Strong Island Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I wish we could do something like just using graphics scores. I know it's not totally possible but with cpu benching it's sometimes nice to just worry about the cpu and it's much cheaper. Imagine if we could use something like a z97 platform with a decently priced cpu on water and compete in the gpu rankings with a nice gpu on cold. I know it's a dream and a lot of benches don't separate graphics score but it would be a ton of fun. Also it would only work with a pure gpu bench. I wonder if you could do that with a newer bench like firestrike ultra which doesn't have globals yet. It would be fun to try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxbassplayerxx Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Wasn't it like that in the past? People were upset that those who could afford 4+ of the best cards were raking in tons and tons of points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Leeghoofd Posted January 5, 2016 Crew Share Posted January 5, 2016 Yep one of the revisions was indeed about the fact of either obscure hardware reaching massive points and the "money" guys could bench and gain easy points too... like stated before it will always cut on both sides... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strong Island Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) well then maybe just add it for single gpu only because if we are looking for cheaper 3d benching than 4 way wouldn't be cheap no matter what we do. Edited January 5, 2016 by Strong Island Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rauf Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 That just seems like free points... The thing is 3-4 way will never really be competitive because of the cost. No way people will buy four titans or 980ti, put them on like a 1000l ln2 to run them through all benchmarks just because the points increase. I have thought about creating "classes" in 3D, in which each class gets global points. Like one class is high end or unrestricted, one mid end (Gtx 970 for example and amd corresponding), and one low end. Each new generation of gpus would be divided into these classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 Aren't the "WR points" for 1x, 2x etc just the higher points for having a good global score? 1+2 = 2+1.... same thing, different name. I'm ok with the best scores for the benchmark having a points bonus. A lot of the time, they don't go to 4-way.... or is that just more fuel to the fire of CPUs getting too much reward? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rauf Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 WR points will always be the same no matter number of submissions or level of competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) IIRC, WR points were to offset high-cost and low points otherwise. I'm not sure if we're getting anywhere at the mo. Complexity of the bench prep + cost + feeling suitably rewarded for it + having the lifestyle to support extreme benching + working with benchmark coding that might not be futureproof No-one is going to come out ahead all of the time. Important rule for life! If points are important, buy the hardware that brings the points. If rankings are important, but the stuff that'll result in gold. Edited January 5, 2016 by K404 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleslammer Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Globals definitely more abundant in 2D, (available core count). WR points 3D has 9 available 2 of which are held by 2 cores and one with 3 the rest needing max amount 4/8, 2D has 6 available and if you’re in the top 20 with 8 cores in some bneches, take a bow. Most of the WRs held by systems that probably make a couple 980s look cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I see everyday people having fun with cheap i3 and 6700K in 2d or legacy benchamrks however there are few results with 980TI and X99 on ln2 .Why should the 3D points be increased for a direct benefit of the ones who can afford this kind of hardware ? I think the better way of handling this is adding WR points to 1-way,2-way,3-way per category as well.Well i mean adding another layer of WR points into each category . Best 3-way results would get 53 points from global 3,0 points since in global WR of 3d and 100 points for 3-way WR ranking . Overall submission will have 152 points which is good for a 3-way effort . Not quite following your train of thought. Surely, 3-way GTX 980 Ti is much more expensive than single GTX 980 Ti, but you're suggesting to add more points to it anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) I have thought about creating "classes" in 3D, in which each class gets global points. Like one class is high end or unrestricted, one mid end (Gtx 970 for example and amd corresponding), and one low end. Each new generation of gpus would be divided into these classes. What you mention is connected to one of the problems with GPU categorization that is causing all but the most top card to be competitive. The problem is that we separate the graphics cards by GPU Core and not the Compute Cores in the GPU. For the processors, we do it differently. That's why we can have a very competitive and cheap dual core CPU category. A way to address this would be to group the graphics cards by compute cores. Below an example listing the fastest scores per compute core quantity. 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme 1xGPU Cores Score GPU MHz GPU 4096 10556 1381 Radeon R9 FURY X 3584 8446 1140 Radeon R9 FURY 3072 12342 2050 GeForce GTX Titan X 2880 6421 1332 GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 2816 14432 2203 GeForce GTX 980 Ti 2688 8109 1830 GeForce GTX Titan 2560 8864 Radeon R9 290 2496 8950 2025 GeForce GTX 780 Ti 2304 7732 1907 GeForce GTX 780 2048 10459 2300 GeForce GTX 980 1792 5371 1400 Radeon HD 7950 1664 7113 1962 GeForce GTX 970 1536 6042 1500 GeForce GTX 980M 1344 2827 1120 GeForce GTX 680M 1280 3996 1144 GeForce GTX 970M 1152 4592 2007 GeForce GTX 760 1024 3216 Radeon HD 7850 960 3209 1600 GeForce GTX 660 896 2528 1400 Radeon R7 260X 800 536 725 Radeon HD 7670M (GDDR3) 768 3635 1590 GeForce GTX 950 720 1037 985 Radeon HD 6770 640 3363 2157 GeForce GTX 750 Ti 576 892 1032 GeForce GTX 645 (OEM) 512 2608 1710 GeForce GTX 750 480 800 880 Radeon HD 6670 GDDR5 448 1731 900 GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 384 1333 1241 GeForce GTX 650 352 1747 1053 GeForce GTX 560 Ti OEM 336 1245 795 GeForce GTX 570M 320 935 1425 Radeon R7 240 GDDR5 288 834 GeForce GTX 560 SE 284 606 Radeon HD 7660D 256 764 GeForce GTS 450 GDDR5 192 709 1078 GeForce GTX 550 Ti (192b) 180 237 970 Radeon HD 7470M 160 278 1100 Radeon R5 230 144 518 650 GeForce GT 440 GDDR3 192bit 128 306 Radeon HD 7480D 96 524 1102 GeForce GT 630 DDR3 (GF108) 80 245 1470 Radeon HD 5450 (GDDR3, 64bit) 64 4496 1840 GeForce GTX 960 48 908 Iris Pro 6200 Graphics 32 4446 GeForce GTX 670 24 3485 GeForce GTX 660 Ti 20 797 1250 Radeon HD 5670 (GDDR5, Redwood) 16 780 841 Quadro K1100M 12 125 HD Graphics (Braswell) 12EU 8 773 1344 Radeon R5 Graphics 6 255 1150 HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) 4 712 1400 Iris Pro 5200 Graphics 2 335 1950 HD Graphics (Haswell) SELECT * FROM ( SELECT GREATEST(gpu_model.pipelines, gpu_model.stream_processors) Cores, ROUND(score) Score, ROUND(result.gpucore_oc) "GPU MHz", gpu_model.model GPU FROM result JOIN gpu_model USING (gpu_id) WHERE application_id=58 AND effective_cores=1 AND status_id<10 GROUP BY result_id ORDER BY Cores, score DESC) AS tbl GROUP BY Cores DESC; Main problem is that this would be a LOOOOOT of new global rankings. But it would certainly make 3D more appealing. Note that by separating it this way, the participation for the top categories (ie. GTX 980 Ti) would be a lot lower too. This can be address through WR points though. //edit: Full list with multi gpu included: Cores Score GPU MHz GPU 22528 18168 1088 4x Radeon R9 295X2 16384 27927 1128 4x Radeon R9 FURY X 12288 33229 1840 4x GeForce GTX Titan X 11264 34120 1815 4x GeForce GTX 980 Ti 10752 22731 1700 4x GeForce GTX Titan 10240 13203 945 4x Radeon R9 290 9984 26417 1700 4x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 9216 25554 1515 3x GeForce GTX Titan X 8640 15001 1300 3x GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 8448 27910 1703 3x GeForce GTX 980 Ti 8192 30098 2025 4x GeForce GTX 980 8064 16886 1381 3x GeForce GTX Titan 7680 15588 \N 3x Radeon R9 290 7488 18130 \N 3x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 7168 9638 1000 4x Radeon HD 7950 6912 15568 1474 3x GeForce GTX 780 6656 15383 \N 4x GeForce GTX 970 6144 23990 1900 3x GeForce GTX 980 5760 10280 1250 2x GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 5632 22827 1980 2x GeForce GTX 980 Ti 5376 12801 1581 2x GeForce GTX Titan 5120 11890 1252 2x Radeon R9 290 4992 15011 1775 2x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 4608 12056 \N 2x GeForce GTX 780 4096 17198 2000 2x GeForce GTX 980 4032 8730 1106 3x GeForce GTX 670 3584 9666 1400 2x Radeon HD 7950 3456 8048 1333 3x GeForce GTX 760 3328 11044 1461 2x GeForce GTX 970 3072 12342 2050 1x GeForce GTX Titan X 2880 6421 1332 1x GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 2816 14432 2203 1x GeForce GTX 980 Ti 2688 8109 1830 1x GeForce GTX Titan 2560 8864 \N 1x Radeon R9 290 2496 8950 2025 1x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 2304 7732 1907 1x GeForce GTX 780 2240 1786 970 2x Radeon HD 6870 X2 2160 347 \N 3x Radeon HD 6750 2048 10459 2300 1x GeForce GTX 980 1920 4563 \N 2x GeForce GTX 660 1792 5371 1400 1x Radeon HD 7950 1664 7113 1962 1x GeForce GTX 970 1536 6042 1500 1x GeForce GTX 980M 1440 622 \N 2x Radeon HD 6750 1344 4446 \N 1x GeForce GTX 670 1280 3996 1144 1x GeForce GTX 970M 1152 4592 2007 1x GeForce GTX 760 1120 1582 \N 1x Radeon HD 6990M 1024 4496 1840 1x GeForce GTX 960 960 3209 1600 1x GeForce GTX 660 896 2528 1400 1x Radeon R7 260X 800 536 725 1x Radeon HD 7670M (GDDR3) 768 3635 1590 1x GeForce GTX 950 720 1037 985 1x Radeon HD 6770 640 3363 2157 1x GeForce GTX 750 Ti 576 892 1032 1x GeForce GTX 645 (OEM) 512 2608 1710 1x GeForce GTX 750 480 800 880 1x Radeon HD 6670 GDDR5 448 1731 900 1x GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 400 575 902 1x FirePro V4800 384 1333 1241 1x GeForce GTX 650 352 1747 1053 1x GeForce GTX 560 Ti OEM 336 1245 795 1x GeForce GTX 570M 320 935 1425 1x Radeon R7 240 GDDR5 288 834 \N 1x GeForce GTX 560 SE 284 606 \N 1x Radeon HD 7660D 256 1032 620 1x Quadro 4000 192 709 1078 1x GeForce GTX 550 Ti (192b) 180 237 970 1x Radeon HD 7470M 160 278 1100 1x Radeon R5 230 144 518 650 1x GeForce GT 440 GDDR3 192bit 128 306 \N 1x Radeon HD 7480D 120 75 400 1x Radeon HD 6380G 96 524 1102 1x GeForce GT 630 DDR3 (GF108) 80 245 1470 1x Radeon HD 5450 (GDDR3, 64bit) 64 253 875 2x Radeon HD 7470 48 908 \N 1x Iris Pro 6200 Graphics 32 927 1240 1x Quadro K2000 24 372 950 1x Mobile HD Graphics 5500 20 797 1250 1x Radeon HD 5670 (GDDR5, Redwood) 16 780 841 1x Quadro K1100M 12 125 \N 1x HD Graphics (Braswell) 12EU 10 335 1950 1x HD Graphics (Haswell) 8 773 1344 1x Radeon R5 Graphics 6 255 1150 1x HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) 2 91 \N 1x HD Graphics (Bay Trail) SELECT * FROM ( SELECT (result.effective_cores * GREATEST(gpu_model.pipelines, gpu_model.stream_processors)) Cores, ROUND(score) Score, ROUND(result.gpucore_oc) "GPU MHz", CONCAT(result.effective_cores,"x ",gpu_model.model) GPU FROM result JOIN gpu_model USING (gpu_id) WHERE application_id=58 AND status_id<10 GROUP BY result_id ORDER BY Cores, score DESC) AS tbl GROUP BY Cores DESC; //edit: full list with participation Cores Score Users GPU 22528 16937 3 4x Radeon R9 295X2 16384 20118 2 4x Radeon R9 FURY X 12288 29137 15 4x GeForce GTX Titan X 11264 26837 49 4x GeForce GTX 980 Ti 10752 20089 14 4x GeForce GTX Titan 10240 11389 2 4x Radeon R9 290 9984 20123 23 4x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 9216 22538 14 3x GeForce GTX Titan X 8640 14267 2 3x GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 8448 16629 46 3x Radeon R9 290X 8192 27242 47 4x GeForce GTX 980 8064 16886 15 3x GeForce GTX Titan 7680 13651 6 3x Radeon R9 290 7488 14889 19 3x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 7168 7957 2 4x Radeon HD 7950 6912 15568 21 3x GeForce GTX 780 6656 14225 2 4x GeForce GTX 970 6144 9990 88 3x Radeon HD 7970 5760 9870 5 2x GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 5632 14423 108 2x GeForce GTX 980 Ti 5376 11153 55 2x GeForce GTX Titan 5120 11487 35 2x Radeon R9 290 4992 10165 80 2x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 4608 12056 78 2x GeForce GTX 780 4096 7508 159 2x Radeon HD 7970 4032 8730 6 3x GeForce GTX 670 3584 7106 19 2x Radeon HD 7950 3456 7892 1 3x GeForce GTX 760 3328 10569 31 2x GeForce GTX 970 3072 5839 159 2x GeForce GTX 770 2880 6385 13 1x GeForce GTX Titan Black Edition 2816 6542 261 1x Radeon R9 290X 2688 7088 126 2x GeForce GTX 670 2560 6281 91 1x Radeon R9 290 2496 6018 189 1x GeForce GTX 780 Ti 2304 5934 173 1x GeForce GTX 780 2240 1786 1 2x Radeon HD 6870 X2 2160 347 1 3x Radeon HD 6750 2048 5329 357 1x Radeon R9 280X 1920 4375 5 2x GeForce GTX 660 1792 4823 64 1x Radeon HD 7950 1664 6395 98 1x GeForce GTX 970 1536 3496 158 1x GeForce GTX 770 1440 622 1 2x Radeon HD 6750 1344 3516 71 1x GeForce GTX 670 1280 3575 82 1x Radeon HD 7870 (Pitcairn Core) 1152 3573 54 1x GeForce GTX 760 1120 1582 1 1x Radeon HD 6990M 1024 3070 42 1x Radeon HD 7850 960 1944 30 1x GeForce GTX 770M 896 1196 21 1x Radeon HD 7790 800 443 3 1x Radeon HD 7670M (DDR3) 768 2171 26 1x GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost 720 989 8 1x Radeon HD 6770 640 2417 60 1x GeForce GTX 750 Ti 576 892 1 1x GeForce GTX 645 (OEM) 512 1145 30 1x Radeon R7 Series (512 Shaders) 480 568 15 1x Radeon HD 6730M 448 1731 4 1x GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 400 253 2 1x Radeon HD 6620G 384 1058 66 1x GeForce GTX 745 352 1747 1 1x GeForce GTX 560 Ti OEM 336 1229 3 1x GeForce GTX 670M 320 830 9 1x Radeon R7 240 GDDR3 128bit 288 785 2 1x GeForce GTX 560 SE 284 606 4 1x Radeon HD 7660D 256 655 22 1x GeForce GTS 450 GDDR5 192 370 16 1x Radeon HD 8470D 180 182 4 1x Radeon HD 7470M 160 191 8 1x Radeon R5 230 144 451 2 1x GeForce GT 545 GDDR5 128 64 14 1x Radeon HD 8210 120 75 1 1x Radeon HD 6380G 96 287 24 1x GeForce 710M 80 75 19 1x Radeon HD 5450 (GDDR3, 64bit) 64 253 1 2x Radeon HD 7470 48 241 5 1x GeForce GT 610 32 219 4 1x Radeon HD 7470 24 297 4 1x Mobile HD Graphics 5500 20 467 38 1x HD Graphics 4600 16 451 32 1x HD Graphics 4000 12 125 1 1x HD Graphics (Braswell) 12EU 10 335 17 1x HD Graphics (Haswell) 8 281 2 1x GeForce 615 6 255 9 1x HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) 2 91 1 1x HD Graphics (Bay Trail) SELECT Cores, Score, COUNT(DISTINCT USR) Users, GPU FROM ( SELECT (result.effective_cores * GREATEST(gpu_model.pipelines, gpu_model.stream_processors)) Cores, ROUND(score) Score, ROUND(result.gpucore_oc) "GPU_MHz", CONCAT(result.effective_cores,"x ",gpu_model.model) GPU, user_id USR FROM result JOIN gpu_model USING (gpu_id) WHERE application_id=58 AND status_id<10 GROUP BY result_id ORDER BY Cores, score DESC) AS tbl GROUP BY Cores DESC; Edited January 12, 2016 by Massman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rauf Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 ... Main problem is that this would be a LOOOOOT of new global rankings. But it would certainly make 3D more appealing. Note that by separating it this way, the participation for the top categories (ie. GTX 980 Ti) would be a lot lower too. This can be address through WR points though. That's why I suggested grouping cards in more artificial "classes". Three seems like a reasonable number to me. Any more would probably create more problems than solve them. The amount of compute cores is not really relevant to performance and constantly changing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex@ro Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Not quite following your train of thought. Surely, 3-way GTX 980 Ti is much more expensive than single GTX 980 Ti, but you're suggesting to add more points to it anyway? Sure,the idea is top spots are always occupied by sampled customers,the more cards you run the more sampling looses it's influence,plus the user skill comes at sight.What i meant is that if you have the cards and skill to make it work and place among the top you will get more points,if you have a special sample or great skill and bugdet to place among the first in single you again get good points,if you only have the budget and place like 25-30 rank then the points are fair and just . The way thing developed you give the idea that even a 30-th place and lower should give more points than they currently give,i suggested that current rankings are fine,only top places should get more points . Happy Samplers = Happy Vendors . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steponz Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Guys.. also time think about bring wr points to some of the legacy 3ds as with multiple gpu scores higher again.. I would be nice to see The latest 3 card revisions get some good points. 980ti, 980, 970... Like top global score for 970.. Bring some cheaper stuff... thats what Im trying to get at. or have 4790k with FS. Asking futuremark is not the answer.. Needs to be done here as they have their own direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasparthe Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I still do not understand how increasing points, WR or Globals, to 3D in comparison to 2D would be a great idea. Maybe someone can explain it so my simple mind can understand? As far as I can tell this is the logic: Low points for 3D compared to 2D, increase points to 3D, more people will take notice and start to do 3D. Is that essentially correct? I think this is very simplistic remedy that has a lot of more far reaching implications than everyone is happy because 3D is finally getting the recognition it deserves as the pinnacle of overclocking achievement. There is a very systematic reason that 3D is less popular. It costs way more. That is almost the defining factor as to the less participation in 3D, the amount of money that is needed to be competitive in the global scene for 3D is a substantial amount. It is the barrier of entry, for those familiar with such terms. Right now, guys that try to make it up the league ladder can do so running 2D because they are treated equally and there are more ways to hit gobals in 2D (Perhaps this is unfair, or unbalanced, but remember you have to have a very good 2D setup to run 3D competitively so mostly even 3D benchers take lots of 2D globals, it doesn't work vice versa). If you start to give more weight to 3D then you make it more and more likely that someone will HAVE to run competitive 3D GPUs, they will have no choice because running only 2D or maybe mostly 2D will not provide enough points to even surpass guys running H20 subs in 3D. You have effectively pushed them into a decision. Do I put out the cash needed to be competitive, or do I simply quit because I don't have the cash/connections needed to be competitive, you've pushed them up against the barrier of entry. It might seem like a great idea on the surface to make 3D worth more but in the end, I would expect all it would do is hurt the community on the whole as more people just won't bother since the barrier to entry (cost of 3D gear) is way to high. By raising the cost to be competitive you are, again, ensuring that those with the largest wallets/greatest connections will have their spots reserved for them at the top. If you truly, truly want to see 3D being promoted and more scores in the mid-level cards, then you really should be fighting to have the hardware points worth more than the globals. Or at least the potential maximum you can earn in globals (currently 15x167= 2505 potential points) should be equal to the potential maximum in hardware (currently 20x50 = 1000 potential points). There is absolutely no way to earn tops spots currently without globals. Even if you max out all your 20 hardware slots you would (it cannot be understated enough how tough that would be - Dancop only has 8) you would only be in 39th spot in the Extreme League. Think of what that means, an overclocker that manages to hit a gold cup in 20 different MAX categories can barely crack the Top-40 of the league. As a result, this means that mostly no one cares about hardware points, which in turn means no one cares about GPUs, or even CPUs, that don't give them Global points (disclaimer: if you care about your position in league that is). If you can make hardware points meaningful, which means making them worth more in relation to Globals, people will suddenly care a lot more about those mid level cards. Chance of happening? 1%. No one that spent $1000s of dollars on binning 980Ti and other high end gear wants to be surpassed by guys running $20 8800GTs (no matter how much skill and knowledge is needed to zombie mod them) or by guys with $50 775 setups that bought 21 e2160s on eBay for $11. Because I love to beat a dead horse, just get rid of globals in the XOC/EL/Novice/Rookie leagues, and let your overclocking skills in whatever platform you fancy do the talking and setup a PRO league that go all-out Globals wherever they can find them. Sponsors are happy for the promotion of their products in the top league and the regular poor folk can actually be ranked on their skills/knowledge and not (totally) their wallets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Wish I could thank you more than once man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steponz Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 WHat about 4 way scores.. There is not enticement at all to do 3d.. Say I did 980 4 way.. what do I get for such a complicated system nothing.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steponz Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Really wish more people who actually bench 3d participate in these conversations. A guy buying 1 980ti should be able to get a decent amount of points just like a 6700k does in 2d.. Most gamers have cards... that excuse about people don't bench 3d because its too expensive is bs... There should be enticement for doing 3d........ plain and simple.. and there is not based upon how everything is setup on hwbot.. 4 way setups that change with hardware.. say 980 to 980ti... are about worthless.. and should be worth more.. maybe hardware points would be good there..... My major concern is cheaper cards should be worth more point values... make it more like 2D more chances to earn points.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steponz Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Let me also point this out... 01/05/06/AM3 All you need is a cpu and any 980ti at the moment... This should be treated exactly like 2d.. because the excuse of having to bin all GPU is completely incorrect. Why isn't it treated so... Why is XTU more important? The real GPU benchmarks that need a serious GPU... Are: 03/Vantage/3D11/Catzillas/FS's so half.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speed.fastest Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 All we need is hardware point, because overclocking is not based on money but skill. Thats why i think hardware point is more important than global. Like @Rasparthe said, maybe 8800GTS 512 will require more skill & knowledge than benching 980 Ti. Im not saying to disable global point, but what make unbalance between 2D & 3D is global point. With Core i3 Skylake you can get much point for global point, but you cant get the same global point with low end 3D card. We need solution for that. Sorry if my english is not good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest george.kokovinis Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Really wish more people who actually bench 3d participate in these conversations. Joe, Since you ask the opinion of people benching with multiple cards. I have owned and benched GTX980 x 4 and TitanX x 4, all on X99. The whole system cost me 10.000$ ( Europe ). I have three months to bench anything with that. I just start it, update it with latest drivers and bios and shut it down. Now, I am strongly thinking of selling everything. Although I even have WR points with this system, cost is very high considering the reward. As a matter of fact, I do not care benching 3D anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steponz Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 8800GTS will require more skill? Seriously.. I doubt that.. most can handle a pot on 8800gts... most can't on the 980ti.. Not many even now can run the 980ti.. and that's not because of money. Also even AMD, Since they are so cheap why don't we focus on that and give them more points. .that seems to fit the argument about being cheap...... Why does only intel get points.. why not amd... its a very similar situation as none of the real AMD clockers get represented in here either. I haven't even heard of anything about integrated GPU... Fastest Internal GPU could be something... But again... That's not offered in any solutions...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steponz Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 See that's my biggest problem with 3D and why HWBOT is doing a piss pour job of representing it.. Just think when pascal comes out .. your 10k system is useless.. might as well switch to 2d since that's all hwbot cares about. Based upon points.... 3d doesn't matter.... HWBOT turns you away from benching 3D.... 3D should be represented the same way as 2D if not more.... Because it takes a lot of skill. Overclocking is not just about 2D benching... Its not about keeping it cheap... It should be rewarded....... Also think about this.. right now you could use 980 to be competitive in 3D.... 01/03/05/Am3/06 you could be in the top 10 there... this excuse about being too expensive is BS... I'm all about lower value hardware being allowed a certain percentage... but it still should not be compared to 980ti... This binning talk is nonsense too.. its the same with cpus also... why is it any different. buying 2 6700ks is 1 980 ti or 1 1/2 by current prices.. so saying its cheaper and why 3d shouldn't get points in nonsense. How about we just make cpuz the only point benchmark as its the easiest one to run.. ya don't need mem.. no overclock on me.. a regular hardrive.. because its cheap.. that makes sense.. all other lose points.... Joe, Since you ask the opinion of people benching with multiple cards. I have owned and benched GTX980 x 4 and TitanX x 4, all on X99. The whole system cost me 10.000$ ( Europe ). I have three months to bench anything with that. I just start it, update it with latest drivers and bios and shut it down. Now, I am strongly thinking of selling everything. Although I even have WR points with this system, cost is very high considering the reward. As a matter of fact, I do not care benching 3D anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Moved some posts from the technical discussion into the general discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 might as well switch to 2d since that's all hwbot cares about. Based upon points.... 3d doesn't matter.... HWBOT turns you away from benching 3D.... Actually, the algorithm has no "opinion" on 2D or 3D. In fact, the algorithm treats every ranking the same. The only variables that come into play are "how many people participate" and "how well do you score". Just wanted to clarify this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.