Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

New rule suggestion / adjustment


Recommended Posts

Hi guys.... July 2K10...

 

All 3D benchmarks, some would say except FM 3DM03, are CPU limited, bigtime, when using 3-4 GPU....

 

I therefore suggest; NO CPU SHARRING, CPUs are to be restricted to ONE user for 3D exactly as it is on 2D tests.....

Ofcause you are to use same CPU on multiple types of graphics cards, BUT, I really dislike the idea of joint benchsessions, not for the company and sharring tips and tricks, but in order to use the better processor for acheiving 3D results....

 

I knew before this that MASSMAN will disagree, but please, I would like to hear everyones opinion, and think HWbot forum is the exact right place of doing so!

 

Take care,

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a better working hardware sharing detection system before we expand it.

 

Cant do that, but we can prevent the obvious... People meeting for joint bench sessions with this soul purpose. If not completely prevent, then limit it by miles...

 

At the moment teams are thinking of just super binning one Gulftown, so that they can meet and gather points using it..... I think the trend is very sad, and I believe that maybe not 100% but atleast 75% actually honours the rules (I am naive, yes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i disagree with the ruling on you can share for 3D with cpu, but there are always two sides to a coin

 

i would probably agree with the rule if i were in a team environment with 40 gulfies and a ln2 truck

 

maybe if there could be a team submission if they were sharing, were the points/cups don't go to the individual but to the team, then the decision is left up-to them.....idk just a thought.

 

edit: scratch that as it would still be on the honor system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Crew

Agree to this and 3D benching for me and my teammates will be closed as we can't afford and i7 (not speaking about gulf, at least 920) config and Wolfdale for each team member. Disagree and guys that binned a Gulftown will proceed using it for 5-10 members. As they binned it, they can easily post a photo with 10-20 gulfs so nothing will change for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with the preposals. But let me point on the joint benching sessions:

I think it's a good way to play the game (personaly many years on my own and so bored with that)

but here there should be some restrictions like someone able to attest there's no sharing during the sessions ! Like a kinda bailiff ;)

 

Edit: Solutions ??

Separate the pros and amators first! + Global Validation Tool (huge work I know but... )

+ more collaboration with manufacturers on HW samples transparancy (both for online and live contests)

 

I think the most important point is the third one. They really need to change attitude if we want our game to be safe, the boat sinks dudes... and why?

Just because everybody played their cash game to increase his own ego or whatever you want !

Here we are now and the community will lose everything because of laxisme and personnal interests :/

 

quoting Monstru:

"So why don't we all just have a good fun together, remember why we are doing this, force manufacturers to stop the bs super cherry seeding, try to understand better what is going on, try to force them to listen to overclockers, and feel good doing what we like, without having to swear the first born if we enrty an overclocking competition. Doesn't that sound much better? [...] Respecting yourself and your colleagues, and your work and their work, that is the point."

 

Here is the real problem yeah. I ask you too ? :) (Naïv Marc ? Better be than sharks imho)

Education is the way not much rules, both manufacturers and contestants must become more civilised and fair...

Edited by Eeky NoX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the issue is as Massman suggests; policing hardware being an impossible task, then lets just scrap the whole sharing rule thing completely. Lets find other means of managing benching.

 

What is the main reason for the prohibition on shared hardware, is it as I think the team competitions as the issue?

 

At present if people benching from one team with top end hardware shared and then submit results this boosts the overall team points. Well that is easily sorted. Each team is allowed one result per hardware class - obviously the best result per hardware item. Best 06 with a HD4870 counts for the team, and so on.

 

Let the individuals borrow hardware all they like and bench it. At the end of the day those who are better bencher's will still rise to the top of the league regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a nice idea, but with some complications. Think about the following situation:

 

3Dmark06 - HD4870 competition

 

1st: Bencher 1 (Team A)

2nd: Bencher 2 (Team B)

 

Bencher 1 lends his golden HD4870 to 10 other benchers of his team. The ranking will look as follows:

 

1st: Bencher 1 (team A)

2nd: Bencher 3 (team A)

3rd: Bencher 4 (team A)

4th: ...

...: ...

11th: Bencher 2 (team B).

 

The amount of points added to the team's total of the submission of bencher 2 is now a lot lower because of the hardware sharing.

 

Another issue is the fact that newcomers wouldn't have the option to submit scores to join the team anymore. Eg: if someone joins with the HD4870 on stock cooling and gathers 5 points for the team, his effort would be pointless if one guy of the team has LN2 on the card. This system would be very heavily biased towards the extreme overclockers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Crew

This was discussed quite a number of times. I've suggested this one in 2007 and I'm pretty sure that I wasn't the first one.

 

I want to argue on a complication:

3Dmark06 - HD4870 competition

 

1st: Bencher 1 (Team A)

2nd: Bencher 2 (Team B)

 

Bencher 1 lends his golden HD4870 to 10 other benchers of his team. The ranking will look as follows:

 

1st: Bencher 1 (team A)

2nd: Bencher 3 (team A)

3rd: Bencher 4 (team A)

4th: ...

...: ...

11th: Bencher 2 (team B).

 

The amount of points added to the team's total of the submission of bencher 2 is now a lot lower because of the hardware sharing.

Massman, if I post 20 results on one piece of hardware in one benchmark and a guy posts a worse score - he'll get like if he was 21st or 2nd? ;) why do you judge of the new rules within the old ones? If it's "best result scored" the 2nd till 10th won't matter like it's now with personal scores.

 

As for the second - yes, such situation makes it harder for the novice but this will shift the situation like it was with rev. 2 - more people will go to old-school since it's easier to grab scores there. They'll bring a big variety of categories, not like it's now - "Get an i7 rig, and plug as much G80, G92, RV770, RV870 as you can and you'll get more boints than this guy ever see even with his amount of CPUs".

 

I hope you follow my mind :)

 

Yes, a novice won't get scores on a stock 4870, but how much can he make in 3DMark01 on stock now? ;)

Is the situation really going to get worse? No, it's going to get different. Newcomers won't try to get hot hardware in order to make the category even more hot but they'll more likely get less popular one and improve their skills in such a sandbox.

 

It's just an answer on your arguments, I don't say this way is perfect - it obviously isn't like many others are too.

Edited by Antinomy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that currently the engine is mainly coded around the personal points with a team points extention. By this I mean:

 

- Score -> points

- Points -> user

- User -> team

 

The team points are just a summation of the user points.

 

One way to solve this would be to reconfigure the engine so that teams would look like users. So, instead of giving the user credit for a score, you give the team credit for a score (instead of group per user_id, group per team_id). And the team points would be calculate on that ranking instead of just total of user points. Ok, this actually makes a bit of sense!

 

(if you don't understand, let me know and i'll run a few queries to show it with actual rankings).

 

There are still two problems then:

 

- Allowing the hardware sharing in the Members Leagues would mean that there will be intense sharing within one team. This means that if one team has a great combo of hardware (7GHz 980X and 1500MHz GTX480), they could share within the team and dominate the Overclockers League ranking. Imagine Top-30 to be Madshrimps only.

 

- This does not invite newcomers to join an overclocking team. In essence (and that's where your logic has a flaw), people join because the want to do some overclocking with hardware they already own. It's wrong to assume that these people will buy legacy hardware, because in order to be willing to spend money on hardware, they first need to be motivated to support the team. This motivation now comes from seeing that your scores have an effect on the team ranking. Without this, people do not see that they are supporting the team and might not be motivated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Massman you have just said it is impossible to police CPU sharing,

Give me a better working hardware sharing detection system before we expand it.
so this rebuttal is rather contradictory.
This means that if one team has a great combo of hardware (7GHz 980X and 1500MHz GTX480), they could share within the team and dominate the Overclockers League ranking. Imagine Top-30 to be Madshrimps only.
Either it is somethign that can be monitored or it is not. Please make up your mind.

 

And so what if hardware is shared within a team, (like it is not happening now right:D) your reply assumes that it would be one team would have the only CPU or GPU that could do those kinds of numbers? Not.

 

I reckon each and every team would have kit that was similar in performance, statistically HWBOT bares that out. The top 20 scores in all single CPU based benchmarks are within very insignificant frequency differentials. If all shared as you suggest they would, then the result would be that the hardware alone is removed as being the sole reason some people are top 20 and others are top 2000. If all have access to the same standard of kit then it is the benching ability that would reign supreme and not just who has the better kit. Or have I missed something?

 

Edit: Actually I have. :mad: HWBOT is a hardware bot not a benching bot. It is a data base of hardware not of benching. Just read the history thing on the front page. That tosses out my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must make my posts more clear :D.

 

Okay, it comes down to this:

 

CURRENTLY: sharing rules are made to prevent abuse of rankings (eg: team takes all points in specific CPU ranking because of sharing of a golden CPU). Therefore: CPU sharing in 2D not allowed, VGA sharing in 3D not allowed.

 

ALTERNATIVES:

 

1) Disallow sharing completely

2) Allow sharing completely

 

The first option is practically not possible because there's no way to monitor what CPU is used in what benchmark. The second option IS possible, but that will give a lot of complications. My last two posts are describing solutions for the points algorithm and rankings that would remove some complications when allowing hardware sharing completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:P I know Massman it is a Catch22 situation in many ways.

 

Rule of thumb is fewer rules makes better competition for more participants.

 

I as a result of fewer rules there will be fewer policing actions that need to be carried out, and that is certainly for the better. :o

 

Hardware sharing has been a problem and will continue to be aproblem untill one of two things happen.

 

The first is what would be best I guess.

 

A foolproof rock solid mechanism that is able to uniquely identify each piece of hardware used with a particular bench bench. How to do this I have no idea of course. But we can dream. :)

 

The second is more inevitable I think.

 

Just get rid of that sharing rule.

 

Yes there will be a surge of people climbing up the rankings because of sharing of hardware (prime top end stuff) but I do think it will normalise and will not prejudice as many bencher s as you think. I think far more average bencher's are currently disadvantaged within the current rubric used. But that is life, equity is nice but not practical and not possible in any competitive environment.

 

The added bonus of less work needed by results moderators, who are all ready stretched. Plus the de-criminalisation of good bencher s who have crossed that line. All round I think it would be a better set up if sharing as a issue was just removed.

 

If the team contest is restricted to one result per hardware item, and individual benching is not restricted by hardware sharing then yes there will be some who share hardware. But have faith and rely on the more venial side of human nature, just as we can not rely on the better side of human nature to do the ethical or right thing. Here is an example.

 

Is Bob going to lend James his kit so that James can go ahead of him in the individual rankings. Maybe he will. But I can promise you there are many Bobs that will find that state of affairs irksome and not acceptable.

 

And the feeding frenzy of hardware sharing is only going to happen in the initial stage I think. Benching is competitive. Team competition is huge. I would suggest for many benching teams it is bigger than the individual league.

 

Very few 'normal' bencher s believe that they can compete against the top 5 or 10 bencher's who head the current standings. Sponsored kit and access to resources being a major reason for that perception. Look those guys have earned all the perks that they get no mistake about that. For most of us we compete against people using the same kit as which we have. Most of the 5000 plus members of HWBOTS benching league do not use exotic cooling beyond a bit of water and every now and then some Dry Ice. They bench because they like doing it. Or is it as you suggest they bench just to push points for the team?

 

You mentioned the current points algorithm and I would like to just say this. I do understand that the bots algorithm is geared in a particular way, but it is an algorithm and as such can be reworked and will be reworked as the HWBOT continues to evolve. Nothing is static Massman you know that.

 

Benching is growing and we all (those in the sport) want it to continue growing. And as the environment evolves so to does the way it is managed.

 

One of the most pleasant parts of benching is surely the getting together of mates who have a common interest and have a benching session while enjoying a couple of drinks. More and more it is this collective gathering that marks benching as a fun thing to do. And people bring there hardware and it is natural and I will argue right to share kit in that settings. We want benching to grow. Social gatherings and group bench sessions are certainly helping with that growth. It is a way for new people to see and learn from those with more experience. The plus's of group bench sessions are quite obvious, currently the downside is the stigma of sharing hardware if you are going to submit to HWBOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

No CPU & VGA sharing at all.

 

Earlier I would have agreed with that right on the point but currently we have a very difficult situation (I leave out everything regarding result moderation, don't wanna think of the problems caused by the new rule there) at the moment: you want to bench 06 or vantage with some older cards --> you need GT. You can't effort GT? Well you are more or less F****.

Personally I am taking a little break from OC atm and watching the things happening from "a bit far away" but some of my team mates are still as enthusiastic as on the first day. So I am sending my starving GT (not used it myself since 3 month or so) to team mates far away from me and let them have some experience with GT.

You must know that this GT is not one of thoose cherry berry picked ones but random organized Q3QP back in october last year...none of my team mates would try to submit 2D scores with that chip (hardly 6gig pi or pifast ^^) or aim for any global scores - they just need it for e.g. 8800 GTS cards or X1XXX radeons for some hw-fun. I am happy I can give them the opportunitiy and think everybody in a good team that lend some good hw from a friend welcomes that you still can share some parts of hw and do not need to buy it all on your own alone.

 

there is a certain "ethic" line you have to draw of course. explaining that is quite simple: have you seen me submitting scores with stummerwinter's magic 975? We benched it together many times and we could have brought me right behind him easy with that chip (had GPUs enough on my own!) but we NEVER did so and NEVER will do...just that simple if you call yourself a true and honest overclocker :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Crew

Massman, I've got the idea about calculating team result the way the user results do know, that is what I meant in other words (and you rephrased it in HWBot algorithm terms).

 

The individual rankings can be fixed by implementing the "one team - one best results" only to team rankings e.g. using different algorithms for team and personal ladders. Yes, the system will be a bit more complex, but it's always a contradiction between easiness of rules and their ability to manage the members not making dirty tricks.

 

I'll try to model what happens now and what will be the main directions of activity with the alternate idea and try to fix the problems caused by it. Only a thought experiment, nothing more :)

 

As for the newcomers - I've got a E8400 C0 installed in the rig I'm typing from now. Can you tell me, how much will I get on a box cooler? Just a novice example. As well as the 8800GTS 512 on this CPU. Let's say E8400 will go about 4200-4300 without getting overheated under box cooling. The problem of a novice not able to achieve boints still exists, the rev. 3 improved it but didn't fix. But the rev. 3 gave trash-benching when you get a bunch of boints on a good rig without hard work. So there's no ideal solution anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only possible solution to the "boxed cooler" problem is to give a few boints "for free" for the first couple of submissions etc. Apart from that you just need to get into the "good air frequency"-range, one way or another. IMO that's fair, we can't reward every result with alot of boints - even those made by newbies with a shit CPU on the shittiest cooler there is (boxed). Atm you need 4.6GHz to get more than 0.1 boints for Superpi 1m, which is easy to do in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...