Adjustment for Global Points - Work in progress

[Guest george.kokovinis]

Who should they pay man? Us? Hwbot? What about guys that dont get paid by them?

 

Ha:D

Allen is the man:ws:

[zeropluszero]

lol

 

Oh shit, I just realised who I'm talking to

I need to put more users on my ignore list.

Hello everyone.

Edited July 19, 2016 by zeropluszero

[Splave]

1- The digital banners that are spread all over the hwbot website aren't there for free, in case you didn't know;

2- The logos from companies in the backdrops at computex, E3 etc... aren't there for free, in case you didn't know;

3- Hardware parts and prizes "given" from companies to participants in competitions aren't therr for free(actually the name of this is "exchange").

Banners etc.... there are tons of things that the companies that mentioned in the post before can do.

Money doesn't make everything grow. How do we have teams like classic platforms whom literally have never seen a dime from any company but bench their assess off. Its heart. I dont want to attract more knob heads that want to get rich off this and ruin it for those that love it for what it is.

 

Would rather tell vendors to gtfo and pay $500 a year to subscribe to hwbot. Just IMO.

[Strong Island]

Well, i work with sponsorship in a bank which employs more than 157.000 people and allocated annually more than U$300.000.000,00 only for sponsorship, and i can say with some experience that without money from companies like:

 

NVIDIA

AMD

EVGA

ASUS

MSI

GALAX/KFA

PNY

ZOTAC

PALIT

XFX...

.. and MANY others, there is no way something grow, and when i say grow i mean more oc sports, more oc practitioners, a much more huge XOC and Hwbot comunity.

 

I love 3d but a lot of those companies also have vested interest in 2d with there mobos, memory kits, ssd's, I also see g-skill banners and the like.

 

We cant adjust our point system based on sponsors liking it or not. Most of us bench with our own money and did it on forums before we came to hwbot. I'm not saying that's what is happening here, just wanted to comment on that.

 

I actually love hwbot the way it is.

[Guest george.kokovinis]

Money doesn't make everything grow. How do we have teams like classic platforms whom literally have never seen a dime from any company but bench their assess off. Its heart. I dont want to attract more knob heads that want to get rich off this and ruin it for those that love it for what it is.

 

Would rather tell vendors to gtfo and pay $500 a year to subscribe to hwbot. Just IMO.

 

Ex Classic Platforms and now W9.

Proud member of that Team.

No Elite members, all paid from our pockets.

 

Also agreed 110% on the 500$ per year and, oh well WTF:D

[rbuass]

Well, looks like you don't know how things work in a capitalism world, and that's from a US guy...

Companies LOVE to have their products at "first place" to be seen.

Evga kingpin editions are an excellent example.

 

If the rules not fit the way you think is fair, don't worry.

Do your job, overclock and don't mind about this.

For a long time I gave up this kind of discussion.

Some guys prefer to be ironic, when there are no solid arguments.

 

Overclock what you want, the way you think is nice and its all.

Let the guys decide for themselves.

Edited July 19, 2016 by rbuass

[FatBoyNotSoSlim]

 

Then we'll need more supply of RAPTOR3 pots to compensate... which is your business. :celebration:

[FatBoyNotSoSlim]

Did I mention that I really love revision 7? Hope we can move to it as fast as possible

No, wait, maybe? I can't math good enough to know if it's worth it for me. So personally, I'll complain when it goes live. Troll some scores, then carry on as usual.

 

In other words, bring it on, fix it later.

 

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[der8auer]

Rampage 5 Edition 10, i7-6950X (binned), RAM, 4 x Titan XYZ, 4 GPU Containers, 1 CPU Container, (2 RAM Containers).

 

Sounds like a solid 10k Investment

 

Pretty sure this will boost the activity in the 3D Benchmarks

[Splave]

Forgot ln2 lol

[Trouffman]

To me the way it is proposed seems interesting, the variables allow for adjustment within each and every part (benches/points weight and nbr of participant).

 

I think each of these variables should be defined within there respective goal then see how the global algorythm is impacted / done.

 

 

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

[RULE]

Love the drama but i'll come back in topic a little bit:

 

The old revision was already enough easy win with the people with beast cpu, now with 40 hw category submission this will be even more easy.

 

I always believe have 20 hw submission wr means nothing in term of skill, if u take that with the best cpu on the planet.

 

Incrase the number of submission u can count for ranking, is opposite way on what's overclock for me and hope also for other people.

A lower number of good quality submission can force people to work around better his score, that's why i was suggesting the introduction of efficiency point.

 

There's no need of an higher number of submission when the number of benchmark u can play is alway more year after year. U just pick you favorite benchmark and hard play on it. Also remember there's also oc-esport competition, realy too much stuff going on.

 

Also agree with Rauf about no interest of the vendors in hw category, yes run for fun sometimes will be fine, but 40 take too much time out from where the vendors have interest to see you bench.

[Rauf]

Love the drama but i'll come back in topic a little bit:

 

The old revision was already enough easy win with the people with beast cpu, now with 40 hw category submission this will be even more easy.

 

I always believe have 20 hw submission wr means nothing in term of skill, if u take that with the best cpu on the planet.

 

Incrase the number of submission u can count for ranking, is opposite way on what's overclock for me and hope also for other people.

A lower number of good quality submission can force people to work around better his score, that's why i was suggesting the introduction of efficiency point.

+1 on the above. But for the efficiency points, this will only lead to people downclocking for screenshot. There are low clock competitions running for this sort of thing also.

 

Considering the rest of the replies, or lack of replies from most of the members, maybe we should scrap the points system? Then we can just bench for competitions or whatever we think is fun. Maybe that's the solution for "benching is not fun anymore"?

 

I would definitely quit the rankings if we got 40 hw point slots. No way I'm grinding like 10 different GPUs every time Intel releases a new generation of CPUs... Maybe benching has turned into too much grinding, there are so many CPUs and GPUs for hw-points, so many benchmarks for globals. I would like to see an "Elite ranking" where we compete only with our top 10 to 15 global scores. And scrap all the outdated benchmarks for globals: do we need two Cinebench? do we need WPrime at all? do we need both superipi 1M and Pifast? Do we need hwbot Prime? Do we need all the 3Dmarks? I agree with Rule that it would be more fun if we compete with quality over quantity.

One idea for an "Elite League" would be to have it running in two seasons per year and each season we have 20 predefined benchmarks (4 core XTU, 1xGPU FS etc.) to choose from to make our 10 submissions count.

[Alan_Alberino]

And scrap all the outdated benchmarks for globals: do we need two Cinebench? do we need WPrime at all? do we need both superipi 1M and Pifast? Do we need hwbot Prime? Do we need all the 3Dmarks? I agree with Rule that it would be more fun if we compete with quality over quantity.

 

I agree with this, maybe some benchs aren't needed already, one cinebench would be ok, and also I won't make problem if SuperPi 1M and/or WPrime 32M are out since the most difficult are 32M and 1024M respectivelly.

 

Old 3Dmarks and aquamark are turning into golden CPU benchmarks more than 3D, so I think that maybe also taking out some of them won't be a problem.

 

I would also like to see movement from 720P benchs to 4k benchs since it what its actually going on now and for what cards are being designed, so maybe adding globals to Fire Strike Ultra and/or Catzilla 4K wont be bad, and once they got a decent number of users (nobody bench them now cause they dont give points), take out points of Fire Strike and Catzilla 720P.

[Massman]

Removed some posts not relevant to the topic. Please stay on topic, thanks!

[zeropluszero]

nd scrap all the outdated benchmarks for globals: do we need two Cinebench? do we need WPrime at all? do we need both superipi 1M and Pifast? Do we need hwbot Prime? Do we need all the 3Dmarks? I agree with Rule that it would be more fun if we compete with quality over quantity.

We've been through this point a million times and nothing has happened.

@Massman is there any thoughts at all on removing globals from what are pretty much duplicate benchmarks?

I dont think there's anyone who thinks we actually need globals for both Cinebench, Firestrike and Catzilla.

Move these to R15, FSE/FSU & 1440 only.

 

(same for wprime, superpi)

[FatBoyNotSoSlim]

We've been through this point a million times and nothing has happened.

@Massman is there any thoughts at all on removing globals from what are pretty much duplicate benchmarks?

I dont think there's anyone who thinks we actually need globals for both Cinebench, Firestrike and Catzilla.

Move these to R15, FSE/FSU & 1440 only.

 

(same for wprime, superpi)

 

Don't you dare touch my bunnying globals, I'll fight you for them, right here right now.

 

[zeropluszero]

comeatmebro.gif

(I got plenty of points in cine11.5 as well, but it doesnt mean it isn't the right step forward to bench one of what is literally the same test)

[RULE]

+1 on the above. But for the efficiency points, this will only lead to people downclocking for screenshot. There are low clock competitions running for this sort of thing also.

 

LCC is already full of cheaters IMHO. There's a solution not much futuristic, a program run in background at startup, and when validate tell's you wtf was going on at your frequency from start. This kind of solution can be used for LLC and Efficiency Ranking.

 

Sometime i don't understand why we are so bound to stuff like cpuz and gpuz.

Edited July 20, 2016 by RULE

[George_o/c]

Just finished going through this thread, I have some questions/remarks:

 

1) With this new threshold in points, it means that you have to push for an even better result. For example:

 

Current version: George_oc`s 3DMark2001 SE score: 112474 marks with a GeForce 8800 GT 512 Mb 23 UHP

New version: George_oc`s 3DMark2001 SE score: 112474 marks with a GeForce 8800 GT 512 Mb 9.5 UHP

 

I understand that it's not the best result being 25th out of 600 other people, but scoring points in such popular categories will now be even more difficult. Not everyone has access to LN2. Also, I suspect that the Hardware Team Power Points calculation is not working on uat.hwbot.org, because that particular 8800GT 2k1 result is our team's best 8800GT 2k1 result, but it shows that I score no HTPP at all.

 

2) I like the fact that my previous point is balanced out in my particular case, by the increase of hardware points contributing to a user's total points (top 20 scores to top 40 scores). It will certainly make it more difficult for people who now use LN2 on popular VGA categories and max out 20 scores - they'll have to max out 40 scores if they want to get the maximum number of points. It's a bit frustrating for them, but bear in mind that it's also a relieve to others who don't have access to LN2.

 

3) Man, some of the hardware points in uat.hwbot.org feel weird now. I guess we'll need some time to get used to it.

 

4) As Mr Scott has stated in a previous page somewhere in this tread, I'm disappointed that new revision doesn't bring anything significant from a team's perspective. I don't have the time to overclock as much as I used to, but my ONLY goal is to increase my team contribution. I don't care so much about my points and my ranking on Overclocker's league, as I do about benching stuff that my team hasn't, so that I increase my hardware team power points and therefore my team's total points. As I've mentioned above, I hope it's just a bug on uat.hwbot.org at the moment, because a lot of my scores do not contribute to the team, in spite of the fact they are our best score in that ranking.

 

While reading this thread, I have a feeling that a lot of people tend to forget what overclocking is about. Sure the pro category with all the massive scores, high end hardware and manufacturer sponsoring is amazing. Sure, some people want to buy the latest hardware and spend a lot of money in order to achieve a ranking and be better than the other. But you're forgetting all the fun. So no matter what the end result of R7 is, bench whatever you can and try to have some fun! Oh and also, give us back out team power points damn it

 

 

 

//EDIT: I was reading the Revision 7 overview again and noticed this in the Team League section: On our test environment the Overclockers League employs the R6 algorithm. It does not reflect the adjustments of R7!

This must be the reason why some of the HTPP don't work in uat. :celebration:

 

//ΕDIT 2: Looking at the 3D Global points again, I think you're emphasizing a bit too much on 3/4Way setups for legacy benchmarks. Whoever spends money on 4 cards AND has the best CPU will be able to get the WR points no problem. You're taking some of the fun out of overclocking this way

Edited July 21, 2016 by George_o/c

[Strong Island]

I dont understand a lot of the hate towards the legacy 3d benches. If there used with older cards why is that bad? I can understand if someone uses a 980 ti/1080 on air and just clocks the cpu.

 

But I wasnt around years ago and been having so much fun lately benching older cards that I missed out on. I mean even if you have a nice cpu, if your still pushing the gpu really hard and to clocks the same or even higher than years ago, then what is the problem.

 

And a lot of the older benches you only need 2 cores so it's nice for people that dont have a ton of money.

 

It's like everyone only wants what's important to them to be included in the point system instead of having a nice balance of everything so everyone has a chance to compete in some way.

 

And if someone doesnt like something then all of the sudden it's crap and takes no skill to run, it's so frustrating sometimes.

 

But I do agree we have a lot of duplicate benches where you barely have to change any settings and can run back to back.

 

I also really think we are missing out by not enabling points for fsu and cat 4k.

 

I mean this can help take the cpu out of the equation and make gpu benching a little more pure and cheaper.

 

I also agree the multi gpu's takes much more skill to run on ln2 than single but I think we should still make single gpu a very important category because that is how most gpu benchers will be benching.

 

I dont think I could ever afford to bench a current multi gpu system.

[Guest barbonenet]

i've been running alot of legacy bench on alot of card......everytime there is some problem......different cb, different cbb, gddr to keep defrosted, vmod, epowers, .......tweaks and tweaks........but for someone this is too easy...and it just needs a good cpu......thats not true, because alot of time u need an amazing vga for get the first place....sometimes is easy, but not always.

I used to do the same on haswell, with CB at -117....not -118 not -116, only -117 or CB or too hot:D

 

Thanks:D

[sofos1990]

^^ plus how easy old hw dies...

[Splave]

agreed, legacy with a 5850 I gained nothing from 5.8ghz skylake to 6.1ghz finally.

 

also 3 of 4 5850 DCU cards died when I took the stock cooler off

 

When you buy 4 cards and none of them have the right ram IC you are left with unsalable garbage and you have to eat it.

[RULE]

I'm not totaly agree but anyway, base hwbot ranking mostly on hwboint made on old vga and shitty loocked cpu on xtu, is a totaly waste of time and effort.

Don't care much about hwbot ranking right now, will care less with new revision.