How to fix the rankings :)

[ObscureParadox_3XS]

8 Pages in. Time for a rationalisation.

 

What are we discussing, what's the problem?

 

Stuff and things

[Strong Island]

8 Pages in. Time for a rationalisation.

 

What are we discussing, what's the problem?

 

it's not necessarily a problem I dont think. We are trying to think of ways to improve gpu benching. And to make it more like cpu benching is now. Where you can get globals with a 2 core cpu.

 

I dont have the perfect answer but I think it's a good discussion.

 

Like Rauf said, it is very appealing to think if we had a gpu equivalent of a 2 or 4 core cpu class in gpu benching. It's something we really need.

[K404]

 

The thing is, it's a duopoly. AMD started the overpricing shenanigans with original Athlon FX and it's a pattern that's been followed on and off since. I guess arguably Asus started it on GPUs with ares/mars? But anyway, back in the days of 'small chip' with the 4870 and 5870 prices were reasonable enough even though amd weren't at all competitive for the high end, more recently with the 600 and 7000 series amd were if anything slightly ahead (in the market, say what you will about unreleased big kepler but that's not the point) but prices climbed noticeably. To be fair there's also an element of silicon just getting more expensive. So, overall, the distortion isn't AMD's fault and AMD having faster products won't magically bring the high end and therefore globals down to $200-300.

 

I'm still checking old CPU pricing, but a lot of this is inaccurate.

 

Asus didn't start anything with Mars (came first) nVidia launched a 6800 Ultra 512MB for... IIRC, almost £600 back in the day, followed by a 7800GTX 512MB at equally silly money (for the time) A good £250 premium just for extra GDDR.

 

ATI had the XT PE- a bump of a few MHz in clockspeed with a big price hike.

 

The 5870 was a top-end GPU for ~6 months because nVidia made a total mess of Fermi-4. Demand FAR outstripped supply and retailers gouged the prices.

 

As I said previously, the demographic was spoiled rotten that standard, new-launch top-end GPUs stayed at £400 for so long.

[K404]

it's not necessarily a problem I dont think. We are trying to think of ways to improve gpu benching. And to make it more like cpu benching is now. Where you can get globals with a 2 core cpu.

 

I dont have the perfect answer but I think it's a good discussion.

 

Like Rauf said, it is very appealing to think if we had a gpu equivalent of a 2 or 4 core cpu class in gpu benching. It's something we really need.

 

 

But if there's no problem, nothing needs changed.

 

What do people want? Serious question. A perceived path to the top without spending much money? The folk with pockets will bin more cards or solder more e-Powers to them. There will still be a tiering system.

 

 

 

Completely opposite approach:

 

Accept that something is too expensive. Don't buy it. Stay within financial means. Find a new way to have fun. I'm not mad that I can't compete in F1, or go up against NBA teams.

 

 

 

Splitting cards up unofficially by high-end/mid-range/low-end sounds great to me, but trying to spin a leaderboard so that a Ford can beat a Maserati and make the Ford owner feel better about their bank account is NOT going to work. The $1M supercar is still a bigger deal in a GLOBAL leaderboard.

 

Global. Without conditions! We're lucky that it's split by number of GPUs and that X2 cards are classed as two cards.

Edited August 22, 2016 by K404

[Strong Island]

But if there's no problem, nothing needs changed.

 

What do people want? Serious question. A perceived path to the top without spending much money? The folk with pockets will bin more cards or solder more e-Powers to them. There will still be a tiering system.

 

 

 

Completely opposite approach:

 

Accept that something is too expensive. Don't buy it. Stay within financial means. Find a new way to have fun. I'm not mad that I can't compete in F1, or go up against NBA teams.

 

 

 

Splitting cards up unofficially by high-end/mid-range/low-end sounds great to me, but trying to spin a leaderboard so that a Ford can beat a Maserati and make the Ford owner feel better about their bank account is NOT going to work. The $1M supercar is still a bigger deal in a GLOBAL leaderboard.

 

Global. Without conditions! We're lucky that it's split by number of GPUs and that X2 cards are classed as two cards.

 

I do understand what your saying. I have finally accepted that I can't afford the best of the best and to start trying to have fun in other way, like cheapaz chips and division 3.

 

But I still think it would be fun to bench cheaper cards for globals, no matter how it's done.

[K404]

None of "these" global scores will matter in 6 months and assorted vendors will be trying to convince us to spend more money on new incremental performance...and that won't matter in a further 6 months either.

 

Once points don't matter to you, it's like transcendence All that exists is/are rankings and silverware vs the means to get them.

 

Cheap GPUs don't "do" global unless it's a CPU-bound benchmark... what you're asking for doesn't exist

 

(Most of my last post wasn't aimed at you ,BTW. Completely generic set of comments, you just happened to be quoted)

[Strong Island]

None of "these" global scores will matter in 6 months and assorted vendors will be trying to convince us to spend more money on new incremental performance...and that won't matter in a further 6 months either.

 

Once points don't matter to you, it's like transcendence All that exists is/are rankings and silverware vs the means to get them.

 

Cheap GPUs don't "do" global unless it's a CPU-bound benchmark... what you're asking for doesn't exist

 

(Most of my last post wasn't aimed at you ,BTW. Completely generic set of comments, you just happened to be quoted)

 

 

it's cool, I understand.

[ObscureParadox_3XS]

Whats wrong with simply getting more competitions together so that you can bench them for HWPoints and have a competitive competition for that card.

 

Honestly this is starting to remind me of the same old issue with all of these threads. "I want more points but am not willing to pay for it". Unfortunately almost no competitive system works like that anymore.

 

You guys need to decide if points or fun is more important to you and then go about pursuing that.

 

If we start to hand out global points willy nilly then we'll have another XTU situation on our hands. At the wnd of the day the way I see it is that globals are rewarded for the very best scores from the very best platforms, if we start turning away from this then we start to lose touch with why they were there in the first place.

[Strong Island]

Whats wrong with simply getting more competitions together so that you can bench them for HWPoints and have a competitive competition for that card.

 

Honestly this is starting to remind me of the same old issue with all of these threads. "I want more points but am not willing to pay for it". Unfortunately almost no competitive system works like that anymore.

 

You guys need to decide if points or fun is more important to you and then go about pursuing that.

 

If we start to hand out global points willy nilly then we'll have another XTU situation on our hands. At the wnd of the day the way I see it is that globals are rewarded for the very best scores from the very best platforms, if we start turning away from this then we start to lose touch with why they were there in the first place.

 

But cpu overclocking doesnt work this way. I mean you can get globals right now with a $100 core i3 6100.

 

If cpu overclocking was the same as gpu overclocking is, then the 6950x would be the only chance for global points.

 

This just doesnt make sense. If it was the other way around everyone would think it was crazy.

 

I think we really need a gpu equivalent of a 6100 or 6700k.

 

I do agree with the competition part. That's why I am making sure to submit to cheapaz chips and division 3, using a 710 and 580. I think we have some really cool cost effective things happening with ocesports platform. I think it's going in a good direction and hopefully grows a bit more.

[Mr.Scott]

Whats wrong with simply getting more competitions together so that you can bench them for HWPoints and have a competitive competition for that card.

 

Honestly this is starting to remind me of the same old issue with all of these threads. "I want more points but am not willing to pay for it". Unfortunately almost no competitive system works like that anymore.

 

You guys need to decide if points or fun is more important to you and then go about pursuing that.

 

If we start to hand out global points willy nilly then we'll have another XTU situation on our hands. At the wnd of the day the way I see it is that globals are rewarded for the very best scores from the very best platforms, if we start turning away from this then we start to lose touch with why they were there in the first place.

 

Amen.

Keep it fun. :celebration:

[K404]

The separation of CPUs and GPUs isn't the same. Apples: donkeys. For some CPU sub-classifications, there is only one option for a good "global" score, so it's a second set of hardware points for the CPU

 

There *are* still all-out WR points for CPU benches, though? I'm surprised more people don't complain about them going to 4P/8P systems

 

I know why some people have suggested separating by ROPs (etc) but for anyone to care outside of benching (or understand,) there needs to be an education first.

 

Even the CPU count can confuse people.... and it's the simplest thing to divide classes by

 

 

Yea, it's a Dual-core CPU (world record,) but Hyper-Threading is allowed.

What's Hyper-Threading?

It's like another core for each physical core in the CPU, but it's done in logic.

I don't understand that, but you mean it's a 4-core CPU?

In some senses, yea.

But it's in a dual-core ranking?

Yup.

 

 

If only nVidia and AMD put more emphasis on PCI-E bandwidth! The x1/x4/x8 could be a good divider!

 

If only....

Edited August 22, 2016 by K404

[ObscureParadox_3XS]

Please no Kenny, I don't want to be dividing by ROPs and PCI-E lanes Or we'll have GT 710 X4 in a separate category to GT 710 X16 etc etc where does it stop

 

ROPs thing I'm not overly keen on either, not exactly apples to apples comparison again since different platforms have different performance per ROP, AMD does different things to Nvidia etc etc. It's a nice idea I just don't see it being possible to implement in a way where everyone is happy.

 

All the same what am I talking about, you'll never please everyone no matter what

[buildzoid]

Ok so from what I'm seeing so far the main complaint is that giving low-mid range GPUs globals is that it would make globals not "special" enough. So lets just make a GPU class system and give them class points. It would make the low to mid range worth benching for points and wouldn't make globals any less "special".

 

The way I see it the points exist to make people compete. However you'd have to be blind to think that the mid range GPUs are competitive(not talking points wise I'm talking just the number of submissions on them) and that's almost entirely because they aren't worth benching point wise for anyone and lets face it most of you apparently care enough about points to whine about every time one of these threads pop up.

 

As of right now mid range isn't competitive. Most of these cards have less than a hundred subs(wow so many competitors /s) and if you want to talk about benching them you are greeted with silence because surprise surprise no one cares about them cause they don't have points. Giving them some actual value would very quickly change this.

 

 

Personally I've decided to just not bother with points after I get myself a semi respectable ranking by grinding out HWpoints on old stuff using the 5960X and 4790K and after that I will just bench whatever GPU looks the most interesting to me. That's why I went and poured 20L of LN2 on my RX 480 and 4790K submitted exactly 0 scores from that session and didn't feel bad about it(actually felt really great about it except for the part where all the scores were crap).

Edited August 23, 2016 by buildzoid

[K404]

Please no Kenny, I don't want to be dividing by ROPs and PCI-E lanes Or we'll have GT 710 X4 in a separate category to GT 710 X16 etc etc where does it stop

 

Oh hell no! I didn't mean BOTH!

[Rauf]

Splitting cards up unofficially by high-end/mid-range/low-end sounds great to me, but trying to spin a leaderboard so that a Ford can beat a Maserati and make the Ford owner feel better about their bank account is NOT going to work. The $1M supercar is still a bigger deal in a GLOBAL leaderboard.

Not going to work you say...ok, let's look at CPU leaderboards. Highest points goes to 4core CPUs. By far the most popular and loved category. But surely it doesn't work... It would be much better if all benchmarks would be ranked vs 96core xeons. That would be great for hwbot!

[Rauf]

Don't get me wrong guys, I would love to see a system that's better for overall fair/cheaper OC fun. But I don't believe a complete reshuffle of the ranking system like the ones mentioned is the way forward.

 

Also with reagrds to the Higher catagory not necesserily giving a lot of points, you have to remember that older cards like the original titan and a few other super high cost cards will make it in there. Also then do we decide that we will seperate kingpin cards from base models since their price is significantly higher.

 

Please don't mistake my thoughts as simply bashing others ideas to keep the status quo, I just want a fully thought out and easy to understand system that will work in the long term so we're not constantly forced to update the system every 5 or so years. I absolutely appreciate that you guys are trying to come up with ideas to improve on what we have but I don't see anything here thus far which I believe we can advance on to make into the next platform.

 

This is what bugs me the most about the hwbot community. Most of the people involved with the site as mods or senior members just want everything to stay the way it is now. If someone makes a suggestion they all say it can't be done, or it will not work and comes up with arguments that would kill 50% of the benchmarks we have today if that argument were to be applied to those benchmarks as well.

 

You say it won't work but have no real arguments as to why it won't work. And you also have the stomach to say that we should think things through before suggesting something. You don't think your own arguments through when you say it won't work. You don't even present any arguments.

 

Or maybe the fact that some vendor may price their product a little bit higher than ref. cards is such a terrible obstacle that can't be overcome? It is of course MSRP that should count if hwbot decides to implement that idea...

[mickulty]

Quotes are from K404s earier comment but I ended up with quite a long comment addressing arguments I've seen all over the thread, having seen the post elsewhere about email notifications I've removed the link back to the comment I'm quoting.

 

Completely opposite approach:

 

Accept that something is too expensive. Don't buy it. Stay within financial means. Find a new way to have fun. I'm not mad that I can't compete in F1, or go up against NBA teams.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here - I would assume it's not that you want ranked overclocking to be F1/NBA levels of expensive and inaccessible? If you're thinking people should just put up the current system and work around it maybe you should check the subforum title, it's not like anyone is going on strike here, it's a suggestion that a fair number of people think could improve hwbot.

 

Splitting cards up unofficially by high-end/mid-range/low-end sounds great to me, but trying to spin a leaderboard so that a Ford can beat a Maserati and make the Ford owner feel better about their bank account is NOT going to work. The $1M supercar is still a bigger deal in a GLOBAL leaderboard.

 

Global. Without conditions! We're lucky that it's split by number of GPUs and that X2 cards are classed as two cards.

 

WR points are the ones that are without conditions. Global points are not without conditions, on the 2D side they're split by cores and it works pretty well (i5s get a bit screwed but as far as I can tell there isn't a good solution to that). Wprime 1024M, for example, has global points for 31 different categories depending on the class of hardware being used as determined by number of CPU cores! How can you possibly look at that and say "nope, global means global, titan should compete against a 710"? It's absurd and I'm honestly flabbergasted that anyone is defending the current situation.

 

It's not about trying to make a midrange card beat a titan, in fact as I said earlier I think it'd be good to see any changes come alongside an expansion of 3D WR points to keep cards like the Titan XP relevant. It might also be sensible to delay any changes until the next hardware cycle to avoid screwing over anyone who's bought a titan this time around. It's about trying to make 3D globals as inclusive as 2D globals are. The target here is something as close as possible to the system that already exists and is working just fine on the 2D side.

 

Something I should probably add is, I don't think it's likely I'd benefit personally from any of these changes (at least in terms of points, if they mean we get better oc-focused midrange kit that'd be awesome). As much as I love working with GPUs 15 good subs with 1C and 3C CPUs, maybe 2C as well, seem much more achievable than a bunch of 3D globals. The group I do think it would benefit are new members who are just finding out about competitive overclocking and want to have a go at something with their i5 4460+R9 380 gaming rig. Unlike certain other rather vitriolic individuals (and btw, I have yet to bench XTU at all, I certainly didn't come here through it) I think it'd be great to get more people interested and involved. OC-esports is a big part of that and is really helpful but it's still a problem when however much work someone has put in, however much they've learnt and applied, however well they've modded their card, the hwboints engine just tells them "lol, nice score, here's your two hardware points". For a lot of people that's gonna be pretty demotivating. I happened to already have a huge (by non-ocer standards, it wasn't measured in kg) collection of old hardware for no good reason so for me it was more like "wow, 0.4 points, if I keep this up then with all the hardware points from the hundreds of subs I plan to make I'll be top of rookie league within a couple of months!" (I hadn't figured out how the rankings actually worked at the time, but still). I am the exception, most people with potential won't find themselves in that position.

 

An expansion of oc-esports could help a lot but I gather it's not easy to set up and run competitions so it'd be nice if there was a solution that didn't involve constant extra pressure on staff who already work extremely hard.

 

To be honest at the end of the day the current system for 3D globals is clearly indefensible - we can tell this because none of the people who have come here to defend it have given any reason why it's better than the alternatives suggested. There hasn't been a single argument put forward that would be applicable if the question was whether we should move from a ROP-based system to a per-card system (well, ok, one - ROPs are bit technical. But I'm confident a single explanatory page with a table could overcome that). It's all been "that's just the way it is", "points shouldn't matter anyway" (ok, so let's get rid of them?), "yeah but OC-Esports" (oc-esports does soften the blow of an imperfect system but doesn't make it less imperfect) and the like. And a few people have pointed out that there would be imperfect quirks like the Fury X for an ROP-based system and the 980Ti being with 980s in an MSRP-based system, both of which are true and a better alternative would be nice if possible but it's a bit like refusing to stop drowning because the seat in the life raft is a bit damp.

[Mr.Scott]

 

 

 

 

 

Something I should probably add is, I don't think it's likely I'd benefit personally from any of these changes (at least in terms of points, if they mean we get better oc-focused midrange kit that'd be awesome). As much as I love working with GPUs 15 good subs with 1C and 3C CPUs, maybe 2C as well, seem much more achievable than a bunch of 3D globals. The group I do think it would benefit are new members who are just finding out about competitive overclocking and want to have a go at something with their i5 4460+R9 380 gaming rig. Unlike certain other rather vitriolic individuals (and btw, I have yet to bench XTU at all, I certainly didn't come here through it) I think it'd be great to get more people interested and involved. OC-esports is a big part of that and is really helpful but it's still a problem when however much work someone has put in, however much they've learnt and applied, however well they've modded their card, the hwboints engine just tells them "lol, nice score, here's your two hardware points". For a lot of people that's gonna be pretty demotivating. I happened to already have a huge (by non-ocer standards, it wasn't measured in kg) collection of old hardware for no good reason so for me it was more like "wow, 0.4 points, if I keep this up then with all the hardware points from the hundreds of subs I plan to make I'll be top of rookie league within a couple of months!" (I hadn't figured out how the rankings actually worked at the time, but still). I am the exception, most people with potential won't find themselves in that position.

 

With all due respect, you've been here what, a month? While I appreciate your enthusiasm, you're wasting your time trying to re-invent the wheel here.

 

BTW, don't underestimate the power of the 2 pointers. The #1 team in the world is built on them and old hardware, so don't say it's impossible or not worth it. Worth is what you put into it, not what you have.

Keep it fun and affordable to you. You'll enjoy the hobby more.

Don't worry about those stinkin worthless points.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Mr.Scott

[mickulty]

With all due respect, you've been here what, a month? While I appreciate your enthusiasm, you're wasting your time trying to re-invent the wheel here.

 

I did kinda wonder how long it'd take for someone to mention that I've only been on hwbot for just over 3 months. My response is simple - I didn't start this thread. If I have a reasoned - I like to think well-reasoned - suggestion to add when it's other people who have been here plenty long enough to be allowed an opinion who think change is needed, then I'm not just gonna sit on it. I also like to think that I'm in a reasonably good position to offer a perspective on what would be good for engagement having been through the entire noob progression from 0.1 points with a radeon 9200 to #1 rookie league very recently.

 

BTW, don't underestimate the power of the 2 pointers. The #1 team in the world is built on them and old hardware, so don't say it's impossible or not worth it. Worth is what you put into it, not what you have.

Keep it fun and affordable to you. You'll enjoy the hobby more.

Don't worry about those stinkin worthless points.

 

Believe me, I do keep it fun For me it's cups and achievement hunting - got the achievement for 50 gold cups a couple of days ago, next on the menu is 1000 points contributed to the team. It's also fun to run the odd benchmark that not many others are silly enough to run on that configuration.

 

But there's a big difference between 2 points for reference clock on an Asus IMISR-VM out of an OEM mini pc that cost £10 and 2 points for your $250 graphics card. If someone with a typical gaming pc build comes and posts on /r/overclocking asking for advice on how to do better on hwbot I want to be telling them about the value of a clean OS, tightening ram timings and if/how they can safely get higher clocks - not telling them they need a different GPU or giving them a motivational speech about benching for fun. OC-esports do help and team /r/overclocking did gain a couple of members after I asked on their generic help/'look at my oc' posts if they'd be interested in helping us out with the team cup, but they don't change the fact that the way 3D globals work is rather silly especially next to 2D globals.

 

And as ever, if points are worthless then who cares if the way 3D globals are categorised changes, right?

[K404]

@Rauf and @miculty have both made a similar point about CPU divisions that I basically hadn't thought of and their point ties in to something 'zoid said....so yea, there are definitely holes in my logic

 

Not going to work you say...ok, let's look at CPU leaderboards. Highest points goes to 4core CPUs. By far the most popular and loved category. But surely it doesn't work... It would be much better if all benchmarks would be ranked vs 96core xeons. That would be great for hwbot!

 

Glossing over the sarcasm (which obviously I have to accept, seeing as I dish it out as well)

...this is 100% true! I do sometimes about about "which came first" but the end result is undeniable.... lower-end stuff gets benched in volume and brings out the competitive side in participants.

 

"But" it's points that generated a disproportionate % of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"How can you possibly look at that and say "nope, global means global, titan should compete against a 710"? It's absurd and I'm honestly flabbergasted that anyone is defending the current situation."

 

Globally, yes... it should. That's been the situation since global leaderboards were started. I'm not going to pick this comment apart, you didn't mean for it to be interpreted like this?

 

 

 

It's not about trying to make a midrange card beat a titan, in fact as I said earlier I think it'd be good to see any changes come alongside an expansion of 3D WR points to keep cards like the Titan XP relevant.

 

Which definition of "beat?" All the points, none of the pricetag?

 

 

 

WR points and global points aren't the same. WR points are basically a workaround to compensate for how few benchers run 4-way GPUs. All the time, effort, binning*, skillset and, yes, cost... for a 2-point hardware gold. WR points rewarded the best score in the benchmark, the only limitation being "follow the rules."

 

*There was a time, I don't know if it still happens, where a CPU might not work properly with 4-way GPU connected.

 

 

Look again at a benchmark leaderboard.... the best scores for a benchmark with X number of cards. That is the condition. There is no space for a mid-range card in there. Globals MUST be defended if benching is to be taken seriously.

 

I'm VERY ok with adding GPU classes but to try to undermine the high-end, regardless of how much it costs... is a total nonsense.

 

 

 

I would like to see more rules added for a users global ranking. At the moment, I believe its psosible to be league No.1 without any high-end scores, without any GPU contribution.

 

OR....at least have some way of filtering the rankings for 2D masters and 3D masters. (both in league, globally and for Hardware Masters)

Edited August 24, 2016 by K404

[Rauf]

With all due respect, you've been here what, a month? While I appreciate your enthusiasm, you're wasting your time trying to re-invent the wheel here.

 

BTW, don't underestimate the power of the 2 pointers. The #1 team in the world is built on them and old hardware, so don't say it's impossible or not worth it. Worth is what you put into it, not what you have.

Keep it fun and affordable to you. You'll enjoy the hobby more.

Don't worry about those stinkin worthless points.

Another "I wan't everything to stay the way it is" post without any valid arguments...

 

And also another "just do what is fun". It's an argument that is meant to disarm any idea of improvement in a way that puts blame on the other person because he will feel like he is stealing the fun away from others. What you do not consider is that many people want something more. By refusing all changes YOU take the fun part away from those people. "Just do what is fun" is not a valid argument. It's an argument for those who do not care.

 

Also, I think we should listen more to the new people around here. Being disrespectful to someone and making him feel like his thoughts do not matter just because he is new (once again without any argument other than you're new, so you're wrong) is not the right thing to do in my book. But I also feel that this stale old community needs to listen to newcomers because they are the future, and they have an open mind as to how things should work. A mind that is not clouded by how things always have been, or that sees only problems with every change.

[GeorgeStorm]

Globally, yes... it should. That's been the situation since global leaderboards were started. I'm not going to pick this comment apart, you didn't mean for it to be interpreted like this?

 

So what's your opinion of splitting CPUs by cores for globals?

Cant help but think that's a similar situation?

[K404]

I'm ok with it because it's effortlessly easy. Not *all* CPU benches are split either, so there is still some "old-school" approach too.

 

"BUT" ... the CPU divisions have essentially done away with "global." There is class and there is WR....which can be interpreted as global.

 

 

To re-iterate a point, though... i'm sometimes surprised that people aren't mad about mental Xeon setups taking most of the WR points.... are people ok with it because they already have a path to avoid going up against them?

 

 

There's an idea (probably obvious) ... whatever is decided....trial run in just a couple of benchmarks?

Edited August 24, 2016 by K404

[Rauf]

To re-iterate a point, though... i'm sometimes surprised that people aren't mad about mental Xeon setups taking most of the WR points.... are people ok with it because they already have a path to avoid going up against them?

Of course it's stupid. I would say remove all WR points, CPU and GPU alike. It's too much about free win by emptying your pockets, or benching on hw borrowed from your work. But WR points are only accessible to like 1% of the users anyway. So I guess most don't see them as a problem that affects them.

[mickulty]

I'm just gonna skip all the stuff that re-iterates the current system as an argument for its persistence.

 

I'm VERY ok with adding GPU classes but to try to undermine the high-end, regardless of how much it costs... is a total nonsense.

 

I'm not clear what you think is trying to 'undermine' the high end, unless you mean 'make it so people aren't forced to buy it'. I'd definitely rather not see a situation where no-one has a reason to bother benching titans, any more than I want to see a continuation of a situation where no-one has a reason to bother benching 380s.

 

I would like to see more rules added for a users global ranking. At the moment, I believe its psosible to be league No.1 without any high-end scores, without any GPU contribution.

 

OR....at least have some way of filtering the rankings for 2D masters and 3D masters. (both in league, globally and for Hardware Masters)

 

I dunno about forcing high-end scores but something making sure people have to be reasonably versatile to do really well would be good to see - maybe top 5 2D, top 5 3D and top 5 either rather than top 15? It is a bit silly when people can hit the top of rookie league just off the back of having a good 6700k.

 

To re-iterate a point, though... i'm sometimes surprised that people aren't mad about mental Xeon setups taking most of the WR points.... are people ok with it because they already have a path to avoid going up against them?

 

Of course it's stupid. I would say remove all WR points, CPU and GPU alike. It's too much about free win by emptying your pockets, or benching on hw borrowed from your work. But WR points are only accessible to like 1% of the users anyway. So I guess most don't see them as a problem that affects them.

 

I wouldn't want to see WR points gone, it's awesome to see the ridiculously high scores people like Slinky and DJ post and I don't expect them to participate purely for motivational speeches any more than I expect noobs to. They do make it possible to 'buy' points to a certain extent but it's not something I've noticed in rookie or novice leagues (I'd be surprised if someone was willing to buy a ridiculous multi-titan/xeon setup but not play with sub-zero and go apprentice or extreme) so I don't think it's really a problem for newcomers - and once people have got properly into benching they can start picking up older hardware for good hw points, pick the accessible globals, and generally find ways around it. Probably also helps that not everything scales with cores?

 

There's an idea (probably obvious) ... whatever is decided....trial run in just a couple of benchmarks?

 

That'd be sensible. Hopefully it'd also mean something can definitely be tried without people howling bloody murder over the prospect of any change.