HWBOT 2020 Make it great again Thread:

[Guest hammertone]

10 hours ago, unityofsaints said:

90% of HWBot users are inactive

Incorrect. That many ambient members submitted scores in January.

You write but cannot read ?

Enthusiast league (327 participants)
Novice league (143 participants)
Rookie league (1146 participants)

 

[Papusan]

1 hour ago, hammertone said:

Incorrect. That many ambient members submitted scores in January.

You write but cannot read ?

Enthusiast league (327 participants)
Novice league (143 participants)
Rookie league (1146 participants)

 

Most from the rookie league post a single run XTU 2.0 or (old XTU). And many will only do that single run. Maybe 2 or 3 more later. But alll will be XTU benches.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Papusan

[TAGG]

Can we get frontpage tab for HW points? buffed globals drown HW firstplaces even if they are 70 pts...

[unityofsaints]

9 minutes ago, TAGG said:

Can we get frontpage tab for HW points? buffed globals drown HW firstplaces even if they are 70 pts...

Or maybe just display 5 of each?

[alexmaj467]

The new system does not work everywhere. LESS THAN 125 

https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_940&cores=1#start=0#interval=20

https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_937&cores=1#start=0#interval=20

1 rank = 50 pts  -  last rank 200 = 25pts

https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_2128&cores=2#start=0#interval=20

We need a new recalculation for everything. These are just the first 3 out of 5 examples that come across.

But

In general, the scheme does not work well with different groups of processors, not to mention Video cards.

I will give some examples.

Q6600 It has a maximum increase from the nominal value of +120%. For him, the stop ranking on the 287 result is a +- logical thing. Ideally for beginners 350 rank

https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_919&cores=4#start=0#interval=20

But Phenom II 2x 555 It also has a maximum of 120% to the nominal value. Following his rating in favor of beginners, you can put a maximum of 200 ranks.

https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_2128&cores=2#start=0#interval=20

Celeron 430  It has a maximum increase from the nominal value of +180%. It is logical for him to stop the rank at 140 for beginners.

https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_1414&cores=1#start=0#interval=20

 

I do not know if you will understand me, a simple tip, I am not a coder. You need to consult with the coder whether the following scheme is possible.

1. You need to break all the hardware into 6 categories, depending on the maximum acceleration from the rated frequency. (I think there will be some to help who can share sockets among themselves and view each of their own.)

2. For each group of this iron. Make your own calculation scheme. All points in it will also be predefined (like your new one) But it should be rubber not by the number of results 287, but by % of the maximum acceleration.

3. Put the maximum % for each category with a margin, so as not to recalculate it every time, increase it only in case of global changes.

4. Make a category 7, throw everything new and unknown into it. And as you study, transfer it to the category that is more suitable.

It may be complicated and incomprehensible, but it will solve the issue once and for all.

[Mr.Scott]

1 hour ago, alexmaj467 said:

 

It may be complicated and incomprehensible, 

But this is what the problem was before the change. That's why it was changed.

[yosarianilives]

3 hours ago, alexmaj467 said:

The new system does not work everywhere. LESS THAN 125 

https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_940&cores=1#start=0#interval=20

https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_937&cores=1#start=0#interval=20

1 rank = 50 pts  -  last rank 200 = 25pts

https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_2128&cores=2#start=0#interval=20

We need a new recalculation for everything. These are just the first 3 out of 5 examples that come across.

But

In general, the scheme does not work well with different groups of processors, not to mention Video cards.

I will give some examples.

Q6600 It has a maximum increase from the nominal value of +120%. For him, the stop ranking on the 287 result is a +- logical thing. Ideally for beginners 350 rank

https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_919&cores=4#start=0#interval=20

But Phenom II 2x 555 It also has a maximum of 120% to the nominal value. Following his rating in favor of beginners, you can put a maximum of 200 ranks.

https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_2128&cores=2#start=0#interval=20

Celeron 430  It has a maximum increase from the nominal value of +180%. It is logical for him to stop the rank at 140 for beginners.

https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_1414&cores=1#start=0#interval=20

 

I do not know if you will understand me, a simple tip, I am not a coder. You need to consult with the coder whether the following scheme is possible.

1. You need to break all the hardware into 6 categories, depending on the maximum acceleration from the rated frequency. (I think there will be some to help who can share sockets among themselves and view each of their own.)

2. For each group of this iron. Make your own calculation scheme. All points in it will also be predefined (like your new one) But it should be rubber not by the number of results 287, but by % of the maximum acceleration.

3. Put the maximum % for each category with a margin, so as not to recalculate it every time, increase it only in case of global changes.

4. Make a category 7, throw everything new and unknown into it. And as you study, transfer it to the category that is more suitable.

It may be complicated and incomprehensible, but it will solve the issue once and for all.

How about, and here me out on this cause it might sound crazy. But how about we make pts be based on your ranking vs other people, and use a fixed points curve? Sounds pretty crazy so idk if the community will like it

[Guest hammertone]

7 hours ago, Papusan said:

Most from the rookie league post a single run XTU 2.0 or (old XTU). And many will only do that single run. Maybe 2 or 3 more later. But alll will be XTU benches.

You miss the point totally of attracting new members

Front page is biggest scores of the day. Many of the rookies do not make the cut with their scores.

Something for them then? See they do good.

[Matsglobetrotter]

12 hours ago, Papusan said:

Most from the rookie league post a single run XTU 2.0 or (old XTU). And many will only do that single run. Maybe 2 or 3 more later. But alll will be XTU benches.

XTU through intel is the most likely source where new users might come in to hwbot and yes many will only make 1 or two subs on that bench.. however if they try another bench and saw .1 points on whatever they tried that means it kills the interest by default. now with the new scoring this will improve. when i started we had the rookie league competition that automatically could help trigger further interest.  you can lead a horse to water but not make it drink unless it wants to .. but if the well is dry then why lead the horse in the first place. a little bit of encouragement will surely help at that particular stage. If then all who do oc videos also clearly show their scores related to Hwbot regularly the combination can drive interest. 

[alexmaj467]

11 hours ago, Mr.Scott said:

But this is what the problem was before the change. That's why it was changed.

How about adding stop points of rank. Based on the old system, but without making a recalculation every time the result is filled in.

A rank where less than 7 results listens to the table LESS THAN 7 is good.

A rank where less than 25 results listens to the table LESS THAN 25 is good.

A rank where less than 60 results listens to the table LESS THAN 60 is good.

A rank where less than 125 results listens to the table LESS THAN 125 is good.

A rank where more than 125 results listens to the table MORE THAN 125 It's not always good.

How about adding a point 150. At this point, it checks which table to use next.

if rank 125 < = (1 place - 30% or 25% as in the old system or whatever you want.) Then a table is connected in which the calculation is based on the fact that 125 rank is a stop rank.

else rank 125 > (1 place - 30% or 25% as in the old system or whatever you want.) Then a table is connected in which the calculation is based on the fact that 220 rank is a stop rank.

Adding a point 220. At this point, it checks which table to use next.

if rank 175 < = (1 place - 30% or 25% as in the old system or whatever you want.) Then a table is connected in which the calculation is based on the fact that 175 rank is a stop rank.

else rank 175 > (1 place - 30% or 25% as in the old system or whatever you want.) Then a table is connected in which the calculation is based on the fact that 300 rank is a stop rank. 

Perhaps a few more points in the same style.

 

The category that stopped at 125 rank, after 150 results, after adding 50 results on that Nitrogen at the beginning and 20 results at the end. It will be re-checked when 220 results are reached. And it can be opened until the next check, I already use the stop 300 calculation table.

 

 

 

[Leeghoofd]

8 hours ago, alexmaj467 said:

How about adding stop points of rank. Based on the old system, but without making a recalculation every time the result is filled in.

A rank where less than 7 results listens to the table LESS THAN 7 is good.

....

at Nitrogen at the beginning and 20 results at the end. It will be re-checked when 220 results are reached. And it can be opened until the next check, I already use the stop 300 calculation table.

We will implement this tomorrow

Lower globals, complete overhaul , added 3 additonal thresholds at 50 subs (75-125-175-225)
Hardware points 2 thresholds moved from 125 to 177 and one extra added.

 

tryoutpointsHWBOT.xlsx

[MaddMutt]

On 2/2/2022 at 8:37 AM, Leeghoofd said:

Crosshair VII is edited, though I don't find evga 280-290x subs, pm with the links

^ I can't find the link BUT it's listed in on my Hardware Page and I can't get ride of it ? The BAD part is I know I submitted it this way ?

WAY BACK when I first started, I did not properly fill out the submission forms. In my hardware library (which is a mess) I have 9 Different AMD R9-280x listed. I listed some of the specific's of the card on some and not on the others. I do not wish to remove any submissions but instead properly tag/identify what was submitted. This would show that - YES - all cards by HIS R9-280x (34 subs) where the Ice Q X Turbo version

I look under the hardware tab and wish to edit. I choose the column at the end of EVGA R9-280x Classified (with x amount of submissions for it). This takes me to a page that lists ONLY the Top 20 (by alphabet) submissions by me of the R9-280x. At the bottom of the page it says this is a list from 0-20 and has a back and forward arrows. This makes it look like you can also view list 21-40, 41-60, Ect. You click the forward arrow and you get a blank page that says - No submissions found?

 

[cbjaust]

@MaddMutt when you get to the page linked from the number of submissions from your hardware page edit the url and append "&limit=x" where x is a number equal to or greater than the number of submissions shown on your hardware page.
Something like this will get you all scores where you listed an R9 280X as the GPU: https://hwbot.org/search/submissions/permalink?userId=81975&gpuId=2110&limit=120

Edited February 4, 2022 by cbjaust

[alexmaj467]

Let me know and see the final HW points table. Me for an article promoting motivation.

 

[moi_kot_lybit_moloko]

On 4/25/2021 at 2:35 PM, moi_kot_lybit_moloko said:

add achievements for socket 7

this please

[MaddMutt]

On 2/3/2022 at 9:08 PM, cbjaust said:

@MaddMutt when you get to the page linked from the number of submissions from your hardware page edit the url and append "&limit=x" where x is a number equal to or greater than the number of submissions shown on your hardware page.
Something like this will get you all scores where you listed an R9 280X as the GPU: https://hwbot.org/search/submissions/permalink?userId=81975&gpuId=2110&limit=120

Next problem ? Some of these where submitted before a URL was required for 3D Mark, PC Mark, GeekBench,  Ect, .. When I edit them, I get a URL is needed error. The original sub is allowed but not the edited version?

Thank You

[Leeghoofd]

2 hours ago, MaddMutt said:

Next problem ? Some of these where submitted before a URL was required for 3D Mark, PC Mark, GeekBench,  Ect, .. When I edit them, I get a URL is needed error. The original sub is allowed but not the edited version?

Thank You

That's why a mod has to edit them

[Leeghoofd]

Scripted Recalc has started, should be completed by the end of the day

[Leeghoofd]

80% is completed, but it seems CPUZ, CB R11.5 & Wprime 1024 did not fully complete. we are checking it

[alexmaj467]

maybe the problem is due to Global. And we need to wait. On uat, globals were counted first.

[Leeghoofd]

we already redid the globals on friday...

CPUZ, Ref & memory frequency, geek 4 single core, X265 4K are done...

Only remaining is  CBR11.5 (this one stops at the Q6600)

[havli]

It seems there are some bugs with the new points calculation. For example - I submitted this one just a while ago - it was missdetected as Xeon E5 1607 v3. So I edited to E5 1650 v3 - but now it messed up the ranking and shows 15 points instead of 6... or something like that.

https://hwbot.org/submission/4930144_

[Leeghoofd]

It's on 6

[Fasttrack]

Stability is the key word.

Which I have never seen for 12 years.

Revisions and changes and back and forth. Again and again.

Every time some love and some hate the changes.

Peculiar how inflated points buy souls

Anyway,  whatever.

But keep it steady this time.

[blossa]

On 2/15/2022 at 1:01 AM, Fasttrack said:

Stability is the key word.

Which I have never seen for 12 years.

Revisions and changes and back and forth. Again and again.

Every time some love and some hate the changes.

Peculiar how inflated points buy souls

Anyway,  whatever.

But keep it steady this time.

I could not agree more. This with stability was pointed out like 12-13 years ago and a suggestion then was to get someone who knows how to work with databases (and PHP back then) to take care of some parts. This was totally ignored by hwbot. As example HallOfFame does not work as it should.
GALAX Hall of Fame @ HWBOT
(look at the results and on some HOF-sub pages try out the links)
To make more people interested it is very easy to see who is logged in and to guess what new results that person might be interested in. Why not use that information?

This with leagues and points I hardy dont want to discuss.  Personally I think it would be good to put yourself in the users position. Am I interested in results done with LN2/H2O?  Am I interested in result in a "graphic" benchmark where people use expensive CPUs which I cannot affort? etc. I am really impressed by Rauf, Splave etc, but I cannot compete with them. If the site is for people to compete in computer benchmarks, why doesnt it show what I am interested in? For me it looks like the site is design to attract like 50-100 people. I feel it is a real pitty as I feel the website could be really, really great AND fun.

Just my 50 cents, cheers!

Edited February 26, 2022 by blossa