Rev3 Up and Running - Complaints, Ideas, Ramblings, Comments ... but no bugs

[Kal-EL]

http://www.hwbot.org/community/user/gutterz

[BenchBruno]

What about a combination of rev3 and rev2? For 20 or less results the rev2-Point-System and everything above using the new system.

 

So everything would be fine. Popular hardware will be rewarded much and unpopular also a little bit but not too less....

 

I think this would be a very good Idea.

I would be very pleased if you think about this, and give this Idea a chance.

[Kal-EL]

http://www.hwbot.org/community/user/gutterz

 

Can you please fix my members page, its empty. Thx

[SORD]

What is wrong here?

 

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=820139

 

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=909681

[TiN]

Bug on script which shows big submission pics (screenshot/photos etc) with Opera 10 browser.

 

When hit pic - all browser screed fade dark and nothing happen. Leftclick - exits, and back to normal. Again click on pic - box appear, sizing more, and shows content okay.

 

With IE6.0 everything ok from first try. On Rev2 with same browser everything was ok too.

[icsd_sap]

search buton in "search database" tab does not appear while using chrome. in internet explorer 8 it appears normaly.

[Totocellux]

I worked very hard in the past to earn my points.

I respect your work, but this made me lose ~270 points all at once.

You could not make me better gift to start 2010.

[hipro5]

How is it possible in MY profile here:

 

http://www.hwbot.org/community/user/hipro5

 

to see 1293 points and in Overclockers League here:

 

http://www.hwbot.org/rankings/overclocker/worldwide'>http://www.hwbot.org/rankings/overclocker/worldwide

 

to see 1240 points?.......

 

Where are the other ones?.....

 

 

PLUS in Vince's profile here:

 

http://www.hwbot.org/community/user/kingpin

 

shows 1386 points and in Overclockers League here:

 

http://www.hwbot.org/rankings/overclocker/worldwide

 

...shows 1486 points.......

 

How's that?....

 

PLUS in my wPrime 32M, though I'm "2nd" with 4 cores, it shows it in my bench as "3rd"

Edited January 3, 2010 by hipro5

[Evocarlos]

found a error i have the gold in pcm05 for the

q6600 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=908215

q9400 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=912941

q8200 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=912903

e4600 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=912812

e2160 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=912813

p4 521 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=913292

p4 520 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=913220

p4 560 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=842137

Cely 351 http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=913332

but its not shown in my profile but e8600 is

 

 

thanks carlos

Edited January 3, 2010 by Evocarlos

[knopflerbruce]

I care about the users who have only unpopular hardware to bench... they are kind of discriminated as already said. As Alriin already said: For example Lippokratis spent lots time to bench his hardware and in fact it was not easy to get 1k+ Hwpoints. And if you look his scores you will see he usually ocerclocked and did not bench at stock. rev3 is not bad but needs some fixes to get fair and motivating for all of us and not only for the 1337-benchers.

 

I would not say that it was easier in rev2 to grind points. But now benching a 8800 gt u get more points for nearly every score than benching unpopular hw an get 5 medals. Is this fair? I'd say no and it seems like I am not alone with my opinion.

 

The problem with rare HW is that it's hard to make an algorithm that takes care of the cases where most people run on their daily rigs and at stock speeds more or less, and where the top bencher(s) have really maxed their chips and reached great scores.

 

Lippokratis had a couple of sli/cf scores (not THAT many, but probably quite valuable in rev. 2 because of the bug that HAD to be fixed, as it was rewarding 3d-benchers with WAY too much boints than they really should have had).

 

Example of why rev. 3 is better than rev, 2: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=777212

 

CPUZ validation: 6/13, now 0.1 boints - before... maybe 2.0 or so? 5.3% OC... IMO 0.1 is way closer to the truth than ~2.0.

 

"lots of time" is also hard to define. If you spent 6-7 hours straight trying to get that validation and perhaps a quick superpi run, and risk killing it several times in the process by trying different means to really max it out, then I agree - it's worth a fair share of boints. Is that what you meant by "alot of time"? Or do you refer to the overall time needed to get the complete collection of results Lippokratis has?

 

The term "easy boints" is also quite weird... why should there be such a thing at all? Just run the bench, tweak nothing, do nothing, and get boints... not something to reward in a competition. You may get some achievements, though (if you have enough submissions). That's enough if you don't manage to sneak into the top 50%. Getting boints means you've done something that's not so bad - not that you've pressed the start button and ran the benchmark.

 

About the slow boint degradation discussion I'd like to add that if you beat the second place by a mile, you certainly deserve a bit more boints than 10% of the 2nd place, and the same if you've spent some time tweaking to be able to beat whoever is first. Normally, the top spots are pretty good - and beating them should be rewarded properly.

 

The best thing you "rare HW complainers" should do is to bench more - the more competition, the more boints for the best scores, and more available slots for boints.

[Matti OC]

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/3dmark_2003/rankings

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/3dmark_2006/rankings

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/pcmark_2005/rankings

 

etc...

 

??? mh.

 

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/pcmark_2005/rankings?cores=4

 

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=2124587

 

Multicore 8 Processor Cores (4+4 HT)

 

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=1648435

 

Multicore 4 Processor Cores (4+0 HT)

 

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/wprime_32m/rankings?cores=4

 

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=935049 Multicore 8 Processor Cores (4+4 HT)

 

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=931213 Multicore 4 Processor Cores (4+0 HT)

 

and Phenom II X4 965 BE XXX

 

and Intel

wPrime 32m 4x CPU rank: 697th Multicore 4 Processor Cores (4+0 HT)

 

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=931658

 

wPrime 32m 4x CPU rank: 729th

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=755239

 

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/wprime_1024m/rankings?cores=4 etc...

 

 

 

Here the system cannot be right

 

 

lg Matti OC

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

Edited January 3, 2010 by Matti OC

[hipro5]

It seems OK now...

[Matti OC]

Gobal points are too high anyhow

 

max. 100 would become also rich

 

if this is properly translated now?

[Bartmasta]

hey I have a bug

 

my wprime 32m submission isnt getting any points because it says it's not my best submission for the cpu but that's not true

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=906592&tab=info

 

same for

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=906591

Edited January 3, 2010 by Bartmasta

[Matti OC]

Phenom II X3 720 BE (3 cores active) @ 4000MHz

Screenshot ?

[Bartmasta]

checksum is enough

[Matti OC]

checksum is enough

unlock X3 @ X4 ??

 

lg Matti

[Matti OC]

It seems OK now...

 

http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=938136

 

3DMark Vantage - Performance - 31663 marks - hipro5 (Hellas Overclocking Team)

for Team 47.3 for You 14 point

 

also a little bit funnily

[TheKarmakazi]

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/pcmark_vantage/rankings?cores=16

 

All those scores are ranked incorrectly

 

GTX295's have been out for a year now (almost), so you are saying I have to wait until more scores are submitted for my Quad run to be worth what it used to be worth? Will never happen. No one will chase low point values. Plus, I don't think there's going to be more 295 submissions, only less now that new tech has arrived.

 

It wont be worth the same because your only getting global points in one category now.... just like we all are. Anyone who benched gtx295, 4870x2, 5970 lost points (myself included, but I gained points from other places - notably hwboints). Until more results in the multiple gpu categories are submitted you wont see big global points coming from them (which is what made up your larger score in rev 2). In rev 2 you got global points in both single card and multi rankings, now you only get global points for whichever score would yield more.

Edited January 3, 2010 by TheKarmakazi

[Schnitzel_12000]

 

"lots of time" is also hard to define. If you spent 6-7 hours straight trying to get that validation and perhaps a quick superpi run, and risk killing it several times in the process by trying different means to really max it out, then I agree - it's worth a fair share of boints. Is that what you meant by "alot of time"? Or do you refer to the overall time needed to get the complete collection of results Lippokratis has?

 

That's the point

For the "skill" it don't matter you run a HD5890 under LN2 or for example a mx400 under air.

In both ways you must go to the limit to get on the top and also you must spent a lot of time to get it.

 

The term "easy boints" is also quite weird... why should there be such a thing at all? Just run the bench, tweak nothing, do nothing, and get boints... not something to reward in a competition. You may get some achievements, though (if you have enough submissions). That's enough if you don't manage to sneak into the top 50%. Getting boints means you've done something that's not so bad - not that you've pressed the start button and ran the benchmark.

Of course,this is a problem.

For the algorithms there is no difference between both.

But how it can be handled to make a difference?

 

About the slow boint degradation discussion I'd like to add that if you beat the second place by a mile, you certainly deserve a bit more boints than 10% of the 2nd place, and the same if you've spent some time tweaking to be able to beat whoever is first. Normally, the top spots are pretty good - and beating them should be rewarded properly.

 

I agree with that,there must be an attraction to fight for first

But there is another point of view,too.

Lippokratis for example has maked most of his points under the rules of Rev.2.

It may be that Massman and his Team believe that rare Hardware must be degraded in rev.3.

There were no Problem if this handled so fom the beginning.

But the cut between both revs is to much for the ones who specialized to old and rare Hardware.

It cant be,and this is the point, that someone loose half his points by changing the rules.

 

The best thing you "rare HW complainers" should do is to bench more - the more competition, the more boints for the best scores, and more available slots for boints.

Yeah, thats right.

But there were in the past only a few competitors and imo this will not change in the future.

 

Sorry for my english,but I think you now what I mean.

[alibabar]

I totally agree with Schnitzel_12000, +1.

 

I have lost ~900 HW boints because of benching "oldskul" and SLi/CF? I made my best with the actual cooling that i had at that time.

 

And i have one question for admins-moderators:

 

Does the double submission of one member count on overall numbers of submissions in one category?

 

If the answer is "yes", then first delete "doubles" and we will get more precise numbers.

 

 

Hint: With 30 submissions per member i can make even GeForce2 MX400 more popular and get more points, but that's not fair, what do you mean?

 

BRGDS

[crooper]

There are a bug on rankings with "0" cores:

 

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/pcmark_2005/rankings?cores=0

 

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/wprime_1024m/rankings?cores=0

 

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/wprime_32m/rankings?cores=0

 

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/3dmark_2001/rankings?cores=0

 

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/3dmark_2003/rankings?cores=0

 

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/3dmark_2006/rankings?cores=0

 

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/3dmark_vantage_-_performance/rankings?cores=0

 

http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/aquamark/rankings?cores=0

 

 

It look like this:

[komadyret]

I was moderating a few entries that had been reported for a team member, and then went to look at some of his other scores. I can't seem to find any "Edit entry" button under the scores... only a report entry and read modification log.

Am I blind? Please guide me

[crooper]

I agree with theLamer and der8auer! That were the best way for all users that have bench unpopular hardware.

 

A other advantage is, it will be worthwhile to bench unpopular. The database of hwbot can increase and would have a complete assortment of hardware results and not only the brand-new popular hardware!

[Massman]

Does the double submission of one member count on overall numbers of submissions in one category?

 

If the answer is "yes", then first delete "doubles" and we will get more precise numbers.

 

Hint: With 30 submissions per member i can make even GeForce2 MX400 more popular and get more points, but that's not fair, what do you mean?

 

You are right, that's the second major problem we have removed from Rev2. In the past, the popularity of a ranking was calculated based on the amount of submissions in that particular hardware category. In Rev3, this has been changed to unique participants per category.