
Crew Leeghoofd Posted August 16, 2016 Crew Posted August 16, 2016 (edited) My 2 cents, XTU is not really broken in my book. It is usually the fiddling and messing with alternative software that makes it go bonkers... software OC for the win, hence why I compared it with PCMARK... why can't we just up the speed and run it like it is? Reflect on that... In your point of view Tobias we can drop points than too for the legacy 3D stuff... Really for me grabbing 2D points is easy if you have good cpu... OC will always be about finding all the good stuff and make it work in harmony... Too bad the days of raw speeds are long gone... Too much cheaky software tuning and making the benchmark glitch is what we the moderators observe lately... To sum it up: Some people will never learn, that for their moment of glory it might and probably will have a negative side effect for future submissions... And like Matt mentioned one change will upset another user... one can't please them all Edited August 16, 2016 by Leeghoofd Quote
Rauf Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 My 2 cents, XTU is not really broken in my book. It is usually the fiddling and messing with alternative software that makes it go bonkers... software OC for the win, hence why I compared it with PCMARK... why can't we just up the speed and run it like it is? Reflect on that... In your point of view Tobias we can drop points than too for the legacy 3D stuff... Really for me grabbing 2D points is easy if you have good cpu... OC will always be about finding all the good stuff and make it work in harmony... Too bad the days of raw speeds are long gone... Too much cheaky software tuning and making the benchmark glitch is what we the moderators observe lately... To sum it up: Some people will never learn, that for their moment of glory it might and probably will have a negative side effect for future submissions... And like Matt mentioned one change will upset another user... one can't please them all XTU is definitely broken. You get bugged scores without processlasso or other software. And really, don't bash processlasso. It just sets cpu priority, if a benchmark can't handle that, it is bad software... As for other bugged benchmarks, I haven't really noticed anything. Maybe that just means you and other mods are doing a good job As for legacy 3D I have actually suggested that it should be moved to 2D category for globals. Which would be lower points in R7... But I love the legacies so I would bench them most anyway. Quote
zeropluszero Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 Too bad the days of raw speeds are long gone... I'm sorry, guys who dont have 6.5+ 6700K dont rule the rankings? Quote
Alan_Alberino Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 I'm sorry, guys who dont have 6.5+ 6700K dont rule the rankings? Guys who have +6.5ghz skylake use lot of tweaks, +6.5ghz without tweaking won't get top scores Quote
minicoopers Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 You have to remember these changes are based on request of the community... As always some will be pleased, other will be disgusted. Anyway one has to admit that XTU with Lasso and co is becoming the new PCMARK, where it isn't even required anymore to push max clocks to grab gold. As you mentioned it is about having the right gear and a lucky run Your ranking will always evolve with release of new hardware and/or HWBOT revisions... People always think that the solution is either you chime in and bench the latest or just forget about the ranking and just have fun... Like me and many other you can also bench cheap old hardware, mod it and grab some points too... Can't remember that the community was asked about the hardware points.... Of course the most important thing is fun and the rankings shouldn't be focused that much...but you should still have a chance in the rankings. And in my opinion is the limit at 2d hardware points the wrong way.... I think it is more important to fix the problem with the "air" cooled 5.2ghx XTU scores..... But this is another topic...... Quote
Strong Island Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 (edited) Guys who have +6.5ghz skylake use lot of tweaks, +6.5ghz without tweaking won't get top scores ya it is true, I bought a decent chip and thought I would get top scores right away but they were all pretty bad, so I had to spend some time working on tweaking and getting some help to start to get decent scores. When you start to get decent scores and see the scores above you, it really makes you realize what is involved with them and how efficient they really are. You dont realize it as much until you get closer to the top scores. There is so much to learn. "Because your like wait, I am at a better speed but my score is way lower" So it definitely is a combination of a lot of things. I personally think hardware points are awesome. It gives people who dont have a lot of money a chance to compete in the rankings. There are a lot of points you can get with $10-$20 cards and a retail 6600k/6700k. I know that is still not cheap to some people. Also 3d hardware is not like so easy compared to 2d hardware, there is a lot of modding and tweaking involved with 3d hardware points. A lot of work soldering and testing also, but 2d hardware isnt easy either, the competition is tough Edited August 16, 2016 by Strong Island Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.