Adjustment Global Points - General Discussion

[WhiteWulfe]

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..

 

Interesting that you mention such, because I'm someone who used to primarily run 3D benches (specifically Catzilla in the hopes of beating one of ftw's scores), but after a while (somewhere in between being tired of swapping cards out of my gaming rig and when I switched to Extreme league) I switched to 2D simply because from a hardware points perspective you're fighting against similar hardware. There's also the fact that every time I go subzero the amount of gear I'm risking is lower, and therefore a much lower cost to replace if something breaks or can't take it.

 

3D benching suffers from two serious problems: insane cost of entry, not to mention the fact that if you want to have a reasonable chance at competing you have absolutely NO CHOICE but to go with liquid nitrogen. Most of the benchmarks that you've mentioned in another post have a noticeable points bias towards higher end processors, which means if you want to actually fight for the top 10 or even top 20 there's no choice but to drop $1200+ USD on a good 5960X, which also means dropping $300 USD or more on a decent motherboard. This is before you also factor in a good set of RAM (easily another $2-400 USD, more if you factor in buying multiple kits to bin a good set), and then the insane costs of the graphics cards themselves ($700+ USD).

 

So just going into things, you're risking easily $2500 USD in gear just to claw your way into the top ten for a single graphics card, and this is before learning the art of running the benches and the various tweaks that each particular benchmark can benefit from.

 

Just because a gamer has a card doesn't mean they're willing to push it into "not 24/7 safe" benching territory where there's a real risk of damaging your card. Most of them want their gear to last 3-4 years, and while some of them will overclock their gear (or tweak their overall systems) to gain higher performance, I would argue that most of them aren't anywhere near willing to push their gear as far as we do.

 

Even more so, I've seen a decent amount of gamers see various benchers posting scores and decide "sure, why not give it a shot", and their momentary pride at getting what they thought was a good score gets readily crushed by so many others on the 'Bot. Some push further and seek advice, but there are a surprisingly large number of accounts here that have only put up one or two submissions and then decided to move onto other pursuits. I'm not saying they're giving up, but most of them don't see why they should potentially sacrifice their rigs on the silicon altar with the hope it will all come back undamaged.

 

 

Why did I switch to 2D? It's just too expensive to be competitive, having to buy high end cards ($830 CAD for the cheapest 980 Ti atm, $950 CAD if I happen to want a card that can be easily configured and controlled (EVGA Classified)) not to mention an X99/5960X setup because the additional cores (and threads) do wind up offering a few hundred extra points in comparison to a 4770k. Even if you stick with the mainstream platforms (which for some reason, Z170 is pretty much the same cost as X99), every time a new one comes out it's drop another bundle of cash (usually at least $800 CAD for a high end motherboard plus the matching k-series i7) in order to keep up. How is this not expensive again?

[Massman]

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.

 

A possible (undesirable?) side-effect of this would be that the Globals are suddenly very unattractive. Much like 3D benching right now, the reward for competing at the top would be very low compared to cost. I think you'd see a significant drop in people who are pushing the latest generation of hardware, which in turn would make less people follow the top results. I don't think this is a very desirable effect because in a sense the noise and excitement around the top overclocking results, whether that's with the Core i3 or i7, is what makes people interested in overclocking.

 

That being said, improving the balance of GL vs HW is something definitely worth considering. We have adjusted the ratio of GL and HW for the Leagues several times in the past.

 

I quickly threw together some numbers from the Most Valuable Submission tracker which may by interesting for you. In the graphs below you can find the distribution of average points per active overclocking in each league, on a weekly basis. In the last table you can find an overview of the average points per League per Week for each Active Overclocker.

 

I thought of this quote by Bindibadgi in his Overclocker in Focus interview when reading your post and compiling the data below: "You’ve got to get better. You’ve got to win the series and when I see people earning 0.1 points on HWBOT as a Rookie, I kind of feel sorry for them because you want them to win big and feel encouraged to do the next step. People are so used to earning big points and big money and stuff like this, and all the gamification of all the applications that you have in 3DMark or on your phone or… whatever. there could be some optimizations within that system. Hopefully we’ll see it."

 

Food for thought.

 

 

 

 

[BenchBrothers.de]

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.

 

I read your post this way: It is ok that someone can reach high ranks in his league without doing 3d. And you wouldn't be happy if someone has to start 3d to reach high ranks.

 

Do I get this right?

 

You discribe the current situation. An overclocker can reach a decent rank in his league without doing 3d. Now imagine an overclocker who doesn't care about 2d but loves 3d. Because of the current algorithm he is not able to reach a top spot in his league only with 3d. This individuum has to bench 2d - whether he likes it or not.

 

Now compare this to your standpoint. You're saying that no one has to be forced to bench 3d to get a top spot in his league. But you're also saying that forcing someone to bench 2d for a top spot is ok. You see the problem?

 

I don't want to have 3d awarded with higher points than 2d. All I want is that a global top spot in 3d is worth the same amount of points than a top spot in 2d. And that is not the case currently (at least it feels this way). And in additioin someone who wants to reach a top spot in any overclocking league has to be able to handle 2d- and 3d-benchmarks. If someone is not able (or willing) to bench 3d than he shouldn't be able to become number one in any overclocking leage - my opinion! Maybe that's the case anyway but you can reach higher ranks doing 2d without 3d than vice versa.

 

 

 

Now I come back to the highlighted text again.

 

You say that you need a very good 2d setup to compete in 3d. And because of this fact lots of 3d-benchmarkers also compete in 2d. In my opinion thats not the case. I think at least some do so because without points from 2d they are not be able to hold their position in ranking.

 

As I said earlier in this thread: If you have a great 2d-setup than it is very easy to earn 3d-points. Just put in a 970 or 980 and you will get decent scores in AM3, 2k1, 2k5 and perhaps 2k6. For these benchmarks you don't need a 3-ghz-Titan X. Of course you won't reach a global first place or a wr - but you will be awarded with a decent amount of points. No zombi-modding and ln2-cooling needed. Just put in a stock relativly "cheap" air cooled card and you can achieve some good points in 3d.

 

Now tell me in which 2d-benchmarks someone can compete with a 3-ghz-Titan X? There is none. On the other side I (and steponz) already gave examples where a 2d-overclocker can compete really easy in some specific 3d-benchmarks.

 

You can compensate a mediocre cpu in 3d-benchmarks with a good vga and some skill up to a certain point. So a great cpu isn't mandatory in some benchmarks (unlike you stated). Now take this mediocre cpu for 2d-benchmarks - how much points will you be awarded with in 2d-benchmarks? I am sure that you won't get much points for this...

 

 

 

To sum things up I think you're looking to the issue from a wrong perspective. No offense here, just my opinion.

 

 

 

Lots of the "drama" here has to do with XTU. I just realized (never thought about it) that we talk about a benchmark awarded with points where only hardware of one single manufacturer can compete. All other awarded benchmarks can be used on AMD and Intel. That's not ideal (to say it frankly)... And as a side note the benchmark don't work on every Intel-cpu. I tried it on my Xeon E5-1680V2 (S2011, Ive-Bridge-E-Core) but all it said was that no supported hardware was found.

 

To put it in simple words: Only Intel decides which hardware gets hwboints. Is that the right way?!

Edited January 8, 2016 by BenchBrothers.de

[Massman]

To put it in simple words: Only Intel decides which hardware gets hwboints. Is that the right way?!

 

The algorithm has no "opinion" about the hardware manufacturer. It judges all benchmarks the same. What matters is "how many people use it" and "how well do you score" to hand out points.

 

A lot of people use the XTU benchmark. That's their choice. And the points are awarded in the same way like any other benchmark gets their points.

 

(I just want to make sure that we stay on topic - for sure I agree that XTU is by far not even close to the difficulty of 3D and that the points are too high. But the conversation should be about how we award points; not why a specific benchmark should get less points)

[BenchBrothers.de]

The algorithm has no "opinion" about the hardware manufacturer. It judges all benchmarks the same. What matters is "how many people use it" and "how well do you score" to hand out points.

 

A lot of people use the XTU benchmark. That's their choice. And the points are awarded in the same way like any other benchmark gets their points.

 

(I just want to make sure that we stay on topic - for sure I agree that XTU is by far not even close to the difficulty of 3D and that the points are too high. But the conversation should be about how we award points; not why a specific benchmark should get less points)

 

You're totally right. This one has nothing to do with the current algorithm.

 

I just wanted to point it out because XTU is one of the main reasons why points are discussed lately.

[der8auer]

Is there any tl;dr info on the last few pages? What's the current "conclusion"?

[speed.fastest]

The problem with 3D is you can't get Global Point with cheap system. For me GTX 980 Cost is like my full 6 months full wages. So "cheap" for someone doesn't mean cheap for other. With 2D you can get Global Point even without expensive hardware because there is separate cpu core global point (1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, etc). In 3D only (1xGPU, 2xGPU, 3xGPU, etc) which is not like 2D. We need solution for that to separating category to make 3D competitive.

[Rauf]

A 4 core CPU category for FS and the other non-legacy 3D benches would be very nice.

I have two 980 ti that I ran on ln2 for the goc qualifier. After that only legacy 3D. And I actually have a Rampage V Ex and memory, only missing a good 5960X. There is just not enough incentment to spend much money on a good 5960X. Then a heap of ln2 to bench for very little points (my cards are not that good).

[Massman]

I don't want to have 3d awarded with higher points than 2d. All I want is that a global top spot in 3d is worth the same amount of points than a top spot in 2d. And that is not the case currently (at least it feels this way). And in additioin someone who wants to reach a top spot in any overclocking league has to be able to handle 2d- and 3d-benchmarks. If someone is not able (or willing) to bench 3d than he shouldn't be able to become number one in any overclocking leage - my opinion! Maybe that's the case anyway but you can reach higher ranks doing 2d without 3d than vice versa.

 

That is a legitimate paradigm, I think.

 

The main problem with this paradigm is that this makes every benchmark valued the same. So if a new benchmark came around, the points for that benchmark would be the same as for any other well-established benchmark. There would be no differentiation between any global ranking.

 

One way to go around this is by defining a set of benchmark tiers which allows for more points if the benchmark is more relevant. Ie.

 

- Tier A: maximum 150 pts (Fire Strike, XTU, Cinebench R15, ...)

- Tier B: maximum 100 pts (Ice Storm, 3DMark03, SuperPI 1M, ...)

- Tier C: maximum 50 pts (PiFast, CPU Frequency, ...)

 

Also it would make uncompetitive rankings like WPrime 3xCPU worth as much as a highly expensive 3DMark Vantage 3xGPU. There are solutions for that too, though. For example, using a popularity threshold within a benchmark for each global category. In that case, unpopular global rankings (ie. 5xCPU) within a top-tier benchmark would get less points than the popular global rankings (ie. 4xCPU).

[Xtreme Addict]

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.

 

Challenge accepted

[Xtreme Addict]

That is a legitimate paradigm, I think.

 

The main problem with this paradigm is that this makes every benchmark valued the same. So if a new benchmark came around, the points for that benchmark would be the same as for any other well-established benchmark. There would be no differentiation between any global ranking.

 

One way to go around this is by defining a set of benchmark tiers which allows for more points if the benchmark is more relevant. Ie.

 

- Tier A: maximum 150 pts (Fire Strike, XTU, Cinebench R15, ...)

- Tier B: maximum 100 pts (Ice Storm, 3DMark03, SuperPI 1M, ...)

- Tier C: maximum 50 pts (PiFast, CPU Frequency, ...)

 

Also it would make uncompetitive rankings like WPrime 3xCPU worth as much as a highly expensive 3DMark Vantage 3xGPU. There are solutions for that too, though. For example, using a popularity threshold within a benchmark for each global category. In that case, unpopular global rankings (ie. 5xCPU) within a top-tier benchmark would get less points than the popular global rankings (ie. 4xCPU).

 

I believe you will find the way

 

Though creating maximum 50 pts for such popular benchmarks as PiFast will kill it imho

[K404]

Simple question.

 

 

Why do people bench 3D? Why add cards and run up to 4-way (or more, in some cases. I think that has to be kept in mind for any future-proofing)

 

People either bench for points, for the challenge, to win a competition or for fun. Anyone benching to impress a vendor is naive

 

 

Some of the comments are beginning to sound like there's entitlement.

 

I have done something complicated and it cost a lot of money. Where is my reward.

 

It's important to not lose sight of "the means to an end"

 

as Massman says, the algorithm doesn't care. If someone is in it for points, buy the gear that brings points.

[speed.fastest]

I believe in @K404

 

Without Global overclocking will more natural. What about Global & WR Point only for Elite? So other than Elite does not affected by Global Point. Just my 2 cents

[Massman]

Why do people bench 3D? Why add cards and run up to 4-way (or more, in some cases. I think that has to be kept in mind for any future-proofing)

 

People either bench for points, for the challenge, to win a competition or for fun. Anyone benching to impress a vendor is naive

 

as Massman says, the algorithm doesn't care. If someone is in it for points, buy the gear that brings points.

 

Want to jump in and make another important distinction. The algorithm may not care, but the algorithm designer certainly cares a lot.

 

The goal of the HWBoints algorithm and the Overclockers League is to identify the "best overclockers" in the world. The specific implementation of the algorithm is intended to reflect exactly that. Once in a while the overclocking situation changes and the algorithm has to be adjusted to accommodate change. For example, in the past we had to limit the amount of hardware points for the Overclockers League because "grinders" were dominating the League. Or, the minimum points for global rankings had to be fixed for very low participation levels. Or, introducing the WR points to address poorly rewarded 4-Way benchmark world records. And so on.

 

It is my personal opinion that benching GTX 980 TI, regardless of the system cost, is a lot more challenging than benching a Core i3 through HWBOT Prime and should be rewarded more. But I also agree that we should try to accommodate any type of overclocker and not have "wallet size" be a decisive factor in the League.

 

From what I read so far, I think the general idea is that:

• 3D should have equal points like 2D
  
• Hardware points should be as important as Global points
  
• There should always be a bonus for the top rankings
  
• The point distribution for Hardware Rankings is fine as it is now
  

How competitive a global ranking is in terms of amount of participants is not so much a factor, I think. At least, I haven't seen much arguments emphasizing this aspect.

 

Any major point I'm missing?

[K404]

The specific implementation of the algorithm is intended to reflect exactly that.

 

We both know that that intention has not always translated to reality. I'm not pointing a finger or blaming anyone, but good intentions have led to unbalanced distributions.... the details (IMO) are not so important in that thread. Maybe PM?

 

 

Wallet size will ALWAYS be a factor. I wish it wasn't, but it always will be.

 

 

Hardware points should be as important as Global points

 

I slightly disagree with this. I do believe that Hardware points are important, but I feel that for "the worlds best overclockers," the emphasis should be on great global. Formula 1 does not have a Citroen 2CV challenge, for example

 

...and this is coming from an older- hardware bencher

 

 

What about a fixed ratio between Gobal and Hardware? I know I mentioned this years ago.

 

If someone has e.g. 800 Hardware points and 400 Global points, only 400 Hardware points contribute to ranking? Want to increase your ranking? Increase global, because it will automatically increase the Hardware points that count.

 

Or.... only 50% of the difference counts, or something like that.

[BenchBrothers.de]

That is a legitimate paradigm, I think.

 

The main problem with this paradigm is that this makes every benchmark valued the same. So if a new benchmark came around, the points for that benchmark would be the same as for any other well-established benchmark. There would be no differentiation between any global ranking.

 

Maybe this is due to my crappy english but I don't want exactly the same amount of points for every benchmark. I just want to close the big gap that can occour between a global first place in a hardware category and a global world record (like mentioned in this post). A few points difference won't be a problem I think but in my opinion it shouldn't be more than about 15 points (not 50 like in my example).

 

 

 

Wallet size will ALWAYS be a factor. I wish it wasn't, but it always will be.

 

I totally agree. And up to a certain point it is ok. hwbot can't try to equal a rookie and a pro with unlimited support just with a point algorithm.

 

 

 

 

I have a few suggestions:

 

1. I think one big thing is to adress the issue of the front page. A WR should always be in first position - no matter what amount of points it is worth. If multiple WRs are broken the same day then they all should be in front of all other scores - in descending order of points. Same applies to GFPs. WR in front of GFP in front of "normal" scores - all in descending order of points. hwbot could also highlighten WRs/GFPs in a colour different from "normal" scores or add an icon which shows a Gold cup or something similar. I have no I idea how hard to code this is but I think it would be worth it.

 

Contrary to the current kind of implementation everyone could easily realize when a WR or GFP was achieved.

 

2. What about balancing global points a bit better between 2d and 3d and then limiting the points for rankings?

 

Lets say we limit the amount of globals in the rankings to the amount of points you can achieve for three GFPs. If someone will break his first WR (this feels like heaven ) he will be awarded right and all points count for the ranking. If you accidentally break the second and/or third WR (like we did back in the days), everything is fine, too. If you get support and break further WRs then you are limited.

 

Of course this change would hurt some people but as far as I know only a few - mostly those with heavy vendor support or a large sized wallet. For everyone else everything remains the same with slightly adjusted points.

 

Would this be worth a try? Opinions welcome.

[Rasparthe]

I read your post this way: It is ok that someone can reach high ranks in his league without doing 3d. And you wouldn't be happy if someone has to start 3d to reach high ranks.

 

Do I get this right?

 

You discribe the current situation. An overclocker can reach a decent rank in his league without doing 3d. Now imagine an overclocker who doesn't care about 2d but loves 3d. Because of the current algorithm he is not able to reach a top spot in his league only with 3d. This individuum has to bench 2d - whether he likes it or not.

 

Now compare this to your standpoint. You're saying that no one has to be forced to bench 3d to get a top spot in his league. But you're also saying that forcing someone to bench 2d for a top spot is ok. You see the problem?

 

 

Not exactly what I was saying. I don't think anyone should make it to the top spots in the league without doing a mix. I'm saying that currently every benchmark and category is setup equally. The algorithm doesn't distinguish between 2D and 3D. You can use whatever mix you like, 2D only, 3D only, a mix of the two it doesn't matter. It will all be treated equally, the only difference is participation (or if you like better, popularity) which increases the amount of points available. If you start skewing to one side (3D or 2D) artificially you will create a situation that requires you to move further to the side that was inflated to even maintain your current rank. Your current rank will move down unless you moved to the inflated side. This is why the discussion about XTU started. XTU, naturally became popular for whatever the reasons (integration with HWBOT, ease of use, etc) and naturally made 2D benching more enticing. Now the discussion moves to artifically matching that effect in 3D. If its a natural progression, that is fine, its popularity dictating what is worth the most. When you force a points change, you are in effect, requiring someone to move simply because you have artificially skewed the points.

 

In general, not 2D or 3D specifically, HWBOT should not skew the points to one side or the other simply because its "harder", or people feel they are undervalued by the points system. (If you want, I can go on about people that feel undervalued by the point system, you could start with the guys that 'used' to bench exotics, yes, 'used' to). There are plenty of benchmarks that are harder than others, there are 3D benchmarks that are 'fire and forget', there are 2D benchmarks that require a great deal of tweaking (have a look at the 5G SuperPi challenge). Skewing points based on what a segment of the members feel is 'hard' is a recipe for unfairness. Remember the reason that XTU is worth so much. It is worth so much because it is popular. Not because of the point system. You will punish a benchmark for being too popular. Do you see why it looks like entitlement and sour grapes? Essentially, the argument boils down to XTU is so easy and look how hard it is to do "this-thing-I-love-doing" it should be worth more points than XTU.

 

 

I don't want to have 3d awarded with higher points than 2d. All I want is that a global top spot in 3d is worth the same amount of points than a top spot in 2d. And that is not the case currently (at least it feels this way). And in additioin someone who wants to reach a top spot in any overclocking league has to be able to handle 2d- and 3d-benchmarks. If someone is not able (or willing) to bench 3d than he shouldn't be able to become number one in any overclocking leage - my opinion! Maybe that's the case anyway but you can reach higher ranks doing 2d without 3d than vice versa.

 

 

Totally agree with you, they should not make the top spots. But, you shouldn't push them down simply because they don't want to add costs to even MAINTAIN their spot.

 

 

Now I come back to the highlighted text again.

 

You say that you need a very good 2d setup to compete in 3d. And because of this fact lots of 3d-benchmarkers also compete in 2d. In my opinion thats not the case. I think at least some do so because without points from 2d they are not be able to hold their position in ranking.

 

As I said earlier in this thread: If you have a great 2d-setup than it is very easy to earn 3d-points. Just put in a 970 or 980 and you will get decent scores in AM3, 2k1, 2k5 and perhaps 2k6. For these benchmarks you don't need a 3-ghz-Titan X. Of course you won't reach a global first place or a wr - but you will be awarded with a decent amount of points. No zombi-modding and ln2-cooling needed. Just put in a stock relativly "cheap" air cooled card and you can achieve some good points in 3d.

 

Now tell me in which 2d-benchmarks someone can compete with a 3-ghz-Titan X? There is none. On the other side I (and steponz) already gave examples where a 2d-overclocker can compete really easy in some specific 3d-benchmarks.

 

You can compensate a mediocre cpu in 3d-benchmarks with a good vga and some skill up to a certain point. So a great cpu isn't mandatory in some benchmarks (unlike you stated). Now take this mediocre cpu for 2d-benchmarks - how much points will you be awarded with in 2d-benchmarks? I am sure that you won't get much points for this...

 

 

My point was simply that 3D benchers have the option to do 2D benches without outlaying any more money. They might not have the greatest WR 2D setup but if they are competitive in 3D they will have a very, very good 2D setup or they couldn't be competitive (I know that some benchmarks this is not the case but the majority do require it). Those 3D benchers have the option of doing 2D. They might not because they think they are too easy to bother with, won't sink to the level of a simple 2D bencher, or just too lazy, but they have the option to do the benches with no further investment.

 

 

As I said earlier in this thread: If you have a great 2d-setup than it is very easy to earn 3d-points. Just put in a 970 or 980 and you will get decent scores in AM3, 2k1, 2k5 and perhaps 2k6.

 

 

Do you see from your statement? 'Just put in a 970 or 980'? A less fortunate bencher that has scraped together a pretty good 2D rig might take exception to 'Just put in a 970 or 980'. This is why it sometimes looks like a bencher's wallet does all the talking.

 

The point is that a mostly 2D bencher doesn't have the option of doing 3D without additional cost. They would have to purchase a competitive 3D card to do those benches. You will have to add cost to your current system in order to compete at that level.

 

Do you see the paradox now? You have artificially moved the rankings towards 3D so that in order to maintain their current position they would have to increase their costs. Remember, this is not a natural flow of people being very interested in 3D benching, the points making it more enticing to invest in 3D gear to keep up. Its not because 3D is an easy benchmark or popular like XTU, you have pushed them into it in order to even stay the same because of artificially skewing the point system.

 

 

 

To sum things up I think you're looking to the issue from a wrong perspective. No offense here, just my opinion.

 

 

None taken, this is all just my opinion as well and discussion is the way to find a good path forward.

[xxbassplayerxx]

The algorithm has no "opinion" about the hardware manufacturer. It judges all benchmarks the same. What matters is "how many people use it" and "how well do you score" to hand out points.

 

A lot of people use the XTU benchmark. That's their choice. And the points are awarded in the same way like any other benchmark gets their points.

 

(I just want to make sure that we stay on topic - for sure I agree that XTU is by far not even close to the difficulty of 3D and that the points are too high. But the conversation should be about how we award points; not why a specific benchmark should get less points)

 

Wouldn't this be a good place to start, though? We all agree that XTU receives too many points. The conversation basically started because the 3D guys got annoyed at seeing XTU on top of the boards all day, pulling in amounts of points that no other benchmark can. Cap the point levels lower, that way a highly sought after 2D benchmark scores the same as a highly competitive 2D benchmark. Is there really a significant increase in competitiveness between 20,000 scores and 30,000 scores?

[Mr.Scott]

 

Now tell me in which 2d-benchmarks someone can compete with a 3-ghz-Titan X? There is none.

 

Wrong.

GPUPi.

[steponz]

Very well said and totally agree....

 

 

I read your post this way: It is ok that someone can reach high ranks in his league without doing 3d. And you wouldn't be happy if someone has to start 3d to reach high ranks.

 

Do I get this right?

 

You discribe the current situation. An overclocker can reach a decent rank in his league without doing 3d. Now imagine an overclocker who doesn't care about 2d but loves 3d. Because of the current algorithm he is not able to reach a top spot in his league only with 3d. This individuum has to bench 2d - whether he likes it or not.

 

Now compare this to your standpoint. You're saying that no one has to be forced to bench 3d to get a top spot in his league. But you're also saying that forcing someone to bench 2d for a top spot is ok. You see the problem?

 

I don't want to have 3d awarded with higher points than 2d. All I want is that a global top spot in 3d is worth the same amount of points than a top spot in 2d. And that is not the case currently (at least it feels this way). And in additioin someone who wants to reach a top spot in any overclocking league has to be able to handle 2d- and 3d-benchmarks. If someone is not able (or willing) to bench 3d than he shouldn't be able to become number one in any overclocking leage - my opinion! Maybe that's the case anyway but you can reach higher ranks doing 2d without 3d than vice versa.

 

 

 

Now I come back to the highlighted text again.

 

You say that you need a very good 2d setup to compete in 3d. And because of this fact lots of 3d-benchmarkers also compete in 2d. In my opinion thats not the case. I think at least some do so because without points from 2d they are not be able to hold their position in ranking.

 

As I said earlier in this thread: If you have a great 2d-setup than it is very easy to earn 3d-points. Just put in a 970 or 980 and you will get decent scores in AM3, 2k1, 2k5 and perhaps 2k6. For these benchmarks you don't need a 3-ghz-Titan X. Of course you won't reach a global first place or a wr - but you will be awarded with a decent amount of points. No zombi-modding and ln2-cooling needed. Just put in a stock relativly "cheap" air cooled card and you can achieve some good points in 3d.

 

Now tell me in which 2d-benchmarks someone can compete with a 3-ghz-Titan X? There is none. On the other side I (and steponz) already gave examples where a 2d-overclocker can compete really easy in some specific 3d-benchmarks.

 

You can compensate a mediocre cpu in 3d-benchmarks with a good vga and some skill up to a certain point. So a great cpu isn't mandatory in some benchmarks (unlike you stated). Now take this mediocre cpu for 2d-benchmarks - how much points will you be awarded with in 2d-benchmarks? I am sure that you won't get much points for this...

 

 

 

To sum things up I think you're looking to the issue from a wrong perspective. No offense here, just my opinion.

 

 

 

Lots of the "drama" here has to do with XTU. I just realized (never thought about it) that we talk about a benchmark awarded with points where only hardware of one single manufacturer can compete. All other awarded benchmarks can be used on AMD and Intel. That's not ideal (to say it frankly)... And as a side note the benchmark don't work on every Intel-cpu. I tried it on my Xeon E5-1680V2 (S2011, Ive-Bridge-E-Core) but all it said was that no supported hardware was found.

 

To put it in simple words: Only Intel decides which hardware gets hwboints. Is that the right way?!

[steponz]

Wrong.

GPUPi.

 

 

lol.. 1 benchmark

[steponz]

Challenge accepted

 

wanna bet... lol

[Mr.Scott]

lol.. 1 benchmark

2 actually, but that wasn't the point. The point was that there was more than the stated "none".

Now my turn. How many 3D benchers actually take advantage of that bench to gain at least a few 2D points. NONE.

That tells me that 3D benchers only want to bench 3D yet want to reap the points of both 2D and 3D by just artificially inflating the amount of 3D points available, to keep them in contention without having to bench any 2D at all. You cry that you don't get enough points, yet you don't take advantage of the points already available to you. How does that support your argument ?

Edited January 9, 2016 by Mr.Scott

[Guest cowgut]

I don't think its fair to punish a highly popular 2d bench in any way ,to submit scores that's what hwbot is there for and that's what people do.

not to forget those 2d benches are free

us 3d benchers can go pound sand if we don't like to see it on the front page

I am just waiting for a NVidia gameworks benchmark,maybe they could put it in the box of the cards they sell just to balance it out and give 3d a bone and a boost.

not crying just saying waiting and hoping

oh and on the record I don't want any free points at all the 2d benches are right there its no problem if I wanted to run them

I just don't want a 2d vs 3d war jajajajaja that is unless it's a new freaking benchmark

Edited January 9, 2016 by cowgut

[steponz]

Already turned out that way since people don't want to see anything happen with 3d.. and it's pretty funny that the people that are complaining about it don't do 3d. No matter why they dont.. I think it's bs. It's been proven they're complaining it's too expensive yet.. all ya need is a good 2d setup to run most of the 3d setups.. yet they till don't do it... sounds like they are a bit scared or lack of skill is why...