Reconsider How Ties Receive Points

[knopflerbruce]

You can always argue that it's more difficult to OC... say Athlon XP today than a few years ago, too - today you've got very few people who can give you advice, as those who benched it back then don't remember all the 'smart stuff'. Also, the interesting forum threads related to thse cpus are much harder to find, not to mention that a bunch of information is probaly lost (dead forums, broken img links etc).

[xxbassplayerxx]

You can always argue that it's more difficult to OC... say Athlon XP today than a few years ago, too - today you've got very few people who can give you advice, as those who benched it back then don't remember all the 'smart stuff'. Also, the interesting forum threads related to thse cpus are much harder to find, not to mention that a bunch of information is probaly lost (dead forums, broken img links etc).

 

This is the biggest issue I've run into and it's actually one of the main reasons I learned how to determine my own volt mods... links are almost always broken.

 

That's why I'm excited about OCN's image hosting. Every image link you post can be imported and rehosted on OCN automatically.

[Bones]

We can't do efficiency, people will clock down for screenshot purposes and lie about the used frequency. We can't enforce, so we shouldn't make a rule that encourages lying.

 

I like both ideas, but I'm also not really against the current "whoever submits first is ranked higher"-principle (although I guess that's more relevant to competitions rather than a continuous ranking). Whichever is the least amount of effort to code, I'd opt for. Dennis, what do you think?

 

Already cast my vote for suggestion 1 but I still have a few thoughts on it.

 

I was thinking before I voted it could be based on efficiency as in who got the same result with a lower CPU MHz BUT that in itself isn't a great way to decide - There are so many factors other than CPU speed itself that can give a good result. RAM timings, HDD setups, OS tweaks, the list goes on so saying it should be based on efficiency isn't really doable.

 

Massman has already thrown in his opinion on that and I have to agree with him, it's all too easy to lie about what you did and we've all seen examples of this at work here, including some that just don't add up when compared to other scores/results with similar hardware ran at the same or even greater speeds overall.

 

Here's an example of what I'm getting at, an older entry from 2007 but from what's listed in the entry it just doesn't "Look" right, all you can see is "Valid" for the result/proof but no actual screenshot with it or even what hardware he used aside from a 2600+ T-Bred and even that in itself could be in doubt here - I dunno: http://hwbot.org/submission/581998_zorbapol_wprime___1024m_athlon_mp_2600_thoroughbred_1494sec_250ms

 

Talk about efficiency compared to other chips like it or even compared to Barton cores!

 

There is just too much wiggle room to justify efficiency as a basis for deciding and after thinking about it, #1 just seemed best to me.

[Poorya_lion]

The problem with this is that the difference can be quite large... 10 points in the case in the OP.

 

What has changed in that instance? Nothing at all... still running the same benchmark, still running a chip released in 2009, still running an X58 board (earliest is using RIIIE, I was using OC--comparable boards), etc.

 

For a 3D benchmark, what you're saying has more merit but does it really deserve more points? Because someone may have been into a hobby earlier? Joining a hobby and competing against old results should not be a detriment. If that was the case, I should sell all of my 8800 cards because it's not 2006 anymore and benching a 8800GTS with IB isn't worth as much as benching it with Conroe.

 

I do agree that the older result should receive recognition (first in the list of 2nd place finishes), but I don't think that should translate to more points. Bottom line, the scores are the same.

 

People can say you should have beat the score and this and that, but in they end, they should know how it works. You push and push and sometimes you don't beat it. Tying someone in no way means you didn't try hard enough. They're not better because they got the score earlier... they just benched at a different time.

 

I'm alittle convinced by what you said above ... But I'm still on number #1.

In my thought : Later = Easier , why ?

 

1) Did you remember last batch numbers of 2600K ? they all go higher than 5.5GHz. So right now it is so easy to find a good chip and break the records, what would happen to a person who bought tons of that component earlier !!! (Maybe you say we shouldn't judge with one chip, but there is lots of component in this situation, like i7 920, E2160 and E2180, ... new batch numbers = better)

 

2) Early guys would get help from experience of old guys and old submits. So their experience and risking their component for first time should have a price ... (Some times happen that I can not break some one's records Like "G H z" or "spl" with newer hardware , and I say to myself "Man these guys were HUGE")

 

3) In 2008 you would bought 8800GTX 100000000000$ , today you would buy 10x 8800GTX with 100$.

 

4) Most important thing in option number 1# is that new guys would have more motivation to break the records. If they get equal point they would stop benching and there won't be any try to raising it ...

 

As a wise man said : "Records are set to be broken"

I'm agree with your opinions too, But option number 1# is more respective to older guys and would be more motivating for newer guys.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Poorya_lion

[Massman]

4) Most important thing in option number 1# is that new guys would have more motivation to break the records. If they get equal point they would stop benching and there won't be any try to raising it ...

 

Giving an equal amount of points in case of a tie would actually be motivational for people to try to get a tie instead of just giving up. Currently, it doesn't matter if you're third with a lower score or third with a tie to second, but when ties would get the same amount of points, it would be interesting to keep pushing for that tie.

 

Maybe first place is so far out of reach that the record cannot be broken anyway.

 

(ps: I don't think anyone aims for a tie and not for the record. For everyone, the first objective is to break the record, only in second instance to tie the existing one)

[Antinomy]

Just today I was benching some obscure hardware where first places were taken by one HWBot members. After some warming up I've got three ties in a row! In Super pi 1M, wPrime 32M and smth else (maybe it was two ties ).

And what do you think?

No such thing as perfect.

Some old-fashioned tweaks came to my mind, I tried them and got a nice improvement over the first place.

 

But I could just stop thinking a tie is good enough. When it's not - only degree of laziness.

 

Not giving same amount of points for a tie is very motivating.

[Massman]

The same argument can be made for someone that is a little bit under the 1st place and, with a couple of old tweaks, manages a tie and sees their points increased.

[Antinomy]

And with some more tweaks gets even more

[Mr.Scott]

The same argument can be made for someone that is a little bit under the 1st place and, with a couple of old tweaks, manages a tie and sees their points increased.

Gamblers don't play to get even, they play to win.

[PAQd]

Guys,

 

Is this thread serious - why are we trying to reinvent the wheel?

 

Will any sport hand out Gold medals for the 2003 world champinships in 2013 (10 years later)? No, they will hand out a Gold medal as the 2013 champion.

 

If the 2003 champion had set a world record, will that sport call the 2013 Gold medallist a World record holder if the time/score is equalled? No

 

Therefore - first up best dressed.

 

You must better the encumbents performance to claim the prize. (and thus time does matter)

 

Nuff said..........

Edited March 20, 2013 by PAQd

[xxbassplayerxx]

Guys,

 

Is this thread serious - why are we trying to reinvent the wheel?

 

Will any sport hand out Gold medals for the 2003 world champinships in 2013 (10 years later)? No, they will hand out a Gold medal as the 2013 champion.

 

If the 2003 champion had set a world record, will that sport call the 2013 Gold medallist a World record holder if the time/score is equalled? No

 

Therefore - first up best dressed.

 

You must better the encumbents performance to claim the prize. (and thus time does matter)

 

Nuff said..........

 

Unfortunately, that's a poor comparison.

 

Overclocking is not run in annual competitions. It is an ongoing single competition. There is no 2003 winner or a 2013 winner. Any submission you make competes directly with those submissions from last year and all of the years prior. There is only one gold medal held at a time, even if it was submitted back in 2003. In sports, there is a gold medal handed out every year, so the only time you're competing with previous years is for world record. If you tie the world record, you will receive recognition, even if it was set 10 years earlier. You will be listed as a co-holder of the world record; you won't be listed in second place or as runner-up.

 

 

 

 

Speaking of sports, if two people tie, they both receive the best position, even if one person received the score earlier in the competition.

 

For example:

 

1st: 5:00 - Gold medal

2nd: 5:01 - Silver medal

3rd: 5:03 - Bronze medal

3rd: 5:03 - Bronze medal

5th: 5:05 - (no medal)

 

Both people with the bronze medal would take the stand.

Edited March 20, 2013 by xxbassplayerxx

[PAQd]

Unfortunately, that's a poor comparison.

 

Overclocking is not run in annual competitions. It is an ongoing single competition. There is no 2003 winner or a 2013 winner. Any submission you make competes directly with those submissions from last year and all of the years prior. There is only one gold medal held at a time, even if it was submitted back in 2003. In sports, there is a gold medal handed out every year, so the only time you're competing with previous years is for world record. If you tie the world record, you will receive recognition, even if it was set 10 years earlier. You will be listed as a co-holder of the world record; you won't be listed in second place or as runner-up.

 

 

 

 

Speaking of sports, if two people tie, they both receive the best position, even if one person received the score earlier in the competition.

 

For example:

 

1st: 5:00 - Gold medal

2nd: 5:01 - Silver medal

3rd: 5:03 - Bronze medal

3rd: 5:03 - Bronze medal

5th: 5:05 - (no medal)

 

Both people with the bronze medal would take the stand.

 

Agreed it is ongoing - thus time recognition is easy as we have a clock.

Records are set to be broken, be they Olympic, Guinness or Benching. If you don't break it - you are second, and if we have multiple, the clock dictates the prizes!

 

World Record - an "unsurpassed" accomplishment or statistic (hence second, or any equal, cannot make the claim to the "record")

Edited March 20, 2013 by PAQd

[xxbassplayerxx]

Agreed it is ongoing - thus time recognition is easy as we have a clock.

Records are set to be broken, be they Olympic, Guinness or Benching. If you don't break it - you are second, and if we have multiple, the clock dictates the prizes!

 

World Record - an "unsurpassed" accomplishment or statistic (hence second, or any equal, cannot make the claim to the "record")

 

That's just untrue, though. There can be (and are) multiple holders of a world record. If you tie it, you are not in second. You are both in first.

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120311171440AAKew3u

[I.nfraR.ed]

Do you really read what he wrote?

When you tie a record, you're both the record-holder, whether it was on the same race or after 10 years.

What you say is simply not true.

 

Both athletes/racers get the recognition.

 

PS: It was addressed to PAQd.

[Rasparthe]

I cannot understand how this thread has so many people agreeing with the idea that if you simply put a score first you should receive more points. Its incredible, I cannot think of one hobby, competition, sport that would give precedence to a record holder simply because they did it first. I would like to hear of one if someone can think of it. I would have thought the only discussion would be how the points get allocated.

 

The Olympics determine ties during qualifying heats as follows:

 

"A tie among athletes in different heats for a ranking or qualifying position is handled by:

 

Considering the actual times recorded by the athletes who tied to 1/1000th of a second.

If a tie has been determined for a ranking position, the tie shall be broken by a draw.

If a tie has been determined for a qualifying position for a subsequent round, the athletes who tied shall be placed in the next round.

 

If all who tied cannot be placed in the subsequent round, lots shall be drawn to determine who shall be placed in the next round."

 

Surprisingly, no mention of which person ran first. Even a random draw system is more fair than going by who simply did the time first.

[knopflerbruce]

Guys,

 

Is this thread serious - why are we trying to reinvent the wheel?

 

Will any sport hand out Gold medals for the 2003 world champinships in 2013 (10 years later)? No, they will hand out a Gold medal as the 2013 champion.

 

If the 2003 champion had set a world record, will that sport call the 2013 Gold medallist a World record holder if the time/score is equalled? No

 

Therefore - first up best dressed.

 

You must better the encumbents performance to claim the prize. (and thus time does matter)

 

Nuff said..........

 

I'd rather compare it to... say downhill, except it goes on forever - you never really run out of racers. The guy who runs first gets time x minutes and xx.xx seconds. Then, if number 60 gets the exact same times, there are TWO guys in the lead, and if they stay on top there will be two gold medals awarded.

[knopflerbruce]

I cannot understand how this thread has so many people agreeing with the idea that if you simply put a score first you should receive more points. Its incredible, I cannot think of one hobby, competition, sport that would give precedence to a record holder simply because they did it first. I would like to hear of one if someone can think of it. I would have thought the only discussion would be how the points get allocated.

 

The Olympics determine ties during qualifying heats as follows:

 

"A tie among athletes in different heats for a ranking or qualifying position is handled by:

 

Considering the actual times recorded by the athletes who tied to 1/1000th of a second.

If a tie has been determined for a ranking position, the tie shall be broken by a draw.

If a tie has been determined for a qualifying position for a subsequent round, the athletes who tied shall be placed in the next round.

 

If all who tied cannot be placed in the subsequent round, lots shall be drawn to determine who shall be placed in the next round."

 

Surprisingly, no mention of which person ran first. Even a random draw system is more fair than going by who simply did the time first.

 

The majority got it "right" (from our POV), though:p

[BeepBeep2]

In case of 2500/2600K this would be crazy

I think for some benchmarks efficiency should win, like SuperPi, lowest CPU frequency...

 

CPU-Z I agree with this, etc etc.

[I.M.O.G.]

I think for some benchmarks efficiency should win, like SuperPi, lowest CPU frequency...

 

This was covered. Can't put motivations in place to encourage people to lower clocks for the screenshot.

 

If there were a solution for that, then I'd agree.

[BeepBeep2]

This was covered. Can't put motivations in place to encourage people to lower clocks for the screenshot.

 

If there were a solution for that, then I'd agree.

I see...my bad.

Its unfortunate that some people feel they need to cheat.

[knopflerbruce]

I see...my bad.

Its unfortunate that some people feel they need to cheat.

 

You've also got other issues. Like, if the memory speed/timings are different, why should we reward the one with the highest memory performance? It doesn't make it more EFFICIENT if you take memory into account. There's more to OCing than the CPU, though that part is the most vital one for 2D. Even mobos make a difference. Not your fault if a certain model is slower than one used by a competitor, is it?

[BeepBeep2]

I suppose you're correct.

[Splave]

What about like the first moto cross guy to a backflip, he risks it all to do "the impossible" who cares who the second guy to do it was. (playing devils advocate)