Adjustment Global Points - General Discussion

[rbuass]

I don't think he meant any offense to you. Massman stated that he started this thread because you and a few others had started threads about 3D points so he wanted to explore the point spread. Alex was just stating that as a fact, not as an attempt to call anyone out, if I understand correctly.

 

Maybe for you, to call rbu ass is correct, but I don't think miseducation is the best way to go.

[K404]

I think that defending the scaling of a 3D benchmark with CPU is a short-term thing. None of the 3DMark benchmarks were (as far as I remember) showing any problems in the first few years after release. The problem develops with time- GPU performance is being developed much faster than CPU performance.

 

FS, FS-E, FS-U are fine *today* but in 5 years time, they quite possibly won't be.

 

and... let's be honest... it's only really a problem when it affects single card. If there were BIG points available to 4-way and the benchmark only scaled with GPU power, there would be complaints about sponsors and Titan (or whatever comes next at that price point)

[Leeghoofd]

Maybe that is why we should impose a CPU limit to the old benchies... Sounds weird but think about it. I know it will be but hard to control, unless we approach it as with the EK competition where we could only do max XXXX combined or XXXX CPU score...

 

Like Kenny said it might be that at a certain point the CPU will take over as we are seeing with the older legacies and Vantage runs... FS and co will be next if Intel keeps on pumping them cores

Edited December 29, 2015 by Leeghoofd

[Sweet]

Alex@Pro (well my real name is Alex too) i am with you in all, almost , but when you mention people without knowing them, you go "outline"

Ronaldo is engineer, dedicated hardware, plus he has a school in their country of overclocking, the most advanced of Latin America.

 

I share your thoughts fully, Alex, but when you talk about Ronaldo or any guys in this world of overclocking, in this way, you can count me out

 

Have great 2016 for all

[Gunslinger]

Maybe that is why we should impose a CPU limit to the old benchies... Sounds weird but think about it. I know it will be but hard to control, unless we approach it as with the EK competition where we could only do max XXXX combined or XXXX CPU score...

 

Like Kenny said it might be that at a certain point the CPU will take over as we are seeing with the older legacies and Vantage runs... FS and co will be next if Intel keeps on pumping them cores

 

I don't think the CPU weight of the score in the Fire Strike series of benches scales past 8C/16T

[Leeghoofd]

I don't think the CPU weight of the score in the Fire Strike series of benches scales past 8C/16T

 

Newer architecture should be faster per IPC ? Anyway you know what I mean Gunnie

 

Don't go to personal guys, Alex had no intention to attack Ronaldo, this is the way of the internet where things get out of hand in a matter of minutes... so keep your cool

Edited December 29, 2015 by Leeghoofd

[K404]

If 3D is split further by CPU cores, then what's the point of the 5960X (and whatever is next?) Would the top-end CPUs have extra points attached to compensate? ie... nothing changes, but the conditions for "no change" are different.

 

 

If a bencher can get the same number of points from a £50 CPU as an £800 CPU, then......

 

(I do like things that make benching cheaper for participants, but I know that the top-end must have its place)

 

 

 

Maybe we are all over-thinking this.

 

I can't even remember what the thread is for.

 

What EXACT problem/ problems are we/HWB trying to fix at the moment?

Edited December 29, 2015 by K404

[Doug2507]

Hmm, good point Kenny on core split.

 

Think the original point was the balance of 2d/3d pts and 2d becoming more popular.....tbh seems to have been a good mix recently if you check top 100 daily subs and not just front page monster points.

 

I hadn't looked at 980ti in the shops till yesterday. At 700 quid a pop I'm not surprised 2d and older gen 3d is more popular right now tbh!

Edited December 29, 2015 by Doug2507

[K404]

If I suggested that the problem was:

 

1/Too many benchmarks getting points

 

2/ Heavy points going to new benchmarks to get people interested

 

 

Would I have a fair % of it covered?

 

Now, obviously... the carrot cannot be taken away, that would be unfair.... so more points have to appear on "other sides" to balance things out?

[der8auer]

What EXACT problem/ problems are we/HWB trying to fix at the moment?

 

The fact that more people bench 2D and the interest in 3D is much lower.

 

 

 

 

We're still on HWBOT trying to break records, right? I'm not sure if limiting benchmarks in any way makes sense. In the end we lower the possible score because of some hardware restrictions? It's overclocking - not overlimiting.

 

Massmans approach to adjust the point system is the only way as long as we can't "fix" the benchmark itself.

 

2D has a higher interest because it's much more affordable. That's pretty simple.

[K404]

The fact that more people bench 2D and the interest in 3D is much lower.

 

 

 

 

We're still on HWBOT trying to break records, right? I'm not sure if limiting benchmarks in any way makes sense. In the end we lower the possible score because of some hardware restrictions? It's overclocking - not overlimiting.

 

Massmans approach to adjust the point system is the only way as long as we can't "fix" the benchmark itself.

 

2D has a higher interest because it's much more affordable. That's pretty simple.

 

 

 

So.... more points to make people feel better about the cost of competition?

 

 

Points: The cause of... and solution to, all of our problems

[Leeghoofd]

2D has a higher interest because it's much more affordable. That's pretty simple.

 

This is my thought exactly, but I spoke with some unhappy 3D benchers. They reverse it. they claim: Because 2D gets more "easy" points, people are more interested to bench 2D... Dunno bout that statement...

 

Do you think it would be interesting to have a 2D and 3D ranking on the frontpage. So the results are split? And the 3D guys also get their moment of attention... would that already encourage people to bench 3D more?

Edited December 29, 2015 by Leeghoofd

[der8auer]

Like I said few pages before. It's not like people have 980Tis laying on the table but are just too lazy to bench them.

 

There are a lot of other factors which also contribute to the whole "problem". Mainboard vendors made it really easy to overclock CPUs. All important features are included. No need to modding anything. If a CPU dies you can just RMA it.

 

However, nvidia is blocking OC completely. Not sure if I would mod my new 980Ti and if it dies I lose 800€. Hardmod = no RMA.

 

What we see today is the result of the whole industry. Not just "the evil bot"

[K404]

...which brings us pretty close to the Titan + e-Power situation.......

[Leeghoofd]

I think another issue is the hardcore 3D benchers are just focussed on globals, while the real fun is with the old cards

[Mr.Scott]

This is my thought exactly, but I spoke with some unhappy 3D benchers. They reverse it. they claim: Because 2D gets more "easy" points, people are more interested to bench 2D... Dunno bout that statement...

 

Do you think it would be interesting to have a 2D and 3D ranking on the frontpage. So the results are split? And the 3D guys also get their moment of attention... would that already encourage people to bench 3D more?

 

It's a handful of people doing the complaining.

 

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[Matt26LFC]

Like I said few pages before. It's not like people have 980Tis laying on the table but are just too lazy to bench them.

 

There are a lot of other factors which also contribute to the whole "problem". Mainboard vendors made it really easy to overclock CPUs. All important features are included. No need to modding anything. If a CPU dies you can just RMA it.

 

However, nvidia is blocking OC completely. Not sure if I would mod my new 980Ti and if it dies I lose 800€. Hardmod = no RMA.

 

What we see today is the result of the whole industry. Not just "the evil bot"

 

What you've basically outlined here is mostly why I don't do the more modern GPUs. Its so much cheaper to pick up some used 3000-5000 Series ATi/AMD GPUs (likewise with Nvidia) and play and not worry about them dying like you would, as you say, a 980Ti. No way would I v mod anything like that lol Not that I've Hard Mod anything yet, but again older gen stuff is the best, imo, place to start that.

 

I do prefer the 3D stuff more than the 2D, but I don't pay as much attention to the points but I will look to see what I can do point wise with the CPU I have available to run. Doubt I'll be doing much Vantage as you seem to need a crazy fast 4C/8T CPU to compete with the Extreme edition CPUs lol

[Schenckel bros]

In my way of view, with respect for all different opinions, I would like to keep benching the most recent benchmarks (Vantage or newer), and 3D.

I like 2D benchmarks, but since I like much more 3D benchmarks, I wanto to keep benching 3D.

Few time ago, after to fight a lot to keep in top ranking (I was #3 in Pro League at this time), Hwbot simply removed Pro League, and created the Pro Cup.

After this, I focused 100% to best scores and to try 3D Records...

I see no problem to separate 2D and 3D Leagues... since will no force the overclockers to bench one or another.

If you like 2D... ok... go to 2D and play.

If you like 3D... same...

If you like both... play both...

But why is needed to mix all in the same league, .... if is completely different?

Why CPUZ with AMD need to be together Fire Strike... in same ranking...

I think is pretty normal to think about 2D Records... 3D Records... and should be the same to think 2D Ranking and 3D Ranking.

Is not only because I don't want to bench XTU, but because even you will look for information in the league, you will find 2D and 3D benchmarks... and 2D and 3D all (regardless there are old benchmarks 3D with much power on CPU... still a 3D benchmark).

If Hwbot agree and follow, I will appreciate...

If not.... I will keep doing the same I was doing .... just overclocking.

 

best wishes.

 

Will not push the idea of "Legacy/Old School League".... but I think also is important... lol

[speed.fastest]

How is cpu not relevant in FS/FSE/FSU? You need higher cores currently to even remotely be in the top.

 

Whats nice about this benchmark is that you don't need high cpu for GPU score, unlike other benchmarks.

 

Why would futuremark have anything to do with this? There benchmark is great..

Different benchmarks will do different things... Do you want to make them the same?

 

We have different benchmarks for different reasons.. vantage/3d11/Catzillas/FS's they are all quite different... Why would we change FS for anything... don't see the point at all.

 

My point here is....... Allowing lower core amounts to achieve points. 6700k is 4 core 8 threads.. If someone has high gpu score with this low cpu they can't compete.

If the benchmark was also done by cores, it would change how many people and who would be able to bench it... because the cost is lower.... because the least amount of cores. The main reason why 3d isn't benched so much is because the lack of good points that people can get. Why submit or even learn 3d when 2d is much easier to do.. meaning the most cost effective.. Why learn something that costs a bit more and can be more difficult... more pots.... different loads...

 

It would be nice to see 3D by cores of CPU and GPU Cores... the hardware points for these could really go much higher.

 

Thats what i said, maybe my english is not good. As 2D & 3D bencher, if everyone want to change 3D with full GPU bound go contact to the developer. But whatever the benchmark im not again it. Even im not going to bench highest end to competitive for 1st place. My point is if someone want to change 3D just go to benchmark developer if they think 3D is 3D, not interrupted with Physics Score. HWBot is doing right i think. Overclock is my hobby, so im not affected with this change, still benching.

Edited December 30, 2015 by speed.fastest

[Sweet]

Like I said few pages before. It's not like people have 980Tis laying on the table but are just too lazy to bench them.

 

There are a lot of other factors which also contribute to the whole "problem". Mainboard vendors made it really easy to overclock CPUs. All important features are included. No need to modding anything. If a CPU dies you can just RMA it.

 

However, nvidia is blocking OC completely. Not sure if I would mod my new 980Ti and if it dies I lose 800€. Hardmod = no RMA.

 

What we see today is the result of the whole industry. Not just "the evil bot"

 

Thats right Roman, that's the whole truth, think guys, 980ti in USA USD 650 (more or less) in Europe Euro 800, here and in many place around the world USD 1360.

 

I like very much 3D benches, but I left this by now, because of the cost and the risk of losing with hard mod a card, I'd be losing of my pocket US 1400 !!, and I'm sure many of you, it happens the same.

 

by now, I only use olds cards for benchs 3D, sometimes

Edited December 29, 2015 by Sweet

[Guest cowgut]

ok so I can understand the big money cards but why when they sold like 8 billion 970's is the max bench(fs) is only 200 submission?

mainly its under 100 for all benchmarks with that card

really I don't want to hear "they put a lock down on overclocking" software voltage adding was non existent "in the golden years". it did not stop us from conductive pens to a 7xxx card or hard modding 8xxx cards and the like.If you look back those cards were not to cheap for the times

I hate to say it but just like the games today overclocking vgs's is so dumbed down its not funny

you know how much fun a 750ti is to mod and bench? a freaking lot and you can get one cheaper/same price used then some older hardware.

ok so someone mentioned fishing...yeah not catching its fishing

the sites the sounds relaxing have a beer or two maybe some tokes having fun.If the fish bite they bite

then you have the guys who make a living off it or try to and you think overclocking is hard work ha ha.

ok so we have the guy fly fishing releasing most of his catch then on the extreme you have the commercial interest totally raping the waters for what its got.you have some fishing with a 10 dollar outfit fishing on the bank of some river and others in big fancy boats.

same thing can be said for hwbot to an extent.

I just don't want the big fancy guys to have all the say

we all know the joe smoes avg. benchers out number the big guys 2000 to 1.

so I don't care too much about how you are going to try and fix things if you think they need fixing just remember the little guys who helped get the points that everyone seems to covet

Edited December 30, 2015 by cowgut

[Massman]

Some people were asking to split up the technical discussion of the Adjustment and the more philosophical discussion.

 

Should be easier to discuss both!

[xxbassplayerxx]

Hey Pieter, that link just brings you back to this thread. Where were you trying to link?

 

EDIT: Nvm... looks like you split it into two threads.

[BenchBrothers.de]

This is my thought exactly, but I spoke with some unhappy 3D benchers. They reverse it. they claim: Because 2D gets more "easy" points, people are more interested to bench 2D... Dunno bout that statement...

 

I think it's a mix of both statements.

 

2D has a lower overall cost since you don't need a modern and expensive vga. Vga-cooling isn't neccessary so you can save money again (no ln2/dice-pot, no phasechange or waterblock). You can run a weaker psu and can save money again. And 2D currently gives higher points on hwbot.

 

By the way: 3D-benchmarks usually take longer than lots of the current 2D-benchmarks (as long as you use modern cpus). So you can save time when going for 2D (and we all know how time consuming this hobby can be). A few days ago aerotracks visited me and benched his 5960X. While he did half a dozen hwbot-prime-benchmarks I couldn't have finished one single 3DMark06.

 

If someone is interested in points and rankings he will go the 2D-route. Less money involved, more points and less time-consuming - three advantages at once. Why should someone invest more money for 3D-benchmarking as long as he isn't addicted to a particular benchmark? He has to deal with additional cost, has to invest more time and in the end he gets lesser points.

 

Well done, mission accomplished!

 

In my oppinion 3D-benchmarking should be the highest awarded category. You have to deal with additional hardware and additional cooling (especially when running multi-gpu), more money is involved, a single benchmark usually takes longer and every driver-release can change the game (at least for the modern 3D-benchmarks).

 

I want to make clear that I don't want to devaluate 2D-benchmarking but for me there are no valid arguments why 2D should be awarded with higher points than 3D.

[Alex@ro]

You can't give more points to the people who afford to buy stuff just because benchmark it's harder.Yes,it if more complex but it will not happen unless you spend the money on the parts needed...

 

2D is having higher points now just because more people bench it,therefore the number of submitters is much higher than 3D. As Roman said,it is highly unlikely that everyone has a 980Ti on the desk and will not submit just because he gets little amount of points.

 

To sum up , lowering the threshold on 3D seems like a good idea .

 

In any case , let's remember why did this phenomen started.Rbuass is an even bigger drama-queen than me so he started 3 topics where he complains that despite the huge-ammount of binning Galaxy did for his results he still has lower points than he expected for this effort. Other people complained also (still a low percentage of actual submitters,keep this in mind) so Massman got stuck with the idea that indeed 3d should get more points ... Nothing negative so far and it is good that people express their feelings but why should other people be influenced by this ?

 

So i come and ask, why is there no poll already?

 

Make a poll with a few questions regarding the direction of the hwbot platform and points . In order to count (and the things stated to change ) let's say 60% of the active benchers(over 20 submissions to say) in the last year have to vote. If the percentage is met then we move along in implementing what people voted .

 

Only after then measures should be taken, not because 1-2-5 people complain about something.I have my complains too and everyone has them but nobody takes measure after asking only me.