The Poll: Allow E.S. or disallow ?

[Gautam]

Just a question Pieter,

how exactly do you know that one of the guys with AquaMark 3 runs ( for example ) with a 6.6GHz++ E.S. are indeed real and not photoshopped mipmap runs ?

 

Ok Bill I got you this time

 

If you mipmap during aquamark3, the score window is also mipmapped (unintelligible) so you can't even see a score.

[BenchZowner]

Ok Bill I got you this time

 

If you mipmap during aquamark3, the score window is also mipmapped (unintelligible) so you can't even see a score.

 

You didn't, because it can be undone ( I mean get the score "page" to appear just fine )

[F.O.G.N.A.]

I'm for totally disallow them, not cpus ES and not points.

 

In my honest opinion is the best way for a great equal competition for noob, overclocker and Legend of OC.

[Jor3llBR/Elano]

F.O.G.N.A.;59511']I'm for totally disallow them' date=' not cpus ES and not points.

 

In my honest opinion is the best way for a great equal competition for noob, overclocker and Legend of OC.[/quote']

 

Uncle,

 

No, not entirely of course. The logic behind "removing ES from the rankings now is not a good solution" is based on more than just one argument.

 

1) Our notion of 'ES' is based on the detection by CPU-Z, hence the applicability of the rule is relative to CPU-Z's capability to detect it

2) There is no way to detect VGA ES samples through GPU-Z

3) Introducing the 'ES forbidden' rule means removing them across the board, including Yorkfield, Wolfdale, Conroe and older as we want consistent rules

4) Removing the ES mid-game in unfair to those who have spend a month's paycheck or more on trying to acquire one

5) It doesn't solve the underlying issue of marketing-related overclocking scores dominating amateur rankings.

 

Furthermore, for the 980X, the issue is the difference in stepping rather than the difference between ES and retail. I think no one cares about the B1 ES samples as they are a lot worse than the current average retails.

 

Also, it's not about trusting or having faith in the overclocking community (I reckon whoever lost faith earlier will have gained loads of it seeing Hipro5 share the coldslow), but rather experience. If there are two things I've learned from X years of HWBOT it's that a) people will go very far to have an edge over the competition and b) people will consider people cheaters for the slightest oddity in submissions/scores/explanation. This means that IF it's possible to get ES's to look like retail and it gives an edge, people will do it and even if no one would do it, people would accuse people of doing it. A good example of this is the assumption by someone that any 6.7GHz retail shown by AndreYang will not actually be retail.

 

I think massman made a good point about why not just ban them. It won't solve the problem as it is now.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Jor3llBR

[|ron]

I'll try to answer to Pieter and Jor3llBR from point to point:

1) has cpu-z experienced some difficulties detecting the es, as of now?

2) maybe the gpu-z programmer could add that... are the ES vga diffused as for the cpu contest?

3) I think that what is done is done... the ES results already submitted, will remain.

4) even keeping everything the way it's now is unfair to all the rest (99%) of the people... so we need to do a trade-off.

5) why?

 

[giukey79]

F.O.G.N.A.;59511']I'm for totally disallow them' date=' not cpus ES and not points.

 

In my honest opinion is the best way for a great equal competition for noob, overclocker and Legend of OC.[/quote']

 

Fine words.

I think as you.

or all or none

[dinos22]

this discussion always starts with new chips and it always ends up the same

 

ppl claim ES is special and then retails match it and eventually beat it and do it consistently

 

so i say meh to it again

[Maxi]

3) Introducing the 'ES forbidden' rule means removing them across the board, including Yorkfield, Wolfdale, Conroe and older as we want consistent rules

 

hwbot has never implemented a retro-active like this

 

New rules are always applied to new submissions while existing results are a matter of record, similar to archive results. If hwbot chose to remove ES moving forward, I'm pretty sure old results would remain.

[BenchZowner]

I agree with Maxi.

And I can't see anyone here asking to remove any ES results except the ones in talk ( 980X & 670 )

[Massman]

hwbot has never implemented a retro-active like this

 

New rules are always applied to new submissions while existing results are a matter of record, similar to archive results. If hwbot chose to remove ES moving forward, I'm pretty sure old results would remain.

 

Removing 980X and Clarkdale ES results IS retro-active ... ?

[Maxi]

Removing 980X and Clarkdale ES results IS retro-active ... ?

 

'Moving forward' would be next gen CPU we can't and should not do it with the cpu's you mentioned.

[Thor941]

I agree with Maxi.

And I can't see anyone here asking to remove any ES results except the ones in talk ( 980X & 670 )

 

I do, but who cares

[BenchZowner]

If you're talking about QX9650's E.S., then yes, I kinda agree too, but asking to remove those as well will just piss off massman

[Massman]

'Moving forward' would be next gen CPU we can't and should not do it with the cpu's you mentioned.

 

Yes ... that's what I'm saying. Removing NOW is no solution ... never said anything about the future.

[Thor941]

Well to me, the "spirit" is that they all should be removed for the only reason that they don't belong to the clocker(s), but of course it would be totally stupid

 

But we'll have to start disallowing them one day ...

[FatAlbert]

Es cpus should be disallow when difference between them and retail is to big, like 500mhz? this is something which should be discussed.

 

this could an option.

[richba5tard]

Es cpus should be disallow when difference between them and retail is to big, like 500mhz? this is something which should be discussed.

 

this could an option.

 

You only know the difference between retail and ES a few weeks/months after the retail is released... it's too late then to decide whether previous submissions should be deleted.

[Antinomy]

richba5tard, why delete? ES don't achieve boints before the release anyway now. http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=58990&postcount=281 - I've already written about this case.

[Hondacity]

Yes ... that's what I'm saying. Removing NOW is no solution ... never said anything about the future.

 

finally something is (mightbe) happening...

[T_M]

I think dissallowing point generation from the next wave of ES (i.e. anything that is not retail now) is the best implementation method (if hwbot decide to remove boints).

[knopflerbruce]

It's the only option if we want to remove, it's the same as when we change other rules - we can't remove other submissions that were valid at the time they were posted.

[Super Nade]

I don't think disallowing ES hardware will solve anything. Just because you have an ES does not mean your hardware is significantly better than a non-ES. If people are going through the trouble of spending time and money cherry picking parts (a lot of painful effort!), more power to them. Bench with what you have and have fun!

________

Honda RVF750 RC45

Edited February 19, 2011 by Super Nade

[KONAKONA]

Oh, looks like we have some retail chips outclocking the ESes now.

 

Time to ban binning? Price cap? Maybe time to shut up instead.

[BenchZowner]

Oh, looks like we have some retail chips outclocking the ESes now.

 

Yeah, we have... 1... retail(?) outclocking the ES

 

Maybe time to shut up instead.

 

Sir yes, sir, as you wish mr Monarch.

[Massman]

http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8239