The ES Cauldron | Seeking A Resolution

[64NOMIS]

I have been asked to give my view so I will do so here. I also share everyone’s dread in polluting results threads with this discussion.

First, let me try to state the problem and my view. I believe that keeping ES off of HWBot main areas is very reasonable. That seems to be the focal point for these discussions since it is an arena where the world competes and competes primarily without vendor-provided hardware. Debate on experimental work with experimental hardware that pushes the limits may decline if we solve the primary problem: mingling results with experimental or vendor hardware with the vast majority of results which do not have this potential advantage.

However, I have some issues I struggle with as I think through this issue. I don’t have the answers but let me try to state the problems and some of the dilemmas I see.

For background, let me attempt to define ES. With today’s AMD processors, those happen to be high-leakage chips that can scale with LN2/LHe. Those overclock well under unprecedented cooling for modern processors and to everyone’s surprise performed in the WR competitive range. In general, the differences spanning any vendor product appear to be next generation design nodes, binning, and leakage. The irony is that higher leakage parts are, in general, discards, unable to run within stock power specifications, and those are precisely the ones that, either found by luck or culled out, may be the better overclockers.

Is any vendor-provided product an ES? When you get a CPU, GPU, MB or DRAM from a vendor, it is not clear if binning has occurred or process differences exist. The notion of a “cherry” is primarily binning (sometimes related to the leakage issue, primarily just the nature of modern ASICs which have slight variations that overclockers experience as higher attainable clock speed) and advance design nodes. Are we to ban any result with vendor provided CPU, GPU, MB, or DRAM from HWBot?

Advantage, deep pockets? If we were to do this, we advantage those world-class overclockers with deep pockets on HWBot. Again the irony, we solve the ES problem but create an economic one, not for everyone, but at the top. In addition, this seems difficult and frankly no fun to enforce. Overclocking in the competitive range is an expensive hobby if entirely self-funded. Again if you can afford it, then it is in your interest to ban vendor hardware. It may be a difference of interest issue, not a moral one.

Cannot win for loosing? I am confounded by people using clearly retail grade product, getting great results, and subsequently having it called a “cherry”. At some point, trust must be maintained, even when clearly retail grade product sees extraordinarily good results. Yet, if a product is from a vendor, can the vendor be trusted?

Can we look to other sports? In motorsports, robot wars, tennis, basketball, etc. sponsor gear that makes a team or individual more competitive is part of the game. The mingling and indeed symbiosis has become an accepted norm. Overclocking is a combination of “amateur” and underpaid “professional” grade competition. At the top are the pro’s often with vendor hardware, often overclocking at vendor events. Is it part of the natural balance that the pro leagues get better, often experimental gear?

Do we need a pro league? What is interesting is that most of the overclockers who post in this section forums get gear at one point or another. At what point does one graduate from the amateur league and take on the fact that in the pro’s there is bigger, advanced weaponry that may be hard to come by? And if you are a pro, if you cry foul, at what point is it just trying to get the call, and at what point is it really a moral issue?

I do not blame anyone for creating these issues, and as I have said before I respect the competition and my competitiors. Save that I see my own actions, stretching back almost 6 years, and the changes they have incited. Yet this is extreme competition using extreme systems. It is a combat. There is only so much one can do to restrain warriors.

So if we choose, lets resolve this now so that the pursuit of overclocking may continue, hopefully with less strife and more victory celebrations.

[zalbard]

I can only think about less binning... Handing out high leakage chips doesn't make much sense in terms of fair competition. You're binning chips already to find out what model it's going to belong to, for example 945BE or 955BE. Just don't bin any further, or if you want to bin super chips, just sell them as Extreme chips for a lot of $$$ like Intel does. That way everyone has more or less equal chances of getting a good or a bad CPU.
I don't mind vendors sponsoring OC teams, just make sure not to perform super binning doing so. So those should be retail products.

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

In my observations of things that I consider similar to this debacle over ES chips, the solution is never to attempt to limit or control it, but rather to embrace it.

We need a Pro division or F1 league (whatever may come of these concepts) and in this league EVERYTHING short of cheating and altering results must be allowed. The normal division of HWbot will stay the same, but competition in that field will increase too because most of the sponsored clockers with the proven skills will be in the PRO division duking it out.

[SF3D]

Hi Simon!

Nice thoughts there.

Here is my solution for these issues: http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=34549&postcount=174

What do you think?

[64NOMIS]

Hi Simon!

Nice thoughts there.

Here is my solution for these issues: http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=34549&postcount=174

What do you think?

Petri,

I think we need to resolve the definition of ES and I fear the vendor-provided hardware issue may still be problematic.

In other sports, a pro is a pro, an amateur is an amateur. You are a pro. It might diminish ambiguity if we designated people rather than individual results.

I am worried about the extra work and the burden this places on HWBot and the admins. Perhaps it is manageable.

But, yes, I think pro designation is a good idea, I just think it may correspond not to individual results, but rather, to individuals.

[Slovnaft]

I can only think about less binning... Handing out high leakage chips doesn't make much sense in terms of fair competition. You're binning chips already to find out what model it's going to belong to, for example 945BE or 955BE. Just don't bin any further, or if you want to bin super chips, just sell them as Extreme chips for a lot of $$$ like Intel does. That way everyone has more or less equal chances of getting a good or a bad CPU.
I don't mind vendors sponsoring OC teams, just make sure not to perform super binning doing so. So those should be retail products.

That may be true if you think of overclocking as a sport that should be governed by money to invoke 'fairness'. This is the means to the same end that comes hand in hand with the "hardware sharing" discussions we have on hwbot which touch on many of the same sensitive issues as the ES/vendor hardware debate.

Personally I see overclocking and its following as an activity and community that, thus far, has grown to be uniquely friendly and communal. By that I mean that in online forums we seem to see each other as like-minded individuals all working towards a more or less common goal in many of the same ways, and because of this we support each other in our endeavors in a way that, in my opinion, transcends sportsmanship in its relative selflessness. As a symptom of our media we realize that the best form of innovation in overclocking comes through sharing of information, technique, and, inevitably, equipment.

Now overclocking differs from sports in more ways than our attitude. I'm a swimmer so I'll take my analogy there. Michael Phelps may wear a slightly different or more advanced suit than Ian Crocker, but few would argue that his suit was the reason he beat out Ian for the 100m Fly WR. It is fairly well recognized that performance in swimming is a transparently supported result of hard work and skill. Conversely, in overclocking, as the current system stands the relationship between work, skill, and performance can sometimes become obscured by the nature of our medium. To make overclocking comparable to a sport in that regard we would all need to bench the EXACT same hardware in an ideal world. Do not mistake this for a suggestion.

Inevitably, the only way the overclocking world can come to terms with itself is to embrace some of its nascent characteristics of commonality and brotherhood.

I'll complete my thoughts later, but right now I have to catch a train...

[boblemagnifique]

Limited the ES chips is more simply for me.

For exemple , when a brand of Memory , graphic cards .. selected one pcs for a overclockeur , it's not ES kit but a same Kit in the shop ... how do we know?

for the cpus , you detected The ES chips only by Cpuz , it's true ? It's not real because i have a few cpus ES doesn't recognized by CPUZ. Franck can't all do, we (brand & we) must also help too (although the last few years, there's better)

Sorry for me , the requires of overclockeurs be honest and tell the truth about of materiel of overclocking it because we can never be proof if it is a cherry picked or not ...

There are a lot of work but if we work together without thinking about the competition and ranking, we can create a league honest and fairplay to all the community :up:

Sorry for my english :rolleyes:

[massman]

Thank you for taking the time to digg into this issue Simon. I'm actually quite happy to see that I share a couple of your thoughts regarding the true nature of this issue as well as the consequences of agreeing to take down the scores. As I've already stated in the Hwbot forums, this discussion streches far beyond the ordinary "it's not fair"-argument, but in fact should make us think about the level of fairness of having a cherry cpu and compare that to the level of other factors that play in the overclocking world, in particular the competition, be it at Hwbot or just in a few local forums.

If we ban the ES samples because of this sole "it's not fair"-argument, we should be taking into consideration all the other factors that is not fair. In the recent past, I've seen people get in touch with motherboard manufacturers and get more than one sample to test. Is that fair? I have seen people get in touch with videocard manufacturers and recieve multiple samples of high-end cards to test. Is that fair? I know that there are a lot of people spending a lot of their free time writing reviews, round-ups and in-depth technology articles and for return, they sometimes recieve hardware. Is that fair? Some people win the lottery and are capable of buying thousands of chips, just to find the golden one. Is thát fair?

Also, I would very much like to point out that this discussion probably is a mere problem of benchmarks incapable of being limited by what they're supposed to test. Please, think about the true reason why the discussion involves CPU's and not VGA's or memory or any other type of hardware. It's because not only the 2D benchmarks are cpu-bound, but the 3D benchmarks we use are also.

Again, I would like to stress the fact that I'm not leaning towards one side or the other here, just trying to get a few thoughts across like I did in the Hwbot forums. They were read incorrectly by a lot of people, so I hope it doesn't happen with this one.

[chew*]

I think what simon is getting at is a few people me included have attained extremely good results with retail review samples.....which had to meet 955 binning criteria......etc they will never perform on par with "ES high leakage"

This is overshadowed by those calling them "cherries" in just about every post with results.......

For me I can't afford one chip much less 10......I have no choice....

The Irony is when ever I have benched "high leakage ES" I have pummeled any result I have ever acchieved on review samples.......whether posted result or internal........so there is a consistency with all results I acchieve.....

Quite frankly I know how to tell them apart, most don't......however the comments are getting rather annoying......annoying as In I ask myself daily now, why do I even bother.

The sad part is if a guy with a blue or yellow name acchieves a result with the same review samples.....it's not questioned.....they are just 1337.

My 2c.

[massman]

I am worried about the extra work and the burden this places on HWBot and the admins. Perhaps it is manageable.

Technically, yes. When put in practice, I believe it will be a very difficult task, for which the difficulty level depends on the expectations of this new PRO league.

As long as we will have to rely mostly on the honesty and integrity of the overclocker, I'm afraid we'll end up with the same kind of misery as we have today. With the background I have at Hwbot in mind, and let me be so free to extend this to the history of mankind, I know that when people are not able to win by power, they'll use their brain to get ahead, this meant in a negative way. Bending rules to have incorrect scores accepted by Hwbot, it's been done many times. And for those who blaim the internet as a fairly anonymous way to interact, recent actions have shown me that the exact same behavior happens when people are in the presence of each other.

So, with that in mind, we'd have to have rules SO strict that it would take years to develop a professional league which is regulated from bottom-up; with which I mean: regulated and controlled only by hwbot. The other way would be to have a complete top-down regulation where the manufacturer is willing to regulate the 'cherry' seeding and inform hwbot which user got a sample that can be called 'cherry'. Again, possible within certain range as we can never be sure a vendor is speaking the truth and nothing but the truth; I suppose I don't have to point fingers here.

If we're looking for a quick 'n' easy solution, I'd have to say this would be the one:


If Intel and AMD know who has cherry chips and they'd be willing to share this information with us or the community in general, it's possible to moderate the results. I'd prefer to see them indicate the fact that they're special ES samples in the cpuid tag, though. If you can make it look like retail, you can also make it look like "975 (CS)" or "X4 955 (CS)".

+


... allow people to choose to have certain scores excluded from the points, much like we now have with entire profiles.

But, again, we'd be relying totally on the honesty of the manufacturers.

[Sampsa]

First of all I want to thank AMD and Simon for support they have offered for several overclockers since and before Phenom II launch. You guys have obviously worked hard to get rid of issues like cold bug and as we have seen the CPUs scaling under cold is amazing. Hopefully we will see products like TWKR available for everyone to buy and most important for reasonable price. :welcome:

In my opinion we can divide ES CPUs to two categories:

1) Normal ES: Available to partners and press before the product actually launches. These are usually close to retail parts, maybe one stepping/node before retails. From my experience (I've had access to AMD & Intel ES CPUs before the official launch around 8 years) normal ES CPUs are actually usually worse than retails because manufacturing process develops all the time and retails keep getting better. Every Phenom II press sample (not even marked as ES but couple weeks earlier than retail parts) I've tested so far have been worse than normal retails.

2) Cherry-picked ES: These are the ones which cause problems in competition and give unfair advantage compared to retail parts. These are handpicked by manufacturer straight from production line because of chip's good characteristics for overclocking. Usually these parts wouldn't make it to retail because they are way beyond spec (leaking current -> too hot). These are perfect parts for overclocking under cold (LN2 & LHe) and suitable for technology experiments / demonstrations. These parts should be marked clearly different than retail parts.

---

I'm personally interested to see how far I can push the latest technology and 2) Cherry-picked ES are best for this. But I don't want to compete with these parts against someone who is using retail parts because no retail part can ever be as good as cherry-picked ES.

It's like two guys racing against each other on straight line and one has speed limiter @ 200 km/h and other one @ 300 km/h. Who will win? :rolleyes:

I will keep testing all CPUs: press sample ES, cherry-picked ES and retail-samples. But from now on I'll only post results with retail components to hwbot.org because 99,9% of +17500 other users are using retail parts and currently in Overclockers league you are competing against them.

My suggestion to hwbot.org is to create separate "Advanced Technology" ranking where everything goes and people can post scores with special hardware like ES CPUs or components which are not publicly available.

[chew*]

In my opinion we can divide ES CPUs to two categories:

1) Normal ES: Available to partners and press before the product actually launches. These are usually close to retail parts, maybe one stepping/node before retails. From my experience (I've had access to AMD & Intel ES CPUs before the official launch around 8 years) normal ES CPUs are actually usually worse than retails because manufacturing process develops all the time and retails keep getting better. Every Phenom II press sample (not even marked as ES but couple weeks earlier than retail parts) I've tested so far have been worse than normal retails.



Thank you. :up:

Maybe coming from you people will actually listen.

[SF3D]

My suggestion to hwbot.org is to create separate "Advanced Technology" ranking where everything goes and people can post scores with special hardware like ES CPUs or components which are not publicly available.

I hope more people would find this new NO limits league interesting.

This league wouldn't mess up the point system, but we all would be able to see and check the current WR's from one site.

I have been talking about this new league about 6 months and now it seems, that the time is ready.


But, I have to say that taking of the ES scores out of the database, just liket that, is not the right way either. People should wait and listen. HWbot.org tries to evolve and if all the users remove ES scores from the site it does not lead anywhere. I can figure only one reson to do so, but is it the right one, no one knows.

Time will tell where our discussion will lead in HWbot.org crew section, but we will keep you all updated for sure. The start of the conversation is not too promising though :shrug:

[TheGreenFoX]

mpeting against them.

My suggestion to hwbot.org is to create separate "Advanced Technology" ranking where everything goes and people can post scores with special hardware like ES CPUs or components which are not publicly available.

Then we are back to how to tell a ES (cherry) from a retail.
It would give AMD and Intel an economic interest in making cherry ES look like a retails sample ...
I dont have a solution... just pointing it out

[SF3D]

Then we are back to how to tell a ES (cherry) from a retail.
It would give AMD and Intel an economic interest in making cherry ES look like a retails sample ...
I dont have a solution... just pointing it out

They would not have to do this, cause in the new league it wouldn't matter at all. If you use ES and do a WR, it is totally ok in that league. You would not get any HWpoints from it and the overclockers league would be untouched.

At the moment both vendors might have a urge to change labels, but with this new league need for doing that is minimal.

[TheGreenFoX]

How i see it, they would disguise cherry ES as retails to make people buy their product because they perform better in benchmarks... even then they dont...

Maybe im just way to suspicious...

[Movieman]

Can I toss in my thoughts on this?
I know and respect what you guys do even though my interests aren't in this end of the hobby BUT that doesn't mean I don't read your threads and sit back in wonder at what you guys accomplish.
I think if you try and eliminate ES chips from the playing field you will stifle the hobby.
They are like the prototype engines used in Formula 1 racing and what is learned from those engines trickles down to the mainstream and benefits all over time.
To me all that is needed here is already inside each and every one of you: honor.
Put the desire to be #1 on HWbot or on Futuremark where it belongs and not as the 'OMG I got to be #1 today" sort of thinking.
Stop and think for a minute: Do you think that I, Dave Average" think any less of the accomplishments of any of you whether your #1 or #21 on HWbot?
The answer is no, I don't.
I've been here since November 2005 and read from day one of the "greats" for lack of a better word in this hobby.
Sampsa,Macci,Fugger and Hipro were the names at the top when I came here and read all of what you wrote.
Any and all of you "top" guys have my respect and the titles will go back and forth between you over time just as they always have.
If you use a "cherry" or "Dear Lord, I was sent the "ONE" of a million chip" then say so and put your records and accomplishments in perspective so that not only do we see your accomplishment but see it in the proper perspective.
Just like the use of LHe vs LN gives an advantage and is seen for what it is.
Keep the ES's, push the limits because to do less changes the meaning of what you do.

[boblemagnifique]

First of all I want to thank AMD and Simon for support they have offered for several overclockers since and before Phenom II launch. You guys have obviously worked hard to get rid of issues like cold bug and as we have seen the CPUs scaling under cold is amazing. Hopefully we will see products like TWKR available for everyone to buy and most important for reasonable price. :welcome:

In my opinion we can divide ES CPUs to two categories:

1) Normal ES: Available to partners and press before the product actually launches. These are usually close to retail parts, maybe one stepping/node before retails. From my experience (I've had access to AMD & Intel ES CPUs before the official launch around 8 years) normal ES CPUs are actually usually worse than retails because manufacturing process develops all the time and retails keep getting better. Every Phenom II press sample (not even marked as ES but couple weeks earlier than retail parts) I've tested so far have been worse than normal retails.

It should also be recalled that the interest of Normal ES and very often the nice price (after it's released official OEM or BOX). For exemple for the CPU intel the price is expensive for the Retail Box for the Xtreme Edition (i7 , Xeon or Cpu Mobiles) , The ES allows some people who have no bugdet test for a lesser cost ...
Only the problem the sale of ES is dark and forbidden, but who's to blame? why there are Intel 32nm sales currently in the moment on the forum Public, and Intel knows it must continue and leaves ... let me laugh, it is tolerated because it will create a great "media buzz" even if many millions of $ going in the pockets of anybody in the dark traffic ....
Then hunting ES is really hypocrisy total ...

[SF3D]

How i see it, they would disguise cherry ES as retails to make people buy their product because they perform better in benchmarks... even then they dont...

Maybe im just way to suspicious...

Well.. that is true, but if there is no need for that, it wouldn't be so important. If everyone can use ES and be proud of it, there is no need for it.


then say so and put your records and accomplishments in perspective so that not only do we see your accomplishment but see it in the proper perspective.


Nice post Dave. This was the most interesting part.

I really think that 99% of average overclocker does not care how the records are done, but to keep the game fair in HWbot, we have to figure something out.

I may have totally different point of view cause I am connected to both things (ES cpu's and HWbot) closely. So, I will let this conversation go on without preaching about this new league :D

[Slappa]

I agree strongly with Sampsa and Chew* on this issue...

Thing is...preview retails (review samples) etc, are designed to represent a final retail product.....and are actually worse in most cases.
People try to to call these chips out as cherry's....which is not the case at all. I find it ludicrous to see people who can do amazing things with retails or preview retails be accused of attaining cherry chips.

People need to remember that a lot of the top OCers tend to choose preview retails from trays full of them. Nothing is binned or cherry picked specifically for these trays. The only picking being done is the hand picking from the OCer/User. Even then, it would still be the chip that it was binned and specified for, nothing more.

and on the other hand an ES is an ES. Most people state they are using an ES. Most pros also do NOT post ES results on hwbot.org to keep it fair. Same goes for cherry picked chips. Most results displayed from these chips are mostly experimental for the purpose of showing technology at it's best.

[sacha35]

I think we are still looking at this the wrong way.

I have said this many times before, but for some reason it just keeps getting put down or ignored.

If we are going to try and make this a true competitive sport then there needs to be true validation, in this I mean built in software that can validate that there has been no fail play that has taken place.
Secondly there has to be a limit put on the CPU for the benchmarks very much like the low clock challenges that are around, I am not saying run our chips at stock or water cooling but something everyone can reach with extreme cooling and again this would be truly validated by the validating software that has to be in place on the operating system to make sure the clock speed is the one that has been set/ put in place by the regulation site.

I have taken the point Sampsa has made and listed it here for this reason
(It's like two guys racing against each other on straight line and one has speed limiter @ 200 km/h and other one @ 300 km/h. Who will win?) well the same goes for clock speeds on CPU too.
I am from a motor sport background with good results and many years in motorsport and there is in place limits imposed on setups and Engines to make things more competitive which brings a bigger audience and secondly it makes things even so only the best people win.

I am not saying I don't want to see the big clocks or supper results as these are always great to see but to make our sport more competitive with more members joining in and competing on an even playing field has to be the only way this sport can grow as MHZ will always win.
there is a big enough data base to be able to determine what most CPU's can do with regards MHz so this would make things more even for everyone regardless of if the CPU is retail or ES or supper picked.

So the easy way is to have proper full validating software that shows no fail play had taken place and impose a MHz limit.

But create a new category for all high MHz benchmarks to show the manufactures what their product can do and what sort of results can be had.

[gandalfone]

Thank you for taking the time to digg into this issue Simon. I'm actually quite happy to see that I share a couple of your thoughts regarding the true nature of this issue as well as the consequences of agreeing to take down the scores. As I've already stated in the Hwbot forums, this discussion streches far beyond the ordinary "it's not fair"-argument, but in fact should make us think about the level of fairness of having a cherry cpu and compare that to the level of other factors that play in the overclocking world, in particular the competition, be it at Hwbot or just in a few local forums.

If we ban the ES samples because of this sole "it's not fair"-argument, we should be taking into consideration all the other factors that is not fair. In the recent past, I've seen people get in touch with motherboard manufacturers and get more than one sample to test. Is that fair? I have seen people get in touch with videocard manufacturers and recieve multiple samples of high-end cards to test. Is that fair? I know that there are a lot of people spending a lot of their free time writing reviews, round-ups and in-depth technology articles and for return, they sometimes recieve hardware. Is that fair? Some people win the lottery and are capable of buying thousands of chips, just to find the golden one. Is thát fair?

Also, I would very much like to point out that this discussion probably is a mere problem of benchmarks incapable of being limited by what they're supposed to test. Please, think about the true reason why the discussion involves CPU's and not VGA's or memory or any other type of hardware. It's because not only the 2D benchmarks are cpu-bound, but the 3D benchmarks we use are also.

Again, I would like to stress the fact that I'm not leaning towards one side or the other here, just trying to get a few thoughts across like I did in the Hwbot forums. They were read incorrectly by a lot of people, so I hope it doesn't happen with this one.

Bingo!!

I agree

[Movieman]

Well.. that is true, but if there is no need for that, it wouldn't be so important. If everyone can use ES and be proud of it, there is no need for it.



Nice post Dave. This was the most interesting part.

I really think that 99% of average overclocker does not care how the records are done, but to keep the game fair in HWbot, we have to figure something out.

I may have totally different point of view cause I am connected to both things (ES cpu's and HWbot) closely. So, I will let this conversation go on without preaching about this new league :D

Ok, then I think your answer is a "pro" league.
Put it right out there for all to see that the people in that section are getting help and special parts and let it fly.
By doing so, it does keep it in perspective for all of us mere mortals to see.
It also allows the manufacturers to put into the "right" hands chips that they think are stellar and to show off what their R&D can accomplish in the hands of people that we know and trust.
The peolple in that "pro" section should also be allowed to post results in the regular section but now we're down to the honor thing.
That is something one either has or doesn't and no amount of rules will change what is inside you guys.

[elmor]

I'm thinking along the same way as Sampsa, Simon and Pieter(Massman). It's unfair that some are able to get good cpus from manufacturer but IMO it's just as bad if you need to be really rich to handpick cpus. Still as Sampsa and Movieman are on to I'm in this for pushing the limits of the hardware which means I want to see higher clock speeds and results.

I have no real solution to this issue and as other says if we start with cpus then we will have to impose the same with vgas, rams, mbs etc. The way I see it overclocking will never be 100% fair, but the again, life isn't either. IMO, currently the best way to compete is with the live overclocking competitions with pre-binned cpus.

Clock limits is NOT the way to go, it takes almost all the fun out of overclocking/benchmarking.

[massman]

impose a MHz limit.

For me, that's a no-go for several reasons:

1) It's called overclocking
2) Completely unreliable verification with current software
3) Even with future software, it's crackable (eg: cpu-z 1.43)
4) Called Bernie Ecclestone just a few minutes ago, and he said no when I suggested a 60km/h limit; even though I said it would show us the true best driver as finding the right line would become the main skill
5) It's called overclocking

[Planet]

Simon, SF3D, Sampsa, Massman

You guys all have great points. Massman I think AMD kinda already took your idea of labeling as Cherry ES by naming them as Twkr. Lets get back to the fun and do some over clocking :yepp:

Jake

[sacha35]

Clock limits is NOT the way to go, it takes almost all the fun out of overclocking/benchmarking.

I totally agree with you elmor, but if things will ever be fair then this has to be put in place just like any sport, there are rules imposed and checked to make sure everyone has the same chance of winning, then and only then will it come down to talent and skill.

Still have a section for the big overclocks and high MHz to show what can be done when the hardware is pushed to the limits as this is what we enjoy most to see and try for, but the only way I can see and resolve in making things fair for all is imposing limits on speeds for the hardware used.

[Movieman]

I'm thinking along the same way as Sampsa, Simon and Pieter(Massman). It's unfair that some are able to get good cpus from manufacturer but IMO it's just as bad if you need to be really rich to handpick cpus. Still as Sampsa and Movieman are on to I'm in this for pushing the limits of the hardware which means I want to see higher clock speeds and results.

I have no real solution to this issue and as other says if we start with cpus then we will have to impose the same with vgas, rams, mbs etc. The way I see it overclocking will never be 100% fair, but the again, life isn't either. IMO, currently the best way to compete is with the live overclocking competitions with pre-binned cpus.

Clock limits is NOT the way to go, it takes almost all the fun out of overclocking/benchmarking.

Years ago myself and two friends campaigned a little Austin Sprite in SCCA G/Production.
Our budget for the year was app $5000.00
We competed with guys with budgets from $2 million( Paul Newmans team) to other guys like ourselves.
We knew there was no way we would beat the factory teams but that didn't take away from the competitions.
I can remember running into a turn and out braking the Group 44 Jag that was a monster.
Competition is what you as an individual make of it.
Enjoy it even if there are some you know you can't beat.

[[XC] gomeler]

Oh man.. don't even mention limiting maximum frequencies. Sure, the chip plays a large part in maximum frequency but tweaking the setup is equally important. My w3570 if you just sit down and crank up the multiplier maxes out around 5300MHz. After a lot of testing of various cpu/memory/uncore multipliers I eventually found a combination that let me bench around 5450MHz through SPi 16M, 150MHz gain after a few hours of testing. If you were to limit i7 chips to 5300MHz everyone and their idiot brother could hit that with a D0.. keep that in mind. If you try to keep it fair you are going to average together the results and make it boring.

This is overclocking, the fun is in pushing the chips to the breaking point, not the governing body mandated limit. Some people like tweaking software, others like tweaking hardware/cooling. Don't turn overclocking into a keyboard jockey sport where cooling and hardware tweaking doesn't matter.

[chew*]

In response to sacha / gomelers posts.

There are more ways to tweak then one. I prefer to do my tweaking at a hardware level. I maxximize my hardware.

Screw the software tweaks.......the software was designed to run a certain way.

If FM wanted you to run with no leaves or branches on tree's for instance the bench would run that way to begin with and furthermore they would not have gone to great pains to eliminate these "tweaks" as some call them in "newer" versions.

If the author of Super PI had wanted users to use maxmem 600 well they would have integrated that into the program.......what some call tweaks I call cheats......altering/tricking the way software runs is just that.......

I would love to see someone all tweaked out for an 01 run try to play a game that uses Punkbuster....How much you want to bet you get kicked for cheats ;)

Setting a clock limit will just employ more users finding these said "tweaks" "exploits"

I know of one with ATI cards, boosts my score something fierce and future mark accepts the score. Someone told me without knowing what the tweak is that its a cheat.....

How do you determine that? Because I know how to do it and you don't?

I don't use it but I think you see my point.

EDIT
Just so you don't think I'm talking out of my A$$

Direct X on
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=9428501

Direct X off although FM doesn't realize it everything else the same
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=9750765

And no I'm not going to tell you how to run 06 with no direct X.........

[loonym]

I see quite a few advocates of a pro class or whatever you would call it. I also saw it pointed out that ES cpu are acquired by various means and sometimes for obvious financial reasons or even through gifting. They can be bought and I hope care would be taken not to exclude 'Joe Avg' and his perhaps avg or maybe not so avg cpu from hwbot. I don't want to pick on anyone but Dave is a prime example. The man has a knack for finding interesting specimens and enjoys posting the occasional benchmark for the team.

[massman]

Is the avg joe someone who plays with LN2 at least once a month?

[loonym]

Is the avg joe someone who plays with LN2 at least once a month?This is where drawing the line becomes exceedingly tricky.

[massman]

Exactly why I pose the question ;).

[STEvil]

There's a pretty simplistic way to clear this up.

There are results which are done with ES hardware.

There are results which are done with retail hardware.

Some results from the ES category are applicable to the retail category and some are not. Most results obtained with "special" ES hardware are known and publicly stated by the persons who did so. Usually only the persons who have trouble differentiating results or are generating results without full disclosure (as much as is possible, labeling "special" ES hardware for example) cause problems.

ES and special hardware is part of overclocking and being Xtreme.

[Slovnaft]

Chew, while you bring up a good point, you do sort of shrug off what overclocking has become mostly about which is maximizing the few elements of hardware and the way we run it that we can control. It is NOT to game on a 5ghz rig.

Sacha brings up perhaps the best point which I'd like to address: how do we isolate the actual SKILL involved in overclocking, removing advantages like fat wallets and slick connections, without watering down what we love about it? And I think you come very close to what I think is the best solution.

I guess I won't beat around the bush with elaborate points this time.

Overclocking needs to be INSTITUTIONALIZED, and I do not mean more sponsorship from AIB vendors and motherboard manufacturers.

Intel, AMD, and Nvidia need to get together and decide that overclocking as an activity is not only valuable to their industry but worthwhile in and of itself and needs to be preserved, regulated, and therefore legitimized.

Their decisions from that point will be there own, but my ideas run more or less along the concept of a tiered league with different levels of competition. Each level of the league would bench and compete exclusively with a certain standardized platform based on the level of competition. Hardware could be sold to registered competitors at reduced prices and would be registered upon sale to prevent binning and multi-entry. On a certain periodicity, competitors at the top of each tier would be moved up to the next tier of hardware, while competitors at the bottom would be moved down.
Users within each tier would be forced and welcomed to take the platform to and beyond its limits, and thus preserve the aspect of overclocking I think we love best: pushing the limit
Higher tiers would have fewer competitors, bench higher-end hardware, and be more heavily subsidized. The top tier would be similar to what has been proposed as an "F1" League, which is to say entirely subsidized by the league and benchmarking the best in available and pre-retail hardware.

I won't make my post much longer. This is about much more than resolving the "ES issue", this is about the direction of the future of overclocking. Should this continue to be a sport that requires absurd end-user expenditures to receive sufficient exposure to become involved in a 'legitimate' way? Or should it become something more regulated and more respected?

[boblemagnifique]

Years ago myself and two friends campaigned a little Austin Sprite in SCCA G/Production.
Our budget for the year was app $5000.00
We competed with guys with budgets from $2 million( Paul Newmans team) to other guys like ourselves.
We knew there was no way we would beat the factory teams but that didn't take away from the competitions.
I can remember running into a turn and out braking the Group 44 Jag that was a monster.
Competition is what you as an individual make of it.
Enjoy it even if there are some you know you can't beat.

I started overclocking there are about 7 years to boost my setup at a lower cost. Today, this passion has become a competition and incentive to consume to spend forever and ever to be in the top level ("pro" : i don't like this word for the oc).

We lost this pleasure to play and enjoy just overclock to know the limits (by being in a world ranking to be recognized by the marks with the benchmarks ranking) -> (personnaly it is why i even buy old cpus, : P3/P4, AMD Duron/Xp, A64 .... to keep the pleasure of my first time)

It's sad to see a passion to become a sport and be all the time in competition (ok there are benefits : meet good people, travel, have good contacts with the engineers to help improve the pcs ...) we don't live with overclocking, we work to live at orthers job , we aren't professional for me (just "geek" for the several people here)

I'm ok with SF3D to create a 2nd class on Hwbot, without ranking, not points but not only for ES pcs but for people who want all their accounts. Hwbot was a very good database to post these screens and no need to have points to be motivated at to Benchs ;)

It's the brands to control and limit their ES, not us. I would like to see a person of Intel (AMD is good now i think) , with the true status : "Spoken" come here and talk about it really explains their policies and how they want to solve this problem ...

[LardArse]

Sacha brings up perhaps the best point which I'd like to address: how do we isolate the actual SKILL involved in overclocking, removing advantages like fat wallets and slick connections, without watering down what we love about it? And I think you come very close to what I think is the best solution.

It would be nice to hear what people's definition of this word that comes up very often is. I think people have differing views on this as well.

In a game, it's so easy to tell. Here... :shrug:

[Gautam]

It would be nice to hear what people's definition of this word that comes up very often is. I think people have differing views on this as well.

In a game, it's so easy to tell. Here... :shrug:

Whatever it is it's obvious you have none :p:

:rofl: :rofl:

[MTP04]

Years ago myself and two friends campaigned a little Austin Sprite in SCCA G/Production.
Our budget for the year was app $5000.00
We competed with guys with budgets from $2 million( Paul Newmans team) to other guys like ourselves.
We knew there was no way we would beat the factory teams but that didn't take away from the competitions.
I can remember running into a turn and out braking the Group 44 Jag that was a monster.
Competition is what you as an individual make of it.
Enjoy it even if there are some you know you can't beat.

You hit the nail on the head Movieman, good post!:)

EDIT: I am not taking any sides, it just reminded me of something, that's all.

[LardArse]

Whatever it is it's obvious you have none :p:

:rofl: :rofl:

:(:( :D

[Slovnaft]

It would be nice to hear what people's definition of this word that comes up very often is. I think people have differing views on this as well.

In a game, it's so easy to tell. Here... :shrug:

Well let's think about that, because it is ambiguous. What differs between overclockers? Those at the top are mostly benching the same hardware, so what is to differentiate the results they generate.

At least when I have benched with certain individuals personally it becomes far more clear what constitutes "skill" in overclocking.

In my opinion it comes in two distinct forms which are presented in varying degrees by many top overclockers.

First, the genuine desire to understand hardware functionality and application on a component level going beyond cursory identification of features, voltages, and their relation to higher clocks to actual innovation in design. I see this crystallized in benchers like you Peter, and Hipro, and present in many others as well. For me this is where overclocking bridges into a career-oriented fascination with digital and analog circuit design.

Second is the pure and unwavering love of the scientific process. Not only the willingness to, but the enjoyment of trying everything and learning more no matter what the hardware, crunching tediously through benchmarks and tests without tire. This is what gives us good tweakers on the software end. I see this in people like Jody, who is one of the few reviewers I've seen produce articles that I can resolve with good scientific practice and not just blowing hot air.


These are the characteristics that I believe need to be rewarded in overclocking, and why I think it is critical that the infrastructure of this activity receive a major overhaul.

[FUGGER]

Spot on Simon, I am impressed that you have a good grip on the situation.

If hwbot did separate the scores I would post to hwbot again. Having a category where it is known we use manufacture provided hardware would be the best route. No points?

[AndreYang]

Spot on Simon, I am impressed that you have a good grip on the situation.

If hwbot did separate the scores I would post to hwbot again. Having a category where it is known we use manufacture provided hardware would be the best route. No points?


PLEASE NO ES to ORB, too .

[Movieman]

It seems to me that most of the top guys here are fairly close in their thinking..
A suggestion; Get together somehow, sit down over dinner and hash out some rules that you can all stand behind.
Keep it simple and to the point.

[[XC] gomeler]

You want to pay for the airfare? :p:

[Buckeye]

As long as Movieman is not there it should work out great, if he was there no one would get a chance to say anything :rofl:

[Movieman]

gomeler;3921499']You want to pay for the airfare? :p:
No..I have enough issues just paying for my car repairs!:p:

As long as Movieman is not there it should work out great, if he was there no one would get a chance to say anything :rofl:

Why thank you kind sir..

(silently goes to the admin cp to fix your wagon! )

[EnJoY]

Sampsa, Slovnaft, Movieman, Massman and of course Simon. I wholeheartedly agree with each of you. Great points, great discussion, and I wish I could contribute to it with something meaningful, but you all beat me to it and said it better than I could have.

Here's hoping the changes this hobby needs are put into place sooner rather than later.

[Pt1t]

PLEASE NO ES to ORB, too .

And no hwbot too :rolleyes: it will resolve all issues :D

[Kabauterman]

I havn't read the full thread but I will give you our point of view

We, the BenchBros, are in the business for only one and a half year!

And we are also Vendor supported, we does a lot of hard work to get this support! Lots of Money has spend to buy Hardware, LN2 and cooling equipment.

It was a long way for us to switch in the Hwbot Top10 but I think we have done our best to achive this.

From my point of view most of the "little Overclocking guys" can do the same, If they offers much Time much Money and put out the last of the hardware what they have.

I think every Overclocker wich is Vendor supported has a long way before he gets free samples!

That was the first part
the secound part is, what about cherry samples?

If we get a memory Kit form Corsairs Beta Testing programm it is prebinned, ok, but a prebinned memory Kit is not such a big advantage for any BenchMark...

If we get a GFX form MSI it is a normal retail, not clocks better than every card out there. But it is Vendor provided.

But Intel and AMD has a bigger range to prebin hardware than MSI for GFX.
So Intel or AMD can change rankings and destroys the league with cherry chips.

Otherwise it is very hard to spot Cherry Results on HWBot, any noob can says, "oh this CPU is so good it must be cherry" and BANG result blocked?

Thats not the way to go guys, I think WRs wich Cherry = ok, but hwbot with cherry = not OK, but it is in the Hands of the Clockers wich will get this Cherry Chips.

btw. pro-league is BS because we work hard to get to the point where we are, and only if we gets a Memory Kit and two GFX from a vendor we don't want to called "pro's"

[bazx]

posted by SF3D

We will start to discuss about new OC league. This new league would be called No limits OC league or something like that.

This league would be for scores, which can not or should not be in the normal overclockers league. Current league would get free from all ES hardware scores and race would be fair for everyone.

This new league would hold all current top scores (which are not posted at the moment), but there wouldn't be any point system. Only pure scores and screenshots, no points. Ranking would be on it's place in that league. It would be different situation, cause peoples are not ranked, only scores. That way all possible scores could be posted to this database and there wouldn't be any reason to get upset by them.

This new league would solve most of the issues we have had during past year.

If we will have this new league, I will post all my ES scores to there and I will leave the basic overclockers league for good.

i totally agree with this and for me solves a great deal

and imo it is important that points are not allocated to the new group

this will ensure that the team rankings do not get messed up by these parts







.

[ryba]

And no hwbot too :rolleyes: it will resolve all issues :D

Maybe no overclocking?;) We can always change our hobby to...hmm postal stamps are very interesting :rofl:

[sacha35]

4) Called Bernie Ecclestone just a few minutes ago, and he said no when I suggested a 60km/h limit; even though I said it would show us the true best driver as finding the right line would become the main skill

Well I was down McLaren a little while ago ( yes I have relations that work for the company) and I did have a good chat with Ron Denis about the Sport and he told me they do all have different budget's but have to work within the rules that have been outlined for that year.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/waterboy100/Mclaren.jpg

When I asked Ron Denis how teams get an advantage he said it all comes down to how the car has been setup, with regards aero dynamics , fuel consumption and engine mapping, they all have to work within the rules Engine size and horse power, how that horse power is controlled and put down on the road is down to the teams.

If you look at Malaren last year they where number one, why ? because they had a good driver in Lewis Hamilton and their car most importantly was setup correctly.

Where are McLaren this year ? they are not doing to good because there car is not setup right, they still have the same driver but he cannot use the power of the car due to it not working correctly.

Where was Jenison Button last year? he has had a bad time in F1 because of power from his cars and setup issues.

Where is Jenison Button this year? he has the same McLaren engine that Lewis Hamilton uses but in the Brawn car, why is he faster than Lewis then? because the Brawn car is setup better than the McLaren car.

[Sampsa]

sacha35, lets say engine limitation in overclocking would be excluding cherry-picked parts and everyone uses retail parts. Even though engines are limited in F1.. there is no maximum KMH/MPH speed limitation in F1 car which could be equal to unlimited MHz in overclocking.

[sacha35]

sacha35, lets say engine limitation in overclocking would be excluding cherry-picked parts and everyone uses retail parts. Even though engines are limited in F1.. there is no maximum KMH/MPH speed limitation in F1 car which could be equal to unlimited MHz in overclocking.

The only problem I can see with this exclusion of ES is that Cherry's will be moved to retail without any detection at all.

[K404]

Whats so bad about a set of leaderboards with a MHz cap at a high but obtainable level for each CPU architecture- 775, I7, PheII and seeing who has the control, the tweaking, the understanding and the multi-tasking to score best?

Doesnt have to be THE leaderboard, doesnt have to be for points- just an in-house high-exposure battle for efficiency.

Having said that... I do believe that (nice or not) is side-stepping Simons point and question


I also believe there are two kinds of ES.

Engineering sample- where new architectures are tested and validated

Engineering SHOWCASE where select chips from retail wafers- or even tweaked wafers- are selected and pushed slightly different to see what the technology is capable of.

I beleive there is and should be a clear distinction between the two. ESample comes first

EShowcase will get better as the process matures and as the companies (CPU + Mobo) understand the real-world characteristics of the gear. Simulate all you like I know fine well once things get "human" the characteristics change.


We cant stop overclockers having either kind. ESamples are essential but I beleive there should be distinction.

Would AMD...Intel.... etc be willing on a global level to embrace the differences, label them clearly- to software reading level and allow healthy competition without smoke and mirrors?

[Buckeye]

Personally I am not using HWBOT any longer because of the all these issues.

I do believe that HWBOT is at a turning point and hopefully they will decided what the final vision of what HWBOT should be after all this settles down. My hopes are that there will be a separate section that these chips can be uploaded to so as not to spoil the regular sections.

I believe this... ES chips have been around for a long time and have been considered fair game. ES chips have also been known for a long time they are property of Intel and cannot be sold. A black market developed as was over looked for a very long time. Large amounts of money were being transferred to people who received these chips free in many cases with these illegal sales. All the people who received ES chips from Intel knew that selling these chips were illegal and many forums like XS would not allow them to be sold there.

Soon we will start seeing TWKR's showing up for sale, even tho they say nor for sale right on the chip. How will anyone know who recieved them from AMD or some one who purchased one off of ebay or some other place.

The Super Chips from AMD and Intel were chips that no one could get, besides the people who received them. They would simply own HWBOT with those chips that no one could compete against.

LHe and LN2 and other cooling methods are fair game imo, just like top notch rigs that cost a lot. If you have the money then go for it, but not with something that no one could get or get illegally.

We shall see how things shake out tho.

It doesn't matter if ES chips are better or worse than retail to me, it's the fact that they are illegal to use by others who have not recieved the chips directly from the manufacture.

As many feel the manufactures need to work with us, we must work with them also, and if we did we might find we get better support,

[AndreYang]

Everyone talked about banning ES on the hwbot. How about ORB? Is it fair for ORB?

[zalbard]

Everyone talked about banning ES on the hwbot. How about ORB? Is it fair for ORB?
Nah, ofc not.

[SF3D]

We have had some discussion about this in HWbot now.

I changed my idea a bit and here it is.

We have a checkbox already available, where you can select, do you want to be revarded from your scores. This function was made by request of some very higly ranked member in HWbot. This function is not perfect at all at the moment, cause there is only one power user using it (Kinc). The person who asked it in the first place decided to keep his HWpoints after Frederik had spend a lot of his time to code this new feature.

This is the reason why changes are happening slowly in there. We will not jump in to conclusions and nothing is fast as a lighting. We need to be sure, that new feature is something, which is wanted by large masses. In this case I am talking about TOP 100 overclockers in HWbot. That is the group, who is affected by this ES fiasco. If we get support from larger group of benchers, we can do some changes.

Now, let's imagine, that we have a different NO limit ranking in HWbot.org. When you are submitting a new score in to HWbot, you select new checkbox and the score will automatically go to No limits ranking.

In that ranking there is no HWpoints. That ranking can hold whatever cooling methods and what ever CPU's and other components. Rules would be the same as now, but we could do some new ones as well.

This is not so extreme change and it would leve options for the overclockers. We all could decide to post or not to post scores in to that new ranking.

I think it would get quite popular in near future.

What do you guys think?

[Movieman]

We have had some discussion about this in HWbot now.

I changed my idea a bit and here it is.

We have a checkbox already available, where you can select, do you want to be revarded from your scores. This function was made by request of some very higly ranked member in HWbot. This function is not perfect at all at the moment, cause there is only one power user using it (Kinc). The person who asked it in the first place decided to keep his HWpoints after Frederik had spend a lot of his time to code this new feature.

This is the reason why changes are happening slowly in there. We will not jump in to conclusions and nothing is fast as a lighting. We need to be sure, that new feature is something, which is wanted by large masses. In this case I am talking about TOP 100 overclockers in HWbot. That is the group, who is affected by this ES fiasco. If we get support from larger group of benchers, we can do some changes.

Now, let's imagine, that we have a different NO limit ranking in HWbot.org. When you are submitting a new score in to HWbot, you select new checkbox and the score will automatically go to No limits ranking.

In that ranking there is no HWpoints. That ranking can hold whatever cooling methods and what ever CPU's and other components. Rules would be the same as now, but we could do some new ones as well.

This is not so extreme change and it would leve options for the overclockers. We all could decide to post or not to post scores in to that new ranking.

I think it would get quite popular in near future.

What do you guys think?

I think thats an excellent idea.
Lets the person post what they've done but at the same time keeps it "honest and fair"
Excellent!:up:

[bazx]

We have had some discussion about this in HWbot now.

I changed my idea a bit and here it is.

We have a checkbox already available, where you can select, do you want to be revarded from your scores. This function was made by request of some very higly ranked member in HWbot. This function is not perfect at all at the moment, cause there is only one power user using it (Kinc). The person who asked it in the first place decided to keep his HWpoints after Frederik had spend a lot of his time to code this new feature.

This is the reason why changes are happening slowly in there. We will not jump in to conclusions and nothing is fast as a lighting. We need to be sure, that new feature is something, which is wanted by large masses. In this case I am talking about TOP 100 overclockers in HWbot. That is the group, who is affected by this ES fiasco. If we get support from larger group of benchers, we can do some changes.

Now, let's imagine, that we have a different NO limit ranking in HWbot.org. When you are submitting a new score in to HWbot, you select new checkbox and the score will automatically go to No limits ranking.

In that ranking there is no HWpoints. That ranking can hold whatever cooling methods and what ever CPU's and other components. Rules would be the same as now, but we could do some new ones as well.

This is not so extreme change and it would leve options for the overclockers. We all could decide to post or not to post scores in to that new ranking.

I think it would get quite popular in near future.

What do you guys think?

would people be able to post cherry cpu scores to the normal rankings

[massman]

Yes, but they wouldn't have any effect other than being ranked. No points, no cups.

[bazx]

so you could end up with cherry cpu at the top of the normal rankings and the no limits rankings

[SF3D]

That is the only problem in this new suggestion.

People would be able to submit scores to normal ranking as well, but it will not be that cool in near future, if this suggestion does get any support.
In that situation I would post all my ES scores in to those rankings, cause it would be the act of honour.

Of course we could do some new rules etc, so let us know what you guys think.

[bazx]

tbh i liked your first idea

but if you make a simple rule for people to post es/cherry scores to the no limits rank than this could work also

but would more then likely take more time to mod as people would make mistakes from time to time

[SF3D]

Heads up for the ~TOP 100 in HWbot. Now I need to get your opinion about this issue.

Why are the "big boys" (TOP 20) so silent? There is some sort of solution available, but it is not interesting anymore?

Come here and say your opinion. Thanks!

[sacha35]

Heads up for the ~TOP 100 in HWbot. Now I need to get your opinion about this issue.

Why are the "big boys" (TOP 20) so silent? There is some sort of solution available, but it is not interesting anymore?

Come here and say your opinion. Thanks!

Who will post that they have a cherry CPU, I do not think we will see many stating that they have got hold of a Cherry chip.

I think this is the wrong way to go anyway as cherry's come in all shapes and sizes not just (ES) as manufactures can easy code chips to whatever they want to.

Why not set a limit on MHz for points and all MHz outside that limit without points

[SF3D]

Who will post that they have a cherry CPU, I do not think we will see many stating that they have got hold of a Cherry chip.

I think this is the wrong way to go anyway as cherry's come in all shapes and sizes not just (ES) as manufactures can easy code chips to whatever they want to.

Why not set a limit on MHz for points and all MHz outside that limit without points

That is a completely different thing. We have to go with small steps.

Lets take the first one and maybe in the future, we can start to think this suggestion again.

Thanks!

[Gunslinger]

Well I'm not in the top 100, but hope to be soon :D As someone who has to buy every single piece of hardware with my own money, I would like to see the ES/manufacturer supplied cherries in they're own category or part of some "Pro" category. I love seeing the results posted from the super binned Intel and AMD chips, but also feel for the lower ranked guys trying earn points with unbinned retail parts. But I've also only been involved with HWbot for a couple of years, and don't have any results that would be effected by such a change.

In all honesty, I'm just happy to see everyone having a civil discussion on the matter instead of the bickering that was happening in the various result threads. But for any change to happen, some sort of consensus will probably be necessary from the "big boys" as they probably have the most to lose as far as points.

[Slovnaft]

How about just start with clean separation in all point weighted benchmarks between users with any direct AIB/MB vendor relations and self-sponsored users?
Users who fall into the self-sponsored category may choose to be ranked against those with vendor relations, but not the other way around.

[TheGreenFoX]

Maybe normal overclockers should just accept that global cups are for the pro and hardware cups are for all? (i can accept that)

[chew*]

Everyone talked about banning ES on the hwbot. How about ORB? Is it fair for ORB?

Fair depends on how you look at things.

If you want to pull the "fair" debate is its Fair you can bin $40 g's worth of cpu's and others can barely afford one?

[VoodooProphetII]

Everyone talked about banning ES on the hwbot. How about ORB? Is it fair for ORB?

Oh cry me a river.

I think it is getting a little ridiculous. Some can, some want to, some will, but in the end some won't.....

If you can.... Good for you.

If you want to.... Soon you will.

If you did.... Well done.

If you won't... You will be respected.

[elmor]

We have had some discussion about this in HWbot now.

I changed my idea a bit and here it is.

We have a checkbox already available, where you can select, do you want to be revarded from your scores. This function was made by request of some very higly ranked member in HWbot. This function is not perfect at all at the moment, cause there is only one power user using it (Kinc). The person who asked it in the first place decided to keep his HWpoints after Frederik had spend a lot of his time to code this new feature.

This is the reason why changes are happening slowly in there. We will not jump in to conclusions and nothing is fast as a lighting. We need to be sure, that new feature is something, which is wanted by large masses. In this case I am talking about TOP 100 overclockers in HWbot. That is the group, who is affected by this ES fiasco. If we get support from larger group of benchers, we can do some changes.

Now, let's imagine, that we have a different NO limit ranking in HWbot.org. When you are submitting a new score in to HWbot, you select new checkbox and the score will automatically go to No limits ranking.

In that ranking there is no HWpoints. That ranking can hold whatever cooling methods and what ever CPU's and other components. Rules would be the same as now, but we could do some new ones as well.

This is not so extreme change and it would leve options for the overclockers. We all could decide to post or not to post scores in to that new ranking.

I think it would get quite popular in near future.

What do you guys think?

This is a good solution for HWBOT and should be easy to implement aswell. I'm all for it.

[Vivi]

im lucky to be in top 100 with a golden retail cpu, so it woulndt be fair for me to judge cherry's. For me, its really fun to do retail hunting, finding some guy in the Uk with the right batch chip, only running it stock and then when it arrives the excitement of is it a 5.8 or is it a 6.6 chip is what its all about! cherry cpu's you expect amazingly good and hope for insane.

i dont really care who uploads with what chips, its about the excitement of the unknown clocks you are going to try reach, the scores afterwards is just a bonus.

[VoodooProphetII]

Well said Goddy.... As long as it comes with ice cream....he he he.

In the end, I think it should be up to the bencher to state what hardware he used, how it was used, and sometimes how.......ahhh just leave it there. It is all about honor...

[massman]

Why not set a limit on MHz for points and all MHz outside that limit without points

No.

1) I'll bench at 5GHz and downclock to 4GHz for screenshot. Done!
2) It's called overclocking

[Slovnaft]

Maybe this thread should be closed before it gets nasty.
It doesn't sound like we have the consensus to affect any significant change at the moment.

[chew*]

Maybe this thread should be closed before it gets nasty.
It doesn't sound like we have the consensus to affect any significant change at the moment.

I don't see how anythings getting nasty.

general concensus feels "super cherry ES" no points on bot.......

[SF3D]

HWbot crew have decided to implement new feature to the result submission page. When you submit the score, there will be the checkbox "do not participate in to rankings". That means, that you can use what ever hardware or cooling method and you will still be able to post this particular score to HWbot.org.

This certain score will not get any HWpoints, so it is not affecting the overclockers league. These scores will appear in to the world records page, so HWbot.org database can be complete.

This way one of the biggest issues with ES CPU's have been solved.

Now the person who will submit the result, is the one who do the decision. HWbot.org will not judge anyone who will, or will not click this checkbox. The keys are in your hands overclocking community.

Lets play fair and use this feature!

ETA 2-4 weeks.

[k|ngp|n]

So we need a checkbox in our face to help us decide what the right thing to do is? This is comical. This is a very small group of people we are talking about, whats with all the suggestions of regulation? Is ti really that hard to just do the right thing?

I have 2 Es results currently that I may or may not be getting points for anymore. I submitted a P40,398 Vantage score that me and sham did in January with FULL retail kit today if it helps :up: P40,672 score with ES chip can be deleted :p:

If there ends up being two leagues, please make it so we can compete in both!!

Also I believe anything and everything should go on FM that stuff belongs there imo, but hwbot is not FM.

[k|ngp|n]

I do think the idea of a specially designated "no limits" section of the bot would be pretty cool for sure. It doesn't even have to be any sort of ranking but more of a tech showcase like someone else said.

[Gautam]

What's rather funny is that somehow everyone is looking towards AMD and Intel for a "resolution", as if they can give us some guidance or something.

Manufacturers have their agenda, we have ours. And we have our own sense of honor and decorum, I'd hope. Then again, the way things have been handled by selected individuals, maybe that's not enough.

[Gautam]

I want to add, btw, 64NOMIS' opening post is excellent.

[k|ngp|n]

Simon is a good guy people :up:, like I told Andre a million times over the last couple of days, AMD never once pressured me or requested that I submit my scores ANYWHERE. It was entirely up to me what I did with them. I did what I thought was right, and they never said a word to me about it.

Please don't stop what you guys are doing(AMD), because it's really cool and you guys are pushing the boundaries..which is exactly what this is all about remember fellas.

[k|ngp|n]

HWbot crew have decided to implement new feature to the result submission page. When you submit the score, there will be the checkbox "do not participate in to rankings". That means, that you can use what ever hardware or cooling method and you will still be able to post this particular score to HWbot.org.

This certain score will not get any HWpoints, so it is not affecting the overclockers league. These scores will appear in to the world records page, so HWbot.org database can be complete.

This way one of the biggest issues with ES CPU's have been solved.

Now the person who will submit the result, is the one who do the decision. HWbot.org will not judge anyone who will, or will not click this checkbox. The keys are in your hands overclocking community.

Lets play fair and use this feature!

ETA 2-4 weeks.

Ahh I just read your post..yah that is for sure one good way to handle without penalizing the bencher who wants to compete in the league with retail hw :up:

[Drwho?]

I agree, ES should not be able to generate points on HWbots. That solve it all. the rest is just marketing circus. ;)

Francois

[64NOMIS]

Thanks all,

I only suggest we continue to be forward looking, this decision is definitely in the right direction.

Honored, Simon.

[PM: Movieman, Has a thread ever been shut down because people were being uncomfortably pleasant?]

[Movieman]

I agree, ES should not be able to generate points on HWbots. That solve it all. the rest is just marketing circus. ;)

Francois

Then by that logic what would you call it when you brought the unreleased i7-975's to the CES party in January?
yes, marketing circus.
You can't have it both ways in this Francois.

It's time we all look at reality.
ES chips exist and people will get them whether that is to the liking of the companies or not. It will happen so deal with that reality in a way that is practical not idealist.

[64NOMIS]

So much for Utopia.

:weapon::weapon::weapon:

[Movieman]

So much for Utopia.

:weapon::weapon::weapon:

No utopia, just an acceptance of what is vs what people would like it to be.
Once that decision is made only then can these guys go forward.
In 35 years of working in management the most important thing I learned was listen to imput from the people actually working the project, assemble that imput and then sit down and solve the problem with out distractions and going off on side ventures that added nothing to the equation.

[Drwho?]

Then by that logic what would you call it when you brought the unreleased i7-975's to the CES party in January?
yes, marketing circus.
You can't have it both ways in this Francois.

It's time we all look at reality.
ES chips exist and people will get them whether that is to the liking of the companies or not. It will happen so deal with that reality in a way that is practical not idealist.

Well, as Intel, I am demonstrating my products, and that is marketing. I did not participate to any contest with them.
The point I try to make is that ES should not be used for competition.

:)

[k|ngp|n]

For sure there is issue with "pre-release" hardware too. This should also be treated the same as ES.
For instance, just because ASUS mars card is listed for presale in some store online and they have sent out 20-xx samples to overclockers means NOTHING.
Retail product means the product is in stock and available to buy in a mass market NOW. Anyone can have a preorder for however long they want like in the old days when the x800 and x850's took forever too get. Remember that? even after released...so hard to get.

[Movieman]

For sure there is issue with "pre-release" hardware too. This should also be treated the same as ES.
For instance, just because ASUS mars card is listed for presale in some store online and they have sent out 20-xx samples to overclockers means NOTHING.
Retail product means the product is in stock and available to buy in a mass market NOW. Anyone can have a preorder for however long they want like in the old days when the x800 and x850's took forever too get. Remember that? even after released...so hard to get.

Or the unbuyable,unfindable 512MB nVidia 7800GTX cards?
Looked for one of those and the only place I ever saw them was on this forum..:D

[metro.cl]

The only problem es that you can still cherry pick and it wont be an ES, manufacturer provided hardware is cool but how will you filter the memory? motherboard? video card? there is a ton of diference in a good mobo / memory / VGA and a average one, the great diference as i see it today is that AMD is trying to show ES (aka Tweaker) as a great new product that might not even be in retail channel and is imposible to get one of this CPUs unless you have a pretty good friend in the right place.

On intel's side today i don't believe ES are much better in average than retail CPUs on AMD if you think about the Tweaker they are.

[sacha35]

The only problem es that you can still cherry pick and it wont be an ES, manufacturer provided hardware is cool but how will you filter the memory? motherboard? video card? there is a ton of diference in a good mobo / memory / VGA and a average one, the great diference as i see it today is that AMD is trying to show ES (aka Tweaker) as a great new product that might not even be in retail channel and is imposible to get one of this CPUs unless you have a pretty good friend in the right place.

On intel's side today i don't believe ES are much better in average than retail CPUs on AMD if you think about the Tweaker they are.

Good point's, also if we look at Intel ES chips they are now getting lower results than retail.

[FlanK3r]

I think thats an excellent idea.
Lets the person post what they've done but at the same time keeps it "honest and fair"
Excellent!:up:


and add to comparsion Cinebench R10, its also polular bench, think next good idea for hwbot.

[FUGGER]

Im going with Vince and ORB submissions.

It takes more than a good cpu, you gotta hit on all cylinders to achieve top results.

Maybe now I will save scores again.

[massman]

What's rather funny is that somehow everyone is looking towards AMD and Intel for a "resolution", as if they can give us some guidance or something.

Not if you read the entire conversation.

Basicly, if Hwbot takes the decision to ban all cherry-ES samples, we need manufacturers to support this decision for the simple reason that they have the power to mark those samples. If either AMD or Intel completely disagrees or agrees but want to give them out anyway, we'll end up in a situation where the cherry's are marked as normal retail and can be submit anyway.

Hwbot should not try to control what's not controlable. Only with the help of the two manufacturers that send out the sample we're able to at least do something about it

[Kabauterman]

SF3D we totally agree with your idea (the non ranking checkbox)

It is all a question of being Fair!
Any guys are jealous and so they can say "arrrrgh this CPU is a cherry" but it is a question of trust and fairness from the guys wich gets Cherry CPU against the others.

Setting a MHz Limit like sacha said is totally wrong I think! That makes no sense!

[SF3D]

Im going with Vince and ORB submissions.

It takes more than a good cpu, you gotta hit on all cylinders to achieve top results.

Maybe now I will save scores again.

So will you submit results to HWbot now? If you use this new feature, scores are listed, but not awarded with points.

Overclockers league will not get messed, but we all can see how far the technology can go.

This was the idea in general.

[Movieman]

So will you submit results to HWbot now? If you use this new feature, scores are listed, but not awarded with points.

Overclockers league will not get messed, but we all can see how far the technology can go.

This was the idea in general.

I'll threaten to beat him till he does!
He's younger and in better shape but I have a good 50lbs on him so maybe I'll have a chance!:rofl:
Seriously, I like your idea with the checkbox.:up:

[fubarswe]

I belive that SF3D´s idea is best for now.., lets try it and see how it works out...
When it comes to "clicking that box".., I would very much like to be in that position having to choose... :-)
I would probarbly be able to choose if I want too.., depends on how much work and effort I put into this...
Atm I am satisfied with what I do.., racing the guys with similar stuff as I have...
Also.. beeing able to watch "no limits league" will be helpfull/awesome anyways.., threads will get started and a lot of valuable info that I can use my end too!
So.., hat off for all good ideas bringing this sport forward!

[STEvil]

So will you submit results to HWbot now? If you use this new feature, scores are listed, but not awarded with points.

Overclockers league will not get messed, but we all can see how far the technology can go.

This was the idea in general.

I like the checkbox as well :clap:

edit

another vote for cinebench 10 :D

[mike]

Checkbox sounds great for the Hwbot!

Thanks so much Simon for having started this discussion, a lot of good points were made within this thread, and I am sure that the HWbot crew will find the perfect solution to address this issue!

I think Francois made Intels stance on Cherry CPUs clear a couple of weeks ago, and it is becoming obvious that the best Intel CPU currently have been found in the retail channels from what I can tell. So we heard Intel's stance on this subject in previous posts and also in this thread from Francois again.

I am not sure what AMD's plan with TWKR and future marketing samples are - but once cherry cpus hit the actual retail channel - we are all happy - no?



Yet this is extreme competition using extreme systems. It is a combat. There is only so much one can do to restrain warriors.


I hope I may sig this - too cool!!!

[massman]

Apparently it's indeed no issue to have ES cpu's report as non-ES (retail) through CPU-Z - check out Pro's thread for an example. So, with the checkbox, we'll still be relying on the honesty of the bencher, which kinda implies that there's no possibility for Hwbot to guarantee thtat only non-cherry cpu's are used for points. As long as there's no explicit agreement with AMD and Intel about tagging the special cpu's as "Cherry" or anything else, we'll continue to have the discussion.

That's why I was actually hoping more than just opinions and thoughts from the main guys. It's quite easy to say how it should or should not be, it's something totally different to actually figure out a solution. In other words:

Francois and Simon, would it be possible to give us an answer to the following questions:
1) Would it be possible to tag ALL samples that are sent out to overclockers to either figure out the limit or show off the limit as cherry sample. I'm not talking about the review samples sent out to media.
2) Can you give Hwbot, Futuremark and the entire community the guarantee that there will be no exceptions to this rule? In other words, that you will help out when questions are raised?

Hwbot has already tried to come up with a solution, but it's pretty obvious that we need help to get it to work. I think it's pretty clear that if we have no co-operation whatsoever, it won't work. I'm not intended to spend hours and hours trying to figure out which cpu is cherry and which is not just to try to enforce some rules that can be broken quite easily.

[boblemagnifique]

Apparently it's indeed no issue to have ES cpu's report as non-ES (retail) through CPU-Z - check out Pro's thread for an example. So, with the checkbox, we'll still be relying on the honesty of the bencher, which kinda implies that there's no possibility for Hwbot to guarantee thtat only non-cherry cpu's are used for points. As long as there's no explicit agreement with AMD and Intel about tagging the special cpu's as "Cherry" or anything else, we'll continue to have the discussion.

That's why I was actually hoping more than just opinions and thoughts from the main guys. It's quite easy to say how it should or should not be, it's something totally different to actually figure out a solution. In other words:

Francois and Simon, would it be possible to give us an answer to the following questions:
1) Would it be possible to tag ALL samples that are sent out to overclockers to either figure out the limit or show off the limit as cherry sample. I'm not talking about the review samples sent out to media.
2) Can you give Hwbot, Futuremark and the entire community the guarantee that there will be no exceptions to this rule? In other words, that you will help out when questions are raised?

Hwbot has already tried to come up with a solution, but it's pretty obvious that we need help to get it to work. I think it's pretty clear that if we have no co-operation whatsoever, it won't work. I'm not intended to spend hours and hours trying to figure out which cpu is cherry and which is not just to try to enforce some rules that can be broken quite easily.


leave the choice of people to have a full accounts without points (for all the benchmarks used and pcs hardware : ES , OEM , BOX or Cherry picked) if some of "the elite" do, it will show that example to others guys that there is not that the points and classification to be first position but just a passion ;)

The points is a bonus , it brings nothing to the time we spent on scores on the benchmarks, used the money or the knowledge we have acquired to find the settings ...

Ok I have a dream and all the world dont care ;), you can do my proposition only under my account, I shall be very grateful :up: (I don't speak for others, everyone is free) :up:

[mike]

Apparently it's indeed no issue to have ES cpu's report as non-ES (retail) through CPU-Z - check out Pro's thread for an example. So, with the checkbox, we'll still be relying on the honesty of the bencher, which kinda implies that there's no possibility for Hwbot to guarantee thtat only non-cherry cpu's are used for points. As long as there's no explicit agreement with AMD and Intel about tagging the special cpu's as "Cherry" or anything else, we'll continue to have the discussion.

That's why I was actually hoping more than just opinions and thoughts from the main guys. It's quite easy to say how it should or should not be, it's something totally different to actually figure out a solution. In other words:

Francois and Simon, would it be possible to give us an answer to the following questions:
1) Would it be possible to tag ALL samples that are sent out to overclockers to either figure out the limit or show off the limit as cherry sample. I'm not talking about the review samples sent out to media.
2) Can you give Hwbot, Futuremark and the entire community the guarantee that there will be no exceptions to this rule? In other words, that you will help out when questions are raised?

Hwbot has already tried to come up with a solution, but it's pretty obvious that we need help to get it to work. I think it's pretty clear that if we have no co-operation whatsoever, it won't work. I'm not intended to spend hours and hours trying to figure out which cpu is cherry and which is not just to try to enforce some rules that can be broken quite easily.

Yeah I saw that another thread got dragged down ( Pros) with this issue, something that Simon mentioned in the first post :rolleyes:

Could be a white box sample - hence no ES...clocks great, but for sure nothing outrageous - so I don't think it needs any attention.

Do we now expect Hipro to DQ himself from Hwbot, because his retail cpu is too good? Could Bob not use his ES 940EE anymore, even tho it clocks much worse that BenchBros retail 3570?

Checkbox is cool - witchhunt not

[zalbard]

Checkbox is cool - witchhunt not
I agree. Let's have it nice and polite, and find a solution that won't leave anyone greatly disappointed or flamed in the end.

[massman]

leave the choice of people to have a full accounts without points (for all the benchmarks used and pcs hardware : ES , OEM , BOX or Cherry picked) if some of "the elite" do, it will show that example to others guys that there is not that the points and classification to be first position but just a passion ;)

Thát feature has been added MONTHS ago: http://hwbot.org/hwbot.post.do?postId=1060

No points for any of your scores.


Yeah I saw that another thread got dragged down ( Pros) with this issue, something that Simon mentioned in the first post :rolleyes:

Could be a white box sample - hence no ES...clocks great, but for sure nothing outrageous - so I don't think it needs any attention.

Do we now expect Hipro to DQ himself from Hwbot, because his retail cpu is too good? Could Bob not use his ES 940EE anymore, even tho it clocks much worse that BenchBros retail 3570?

Checkbox is cool - witchhunt not

This has been predicted in the Hwbot forums long before Simon posted here. It seems to me that many of the thoughts here have already been discussed in there as well ... people need to read hwbot :p:.

But, this is basicly why Intel and AMD has to do their part of the work. I will NOT spend my few hours of free time trying to figure out if a reported score is indeed performed with a cherry cpu. If both AMD and Intel state that they'll disapprove the cherries being used, but will continue to brand the cherries as retail or normal ES, the checkbox will remain nothing more than an added feature, just like the cooling categories we have now. It will be upto the user to decide whether or not he uses this feature.

To be honest, although this feature already has been suggested some time ago, I'm worried about the feasability and the consequences of it. People seem to turn this issue into an issue about ethics and morals and that makes it so damn difficult to have a foolproof solution.

[Movieman]

Thát feature has been added MONTHS ago: http://hwbot.org/hwbot.post.do?postId=1060

No points for any of your scores.



This has been predicted in the Hwbot forums long before Simon posted here. It seems to me that many of the thoughts here have already been discussed in there as well ... people need to read hwbot :p:.

But, this is basicly why Intel and AMD has to do their part of the work. I will NOT spend my few hours of free time trying to figure out if a reported score is indeed performed with a cherry cpu. If both AMD and Intel state that they'll disapprove the cherries being used, but will continue to brand the cherries as retail or normal ES, the checkbox will remain nothing more than an added feature, just like the cooling categories we have now. It will be upto the user to decide whether or not he uses this feature.

To be honest, although this feature already has been suggested some time ago, I'm worried about the feasability and the consequences of it. People seem to turn this issue into an issue about ethics and morals and that makes it so damn difficult to have a foolproof solution.

Just reading thru and I think your right that there will never be a foolproof solution so since that isn't possible why not look at what is?
Most of the top players know each other and the ones I know or have met seem like hororable people and I'm sure you know better than I who the few are that you'd have doubts about regardless of a check box or not.
Work with this and beleive me, I don't want to see you stuck with tons of work but this sounds like the most reasonable approach.
Worst case scenario is that if it winds up being a PITA to you then you come back and offer a different approach?
Reasonable?

[massman]

Well, it's not really our intention to work out a solution, let it roll for six months, see that it doesn't work and then have to have the same discussion again to end up in the same situation we are now. Honesty, integrity and fair play are all really nice ideas, but when it ends meet it's not really what drives people ... I'm sure you also know a good story about how certain 'benchers' bend rules.

It's a very simple situation when you look at it from a moderating point of view:

1) There are samples spread out by manufacturers that out-perform 99,9% of the retail hardware.
2) Hwbot offers a competition based on points
3) People use the good samples to get higher scores and more points
4) People who have no acces call it unethical and immoral to do this

So, general consensus is to ban these samples from competitions.

1) Hwbot disallows cherries => Problem: no idea how to spot them
2) Hwbot disallows ES => Problem: manufacturers brand them as retail
3) No one knows what's what => Complete witchhunt

It's SO VERY SIMPLE: if we (as a community) don't know how to spot cherry from great retail, people will ask questions.

-----

And all above is with the assumption that using cherries is indeed unethical and without thinking about the consequences of addressing an issue of ethics :).

[Pt1t]

Yeah I saw that another thread got dragged down ( Pros) with this issue, something that Simon mentioned in the first post :rolleyes:

Could be a white box sample - hence no ES...clocks great, but for sure nothing outrageous - so I don't think it needs any attention.

Do we now expect Hipro to DQ himself from Hwbot, because his retail cpu is too good? Could Bob not use his ES 940EE anymore, even tho it clocks much worse that BenchBros retail 3570?

Checkbox is cool - witchhunt not

:rofl: This CPU RIP :rofl:

[Hyperhorn]

But, this is basicly why Intel and AMD has to do their part of the work.
Actually they both do their work pretty good when it comes to extreme overclocking. They have economic interests and just put a minimal (financial) effort into cheap promotion. It`s not about a weird definition of ethics or doing us a favour. According to the frontpage stats hwbot hasn`t even 20.000 members and I guess, that not even half of them ever used an extreme cooling method. So if you put a few thousands or maybe just hundreds of affected users in relation to the turnover of their CPU division it`s IMO a laughable idea to expect that they will change from a great, working and very cheap marketing idea to a situation, where they will shout out, who they send which CPU without a single exception. As already said it`s even better for them to make a cherry-picked CPU looking like a retail one. You can maybe trust a few extreme overclockers and trust a few enthusiasts at AMD or Intel, but you can`t influence the machinery of competition we all know - e.g. anticompetitive violation don`t happen by accident.

How do you catch cheaters at hwbot? In 99% you have to wait for irregularities and then you start investigations. But you have got always a leverage by taking out people out of competition. Will you delete all scores done with hardware from a certain manufacturer if you think they cheated on you? I guess not... :)
So again I don`t see why a manufacturer should care more about hwbot than about the superior number of normal users (who generate a much bigger turnover) and the idea of beating the business competition.

Just imagine the following situation: Overclocker gets a cherry-picked CPU from manufacturer. Hwbot gets informed from the manufacturer, that this overclocker has got a cherry-picked CPU. But somehow this overclocker has got another superior CPU of the same type and uses this one instead. What happens then?

It`s also not a secret that some rich overclockers are willing to spend very very much money for a super-gem-CPU, partially decuple sums of the price for a regular retail CPU. So let`s say the overclocker who received a CPU from the manufacturer is basically very honest, but lost his job, had a house fire, needs medication for his childs or whatever - count 1 + 1 together what could happen then. :)

Okay, it`s a fact, that superior CPUs are the key to WRs today, but it just depends on the circumstances given by the infrastructure and benchmark. Would it be allowed to use cherry-picked CPUs by VIA to get all first places in the VIA CPU hardware categories? Basically we talk about two manufacturers all the time, but would someone even think about cherry-picked-lists from ALL mainboard/memory or graphic cards manufactorers? This way we create a leading case for future incidents. (Let`s wait for that until Microsoft is sending out *cherry-picked* operating systems with not comprehensible modifications for benchmarks to single overclockers ;))

Let people choose if they will get rewarded @ hbwot for a certain result and that`s it - everything else is a weird mix of witchhunting, illusions and will lead to much hate from all directions, but for sure not that individual imagination of "fairness" people want to find in extreme overclocking, but isn`t there in real life. Idealism and being able to hold a competition are two totally different things.

[fubarswe]

Actually they both do their work pretty good when it comes to extreme overclocking. They have economic interests and just put a minimal (financial) effort into cheap promotion. It`s not about a weird definition of ethics or doing us a favour. According to the frontpage stats hwbot hasn`t even 20.000 members and I guess, that not even half of them ever used an extreme cooling method. So if you put a few thousands or maybe just hundreds of affected users in relation to the turnover of their CPU division it`s IMO a laughable idea to expect that they will change from a great, working and very cheap marketing idea to a situation, where they will shout out, who they send which CPU without a single exception. .[/B]

Sometimes we maybe forgett how small we are in the big picture.., 20000 members... how many game World of Warcraft..?
Hyperhorn naild it I believe.., so if manufacturers use us (some of us) for a cheap way of selling their product (not cheap in a bad way..) they can easily reason that overclockers give them to much hazzel and simply just stop handing out goodies.., that would make all of us (only a handfull) end up in reatail land again.. :-)
.., what will happen if the manufacturers turn their backs on us and look for other ways of promoting their product..?

[K404]

Sadly yea. I believe Hyperhorn is very right. I was gonna post yesterday- why should Intel and AMD send our red-letter memos to all their Fabs saying THIS IS WHAT MUST HAPPEN WHEN MARKING ES/ CHERRIES, ELSE HWB WILL BE MAD AT US.

We still arent important enough.

[carpo93]

the checkbox iea is very good


but there is a paradox: amd sold an twkr on ebay, and so this isn't a cherry picked cpu from manufacter, but a regular buyed cpu:p:

[massman]

Don't minimize the issue now that there's finally some sort of solution, please. Intel and AMD are bothered enough to infiltrate the overclocking community and show of some rare products, I guess they can also bothered enough to figure out if something can be done about the 'unfair' situation. It's really not about being important enough to ask both to help us out, it's basicly asking what THEY are willing to do about the ES-issue. I've seen quite some posts stating that ES shouldn't be used, well, if they can be bothered enough to repeat that multiple times I hope they're bothered enough to just tag them so everyone can be sure it's a cherry cpu.

You can twist and turn the situation all you want, it will always come down to: if there's no way of having at least a little bit of control over the situation, the feature will be presented 'as is'. No moderator will block/move scores because it might be performed with a cherry cpu, because there's no way for us to tell. So, it'll be relying on the honesty/integrity of the bencher all over again. I think's more than fair towards the Hwbot staff.

[carpo93]

i was only jocking

[Drwho?]

Apparently it's indeed no issue to have ES cpu's report as non-ES (retail) through CPU-Z - check out Pro's thread for an example. So, with the checkbox, we'll still be relying on the honesty of the bencher, which kinda implies that there's no possibility for Hwbot to guarantee thtat only non-cherry cpu's are used for points. As long as there's no explicit agreement with AMD and Intel about tagging the special cpu's as "Cherry" or anything else, we'll continue to have the discussion.

That's why I was actually hoping more than just opinions and thoughts from the main guys. It's quite easy to say how it should or should not be, it's something totally different to actually figure out a solution. In other words:

Francois and Simon, would it be possible to give us an answer to the following questions:
1) Would it be possible to tag ALL samples that are sent out to overclockers to either figure out the limit or show off the limit as cherry sample. I'm not talking about the review samples sent out to media.
2) Can you give Hwbot, Futuremark and the entire community the guarantee that there will be no exceptions to this rule? In other words, that you will help out when questions are raised?

Hwbot has already tried to come up with a solution, but it's pretty obvious that we need help to get it to work. I think it's pretty clear that if we have no co-operation whatsoever, it won't work. I'm not intended to spend hours and hours trying to figure out which cpu is cherry and which is not just to try to enforce some rules that can be broken quite easily.

All Intel samples have a Bit ON that Frank at CPUz ( www.cpuid.com ) knows how to detect, and he is detecting them properly. If CPUz display "ES" , it is clear. The sample distributed to the press have the same Bit on. We always played clear from the beginning.
I think we got the entiere Intel Marketing lined up behind the "no special sample policy". Let me know if we need to do more to insure fair competition.

[boblemagnifique]

Thát feature has been added MONTHS ago: http://hwbot.org/hwbot.post.do?postId=1060

No points for any of your scores.


OK the statut for The pro of manufacturing (like Kinc or others guys)

But this isn't just that in my thinking but if you find the best compromise for all the world , it's good :up:

[massman]

All Intel samples have a Bit ON that Frank at CPUz ( www.cpuid.com ) knows how to detect, and he is detecting them properly. If CPUz display "ES" , it is clear. The sample distributed to the press have the same Bit on. We always played clear from the beginning.
I think we got the entiere Intel Marketing lined up behind the "no special sample policy". Let me know if we need to do more to insure fair competition.

Okay ... but it's possible for motherboard manufacturers to put that bit to OFF by a bios modification, no? So, in theory, we are never 100% sure?

There are Intel Confidential samples around here on the forums that show in CPU-Z as retail, apparently.


OK the statut for The pro of manufacturing (like Kinc or others guys)

But this isn't just that in my thinking but if you find the best compromise for all the world , it's good :up:

Status is for everyone, not only the pro :up:.

[Viss]

I dont think the 960's you are referring to are ES. The users are a bit quiet about them chips though :D

[massman]

I hear all kinds of messages about those chips. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter for those scores (ES or not, those are friggin nice scores), but it does in this discussion. If we can't be sure about the ES being indicated, well ...

[K404]

I think we got the entiere Intel Marketing lined up behind the "no special sample policy". Let me know if we need to do more to insure fair competition.


This is in NO way an accusation but a possibility so please do not take this as an attack :)

If Intel marketing ask for a chip to be sent to XYZ, who actions that request and how is it actioned? If thats company-only information, I understand- but is it true that nowhere in any Intel Fab or stock handling warehouse is there a pile of known-to-be or suspected-to-be better than average samples? (Either OEM or retail packed with HSF.) If PR ask for a chip to be sent, or 5 or whatever, could the picker just quietly put better chips out for shipping instead of a true random pick?

What stock managment system do you generally use? Id guess its a FIFO so you clear produced batches in order- or close enough. If a batch is crap and you pick 5 from a shelf of thousands (all the same,) you could send 5 lemons to the same reviewer/ overclocker. That could be an expensive average review or expensive no-WR exercise.

Marketing people dont pick chips from warehouses or fabs. Marketing press the flesh and send nice emails.

Still not an accusation, Im just thinking out loud :)

[Zucker2k]

A lot of very interesting perspectives on this topic. This is a tipping point simply because of the efforts made recently to try to level the playing field, but as has been pointed out already, there are multiple problems involved here and so far the solution(s) proposed fail imo to effectively tackle the problems presented. The main issue here, as far as I'm concerned, are those overclockers in the "pro" category. Really, this group needs to be defined, locked-down, and watched every second of every day. And from Massman's numerous posts indicating the limitations of implementing an effective 'checking' system, coupled with what seems to be a general consensus that ORB submissions are going to remain in place, I'm forced to pose the question: why embrace a problem when you have already identified it? In other words, why does HWBOT insist on being a repository of 'invalidated' or 'point-less' submissions of results?

IMO every bench or overclocking session involving ES hardware or simply put, non-retail hardware deserves a thread and nothing more. No submissions ANYWHERE else. If however, the powers that be don't see this as feasible, then at least hwbot should consider the following:

Add submission columns for:

Borrowed, Owner's name
Processor Versions (ES or Retail)
S-Spec
Place of Purchase

In other words, give liars and cheaters the chance to bury themselves and ban them for life. Too much responsibility (read moral values) lies on the shoulder of overclockers and I have lost all faith in people in bed with manufacturers whose bottomline is more important than strict regulation of what is done fairly or unfairly with their products. Overclocking as it once was - pushing hardware to the limits without sacrificing stability is dead! The real heroes of overclocking are now found in the obscure threads in sub-forums, and yet even they are not free from the far-reaching arms of the manufacturers. To be frank with everybody, what is competition if there are no rules? Yet, that is what overclocking has become.

We're faced with two choices; we can go with Sacha35's suggestion by doing capped competitions, or we can go with the untethered-all-out-extreme-everything-overclocking. Unfortunately, I know where we're headed.

[K404]

Id like to see MHz-capped overclocking included as a PART of any event or global leaderboard but I dont want it to be where the global No.1 spots come from.

Who relies on MHz to get their scores, who has the understanding of the hardware to get their scores? :) There ARE examples which I will NOT go into details over because it will inevitably (at best) hurt some peoples feelings (rightly?) It seems ridiculous and very rude to say to someone with such a high ranking in a bench... "for the MHz, based on the scores around you, you could have done better than that"

I beleive MHz capped competitions can be done on the net for 2-D anyway- CPU-Z must be presented on-screen at ALL times and 3 pictures must be submitted.

pre-result: before the bench is started,
part-way through the bench
and the normal submission-style screeny at the end.

[STEvil]

Id like to see MHz-capped overclocking included as a PART of any event or global leaderboard but I dont want it to be where the global No.1 spots come from.

Who relies on MHz to get their scores, who has the understanding of the hardware to get their scores? :) There ARE examples which I will NOT go into details over because it will inevitably (at best) hurt some peoples feelings (rightly?) It seems ridiculous and very rude to say to someone with such a high ranking in a bench... "for the MHz, based on the scores around you, you could have done better than that"

I beleive MHz capped competitions can be done on the net for 2-D anyway- CPU-Z must be presented on-screen at ALL times and 3 pictures must be submitted.

pre-result: before the bench is started,
part-way through the bench
and the normal submission-style screeny at the end.

Wont work, not gonna happen.

You can have individual competitions with set rules based on frequencies. You can have individual competitions with set rules based on system performance tweak levels.
But if you attempt to limit full-out competition you are no better than those who think you dont need more than 75hp in your car.

[K404]

Sorry Stevil- I dont understand your comparison :( Im not asking for an all-out cap. Just a cap for a part of a competition.

e.g.
1/3D06- with some rules
2/ SPi32M- with some rules
3/ Spi32M @ 5.3GHz- with some rules
4/ CPU-Z- with some rules

In competition, whatever sections the organisers want can be set up. Does anyone care about the IGP section of the proposed F1 competition for example?

[massman]

Yes. The IGP section should be the MOST interesting section of them all, because it's a totally new challenge for most of them.

A capped competition always sounds good in these discussions, but please consider the following:

- you eliminate the skill to run a processor to it's complete maximum
- people will still be limited by uncore and memory frequency: crap uncore or crap memory means very high chance of losing anyway (= luck factor)
- people cheat, even in live competitions. Run at 5.32G, downclock and you've got a good score

[K404]

Its not a capped competition though! Its only one part of the competition!

MHz! MHz! MHz! will still be there for the rest of it.

The uncore and RAM I will make some concession to.

I dont know if it was this thread I posted in with this idea but if CPU-Z had to be open and visible on the desktop AT ALL TIMES then cheating becomes much harder. No CPU-Z? Invalid run.

[massman]

On an AMD platform, it's possible to have your cores clocked differently. So cpu-z gives 5.3, the benchmark is running 5.4G

Sorry if I'm giving you a hard time, or if you think I want to make your idea sound rediculous. I really don't, because the idea in itself is a very good one. It is, however, so damn difficult to translate the idea into a working concept. If you'd suggest this two/three months ago, I wouldn't have seen any issue, but over time ... it's become less and less possible for me to believe in a gentlemen's agreement when it comes to competitive benchmarking.

[K404]

LOL I didnt know AMD had fully implemented independent core clocking.

Id not trying to keep pushing my idea now but maybe in time Franck will further develop CPU-Z so all cores have their speeds reported :)

Thanks Massman :D I wasnt having a go at you either :up:

[STEvil]

On an AMD platform, it's possible to have your cores clocked differently. So cpu-z gives 5.3, the benchmark is running 5.4G

Sorry if I'm giving you a hard time, or if you think I want to make your idea sound rediculous. I really don't, because the idea in itself is a very good one. It is, however, so damn difficult to translate the idea into a working concept. If you'd suggest this two/three months ago, I wouldn't have seen any issue, but over time ... it's become less and less possible for me to believe in a gentlemen's agreement when it comes to competitive benchmarking.

I think its relatively easy to tell who's being a "gentleman" and who isnt when competing professionally.

K404, any cap on performance of one part or another creates sub-competitions. This is good if your goal is to only compete for ram bandwidth superiority or system efficiency superiority or GPU speed superiority (assuming non-cpu limited) but stifles growth overall. Your original wording did not differentiate that you were dividing in order to create this optimal competition scheme, of which many of us already participate.