Posted W3520 as a 920

[xxbassplayerxx]

I did this yesterday under the impression that it was how it's supposed to go.

 

Since it's the exact same chip with a different name, can this stand? Or do I need to resubmit it as a W3520?

 

I just got this chip and it has a bright future. However, this future will be with very few points if I have to submit it as a W3520.

 

23rd i7 920 1M gives 23.3 points whereas 5th W3520 gives ~9ish points.

[TaPaKaH]

I guess you MUST submit is as a W3520, otherwise everybody would've been doing the same thing with G92 nvidia

[xxbassplayerxx]

I guess you MUST submit is as a W3520, otherwise everybody would've been doing the same thing with G92 nvidia

 

lol... but those do differ a TINY bit, at least more so than the name!

[Massman]

Why? ... how? Why ... why do you think it's OK to submit in a different category just to get more points?

 

To be 100% clear: no, you have to submit in the right category. That's why we HAVE the categories ...

[xxbassplayerxx]

I'll change it.

 

Next time, try not to be so rude.

[Massman]

I wasn't trying to be rude, I'm trying to express my disbelief. I just can't understand how you would come to the conclusion that it's okay .

[xxbassplayerxx]

I was confused when submitting my 3D scores. I saw almost as many W3520s as I did 920s and didn't make the connection that I was in the 4890 category, not 920.

 

This is awful, though. I might have to sell this processor.

 

 

Has there ever been talks of combining the categories (not in name, but in ranking and points)?

[Massman]

Actually yeah. Somewhere in the future, we might to try and come up with a point ranking based on platform/technology/architecture rather than CPU class. But ... that's for the future, the plans are not put in action right now.

[xxbassplayerxx]

I guess the people who did well with the other chips in the 900 series (other than 930 and 920) don't get the points they deserve, either.

 

Is the plan to separate Extreme Editions?

[Massman]

The discussion on giving people the points they deserve is a very difficult one since it's more than just "I did effort - I get points". Technically, you should reward people who put more effort into the overclocking achievement more than those who only quickly benched and got a high score. The problem is that it's not easy to make a functional point algoritm based on this subjective feeling of effort ... it's not easy.

 

The hardware points are already an attempt to give more points to those with more low-end hardware. It allows people to bench ancient hardware and still get some points + allows people with hardware that has been tested A LOT (eg: 920) to get some points on air and water cooling. It's already quite elaborate.

 

Why and how should we separate extreme editions?

[xxbassplayerxx]

Here's my thinking:

 

Count the total submissions from all chips in the architecture. With the points, award them for the specific chip. By this I mean combining all ~30K submissions for the architecture (i7 900/W35xx series) but awarding points based on how the 920/W3520s compare with eachother and so forth.

 

That way, my W3520 would get me 27th for the 920/W3520 category and would give about 22 points since it's a 'popular category,' having ~30K submissions.

 

EDIT: I also mean to include identical chips in each category. The W35xx Xeons are the same chips with a different name and a slightly higher price tag. They have no multiplier advantage nor an architecture advantage. I'm not sure if I made my position clear on that.

Edited June 24, 2010 by xxbassplayerxx

[knopflerbruce]

Since they are server chips, it's reasonable to assume they're more carefully selected - which IMO is good enough to make a separate category.