MMM
    X

    Subscribe to New Ads!

    Receive weekly ads in your inbox!



Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345
Results 101 to 120 of 120

Thread: Let's discuss IGP result here

  1. #101
    PIfection
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,002
    i dont really care what futuremark say, but the F1 rules are based on hwbot so,

    - Using a program to launch your benchmark; benchmarks must always be launched using the shortcuts found in the installation directory

    then my score is invalid and must be removed from the last round of F1OC, i will ask nick to remove my score

  2. #102
    k|ngp|n/Sham my brothers
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Athens---Hellas
    Posts
    5,797
    I think that it would be more appropriate if you could send a guy the tweaks that you have done and how you have played it so to test it himself too and replicate the resaults OR at least see the advantage of it, because it's not nice talking your name into MSN...
    INTEL PWA FOR EVER

    Dr. Who my arss...

    .........



  3. #103
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by youngpro View Post
    i dont really care what futuremark say, but the F1 rules are based on hwbot so,

    - Using a program to launch your benchmark; benchmarks must always be launched using the shortcuts found in the installation directory

    then my score is invalid and must be removed from the last round of F1OC, i will ask nick to remove my score
    very gentle

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by youngpro View Post
    i dont really care what futuremark say, but the F1 rules are based on hwbot so,

    - Using a program to launch your benchmark; benchmarks must always be launched using the shortcuts found in the installation directory

    then my score is invalid and must be removed from the last round of F1OC, i will ask nick to remove my score
    Well it's an unfortunate situation but we've no choice.

    I'm glad this all turned out amicably in the end. I don't think anyone can accuse James of any deliberate wrongdoing.

    The round goes to Benny. I'll update the site imminently.

  5. #105
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    252
    I got a terrible score but learned a lot about AMD platforms [no sideport option on my board lol]. interesting route you took there Pro, very well thought out so kudos for that at least, and well done to Benny for getting this round.

  6. #106
    I'm not that happy with some of the comments made in this thread. At first, I wasn't planning on responding to this, but ...

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Overclocker View Post
    ...
    What's ironic here is that two, three or maybe even five recent incidents involving well-known individuals within the overclocking community suddenly makes it naive to believe a gentlemen's agreement still is a serious possibility. I don't understand how I can meet fellow overclockers at overclocking events, hear almost all of them agree that certain benchmark manipulations are not done and still have to consider this naive. I'm saddened to see that individuals using (dirty) tricks affect us so badly that we, those who want to have a fair overclocking competition, will have to oblige ourselves to write a 200-page rule book to continue having fun at overclocking. It's sad that because of those individuals, others lose their faith in an honest and fair overclocking game.

    I know that you, as an outsider in the extreme overclocking community, like to make the comparison with professional sports when it comes to making rules. From a business point of view, that's indeed the easiest route: make rules, let people try to bend then and adapt the rules to those who break them. Actually, from a pure business point of view, it doesn't matter who wins and why someone wins; as long as there are people competing, you have a business opportunity. Stretching this; it doesn't matter what the scores look like: as long as they are higher than the ones you've seen already you have a record. The problem with this approach, however, is that there's simply no value attached to any of those scores. Claiming a world record using a modified benchmark is like claiming you're the fastest runner while changing the length of track. I run 100m in 13s, so I change the track to 50m (state it still is 100m) and do it in 6.5s ... I broke a world record.

    The problem is that we are using software to measure the performance of hardware. This means that there's room for interaction between the hardware and the benchmark ... room for system optimizations. The issue is that software is extremely flexible and nearly everything is hackable; as long as you know where to look and how to code, you can make your benchmark application do anything you want. The problem is that it's possible for people to exploit this and change the benchmark in order to score higher. As it's nearly impossible to have a complete cheat-free benchmark (cpu-z and 3dmark01 come close), we need some kind of document that defines what's allowed and what's not. And that's where it becomes tricky.

    In racing, athletics, soccer ... there are indeed documents that state what's allowed and what's not: the rules of the game. Although it does serve some purpose within that sport, I have my doubts about whether these rule books improve the quality of the sport. It's funny (and strange) that after a couple decennia neither of these sports have a figured out a set of rules which makes it impossible for participants to cheat. In fact, even with the rule book, participant still cheat. I wonder why we would need a 200-page rule book when it has the same effect as a gentlemen's agreement. Well, no, I don't wonder ... I know why. For participants, it's so much easier to have a set of written rules:

    - You can exploit loopholes for your own benefit
    - When cheating, you can blame the lack of rules
    - When cheating, you can blame the organizer
    - ...

    This all comes down to cheaters moving the responsibility from them to an outside institution/person. I don't know about you, but I'm strongly convinced that each individual is responsible for his or her actions. I have big problems with people who try to avoid responsibility by blaming someone/something else; some people are aware of this (bad) quality.

    Consider that the extreme overclocking community is in fact very small and insignificant compared to sports such as soccer, racing or the Olympics. I fail to see the greatness in having to write a 200-page rule book for maybe 100-150 people around the globe ... and have as result that some will still be finding loopholes. Having a rule book will solve absolutely nothing: it will not avoid people cheating and it will not avoid people calling someone else a cheat. In fact, this rule book would have the effect of people looking for the loopholes (and exploiting them) and give more reason to discuss and argue about scores. So, why not have the alternative solution and use a gentlemen's agreement as guideline for a fair overclocking competition. Whoever negatively affects the integrity of overclocking can go elsewhere ... at least, that's something that I believe should be added to any guideline.

    As a side note: I'm pretty confident that a lot of extreme overclockers know the effect of, for instance, mipmap or speedhack. It's interesting to see how it affects the benchmark score and behavior. There is, however, a gigantic difference between having used the software and actually using it in a competition to beat the competitors. In my eyes, using any of these tricks in a competition shows of very little respect towards your fellow overclockers. But ... that's a personal opinion of course. Note that this is the difference that some people indicate as "I wouldn't have done what he did": being aware of the trick and its advantages, but not using it because it will be considered a cheat.

    I find it strange that, when I talk to overclockers at an event, most of them state that playing dirty tricks is lame and a gentlemen's agreement should be used this completely changes when money is involved. Apparently, a gentlemen's agreement now works for 99% of the community, but when money's involved there's 1% that believes that everything should be allowed as long as it's not disallowed. That makes me quite sad actually. Deeply sad.

    On a different note.

    I don't know how you feel about the first season of F1OC, but I'm fairly confident that most of the overclockers (both participating and cheering on the side) have a very negative feeling with this competition. I'm not sure if I'm speaking for myself solely, or for other people as well, but when I started in August, I was expecting to finally see a competition which demonstrates how great overclocking can be: top-overclockers fighting epic battles with vendor-sponsored hardware. Four stages later, I cannot else that come to the conclusion that three out of four ended in gigantic discussions ... not only held between the participants, but also involving the spectators. Apart from the dramatic discussions, name-calling and emo-comments, I don't think this was any attractive for either the participant, spectator or manufacturer. Now, although I have had my share of "rules, rules rules"-arguments, I believe it's just too easy to blame the absence of solid rules ... after all; it's the individual who's responsible for his actions, not the organizer. Instead of showing how great overclocking can be, we've (including myself) have shown how lame overclocking can be, how even in a competition where there's no big prizes involved can turn into something completely ridiculous month after month after month.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see that a large vendor such as Gigabyte sees an opportunity in the F1OC, using different stage victories press releases, but ... is this any interesting for the end-user? Or can we classify this as "marketing only". As for stage 4, I'm leaning towards the latter one and this for a very simple reason: the result of the winning submission has no value when comparing it to the other scores. The hardware used for this score is not "800p more performant", it's the software that has been altered to make it "800p more performant". I'm sure that for marketing purposes this is just the same, but for people who know what happened, this is meaningless. There's almost no value attached to that particular result ... personally, I can only go as far as "nice number", without using other scores as comparison. For me it's pretty much the same as what I said when seeing 18 million in Aquamark3 after my speedhack tests: "nice number". Although I have only spent a very limited time discussing with manufacturer representatives how they feel about professional overclocking, but I assume that even the manufacturers would prefer a world record broken by their product rather than by some software genius. I mean ... if you get a score of 300k in 3DMark03 because you're running 640x480 you can also claim a world record. Is it significant? No.

    If the software tricking is what will be ruling the overclocking competitions over the next few years, what are we left with? Does this mean that, once you enter the professional overclocking field you have to change from happy hobbyist to a sneaky software coder? In fact, overclocking would probably not be about the hardware anymore, it would become the software part of IT. I will have to team up with a software hacker in GOOC 2015 to stand a change, I guess. If you believe that's the way to go, well, you have a platform to make it happen.

    Now, to respond to a few specific quotes.

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Overclocker View Post
    But if you want gentlemanly behavior (and not bratish gamer behavior), try pointing out that a high score seems anomalous and politely ask to explain it rather than declaring someone a cheat from the start.
    Has been done in this particular case. The answer was a firm "wysiwyg".

    (Btw, I've seen the same question in a different competition where a competitor explained how to get the higher result. So, it's not common courtesy not to answer)

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Overclocker View Post
    What do overclockers have in the way of all-encompassing rules and organizations? I tell you what... Massman. He is effectively the only thing we have to watch over us all. He is our only policeman and I wouldn't want his job for anything. He's doing a fantastic, but impossible job.
    The best answer I could give would be "I'm flattered".

    The reason I'm not happy with this stage is not because of my, apparently, policeman-ish character. It's because I found it completely ridiculous as an overclocker and participant of your competition.

    Seems like this entire post became longer than I intended, so my apologies to those who read it completely. I'm aware that it may offend certain people.

    (xtremesystems used to be a place where dirty tricks were not that common)
    Where courage, motivation and ignorance meet, a persistent idiot awakens.

  7. #107
    Admin
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR
    Posts
    5,275
    I find it strange that, when I talk to overclockers at an event, most of them state that playing dirty tricks is lame and a gentlemen's agreement should be used this completely changes when money is involved. Apparently, a gentlemen's agreement now works for 99% of the community, but when money's involved there's 1% that believes that everything should be allowed as long as it's not disallowed. That makes me quite sad actually. Deeply sad.
    But that's just human nature. It's why rules and/or the judge's word has to be absolute and without subjectivity. Also with Kunaak's link, he was stressing being skeptical and to essentially expect people to cheat even in the old days. Back then I actually wondered, who would really bother cheating, and why. Well...we have plenty of known instances now. Some high profile ones and plenty others. Even if it's hardware sharing or otherwise toeing the line, it's nothing uncommon today. Even outside of contests there are incentives now in the form of sponsorships etc.

  8. #108
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    10,379
    So if it's human nature,it's allowed to do anything to take a win ? What about respect, principles ? throw them all into the bin ? use aimbots to win ya fav multiplayer game, look at me mum I can play without hands !! And then some call themselves friends, shame on you who cheated/bended the rules (with clear knowledge what you were doing) and still walk with ya head up high !!! Sad guys, are they those who are gonna save our planet ?
    Last edited by Leeghoofd; 12-12-2009 at 07:29 AM.

  9. #109
    Admin
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR
    Posts
    5,275
    You're asking the wrong question. What it means is that it's to be expected that contestants will do anything to take a win. The only way to stop them is to make tighter and tighter rules...

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Gautam View Post
    But that's just human nature.
    Thinking is also just human nature. I don't see why rules should be made to exclude instinctive behavior.

    As we have all have a brain, why is it naive to expect every person to use it?
    Where courage, motivation and ignorance meet, a persistent idiot awakens.

  11. #111
    Admin
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR
    Posts
    5,275
    Use their brains to the fullest to win at any cost is what you need to expect.

  12. #112
    That would be even worse. Knowing it's wrong, rationalising it using the "it's not in the rules" and do it anyway.
    Where courage, motivation and ignorance meet, a persistent idiot awakens.

  13. #113
    Admin
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR
    Posts
    5,275
    Too late to speak in hypotheticals. You know that almost every contest ends in controversy because of the limits being pushed in one way or another. It's no longer enough to say "don't do it or I'll be sad".

  14. #114
    That it happened uptill now in a few competitions is a reason to lay back and let it happen in the future? Or is a reason to go along and play the loophole game? If so, let me know so I can wireframe my way to the gooc/moa finals.
    Where courage, motivation and ignorance meet, a persistent idiot awakens.

  15. #115
    Wanna look under my kilt?
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Glasgow-ish U.K.
    Posts
    4,509
    I dont want benching to become a leaderboard of whos morals and attitude to sportsmanship are most flexible
    Quote Originally Posted by T_M View Post
    Not sure i totally follow anything you said, but regardless of that you helped me come up with a very good idea....
    Quote Originally Posted by soundood View Post
    you sigged that?

    why?
    ______

    Sometimes, it's not your time. Sometimes, you have to make it your time. Sometimes, it can ONLY be your time.

  16. #116
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    64

    Exclamation Comments from Futuremark

    Well, it took a while to get an account, so this comes a bit late, but...


    I can confirm the earlier official Futuremark statement from Jani Joki. I'd also like to add a few things from our point of view.

    Futuremark considers any tampering of the benchmark software in ways that alter the benchmark run to be cheating and any such tricks invalidate the score. This includes launchers, tampering with OS components used by a benchmark (like, say, swapping out codecs etc. used by PCMark).

    We are aware that this can be somewhat of a gray area - the line between a valid tweak and tampering of the benchmark can be unclear at times. The basic rule that I can give is that if you had to somehow trick the benchmark by doing something that alters how the benchmark is run and/or only shows "improvement" only in the benchmark score but not elsewhere in any other measurable way, you are probably cheating (not cool) and any score you get out of the run is pretty meaningless.

    We are always looking into ways to improve the score validation included in the ORB. As some of the gray-area tricks can be hard to detect without exact details and/or copy of any third party code used to tamper with the benchmark, if you have any information you wish to share on the subject, feel free to email it to info@futuremark.com

    You can also use that email address (in addition to our forums) for reporting suspected cases that show up in the ORB as valid scores or disputing/reporting any issues with the score validator. Response time might not be instant but every case will be looked at and considered.

    However, it should be noted that unfortunately ORB score validation can never be perfect - a foolproof "anti-cheating" system against software-based tampering would require a Punkbuster-style monitoring application and at this time Futuremark considers that such measures would be overkill. Still, we are committed to doing what we can at the ORB side to validate scores and weed out tricks that can be identified from the benchmark result data.

    Now, you are obviously free to decide yourself what rules you wish to apply to any overclocking contests, but as my personal opinion, I would not be interested in a competition where it would be considered okay to write custom programs that modify the way a benchmark is executed to improve scores. Your competition, your rules - obviously - but that's how I feel.

    One more thing: On the subject of "-nosysteminfo", it is bit of a special case as it is a flag to get around system component detection errors. However, in theory, you shouldn't need it (on Windows 7 or otherwise), assuming you have the latest hotfix installed - the one you can find here: http://futuremark.yougamers.com/foru...d.php?t=104683

    Iif you do have a hardware configuration that still refuses to play ball without skipping the SystemInfo component, by all means, let us know - our testing lab is not all-exhaustive ( ) and new hardware is constantly entering the market.

  17. #117
    k|ngp|n/Sham my brothers
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Athens---Hellas
    Posts
    5,797
    So by your words, you're saying that some PCMark2005 benchies that were done by REPLACING to some other "Intenet Explorer" (Fifefox for example) or REPLACING the windows "compressor codec" for compressing files, are NOT LEGIT (as for FM) right?....
    INTEL PWA FOR EVER

    Dr. Who my arss...

    .........



  18. #118
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by hipro5 View Post
    So by your words, you're saying that some PCMark2005 benchies that were done by REPLACING to some other "Intenet Explorer" (Fifefox for example) or REPLACING the windows "compressor codec" for compressing files, are NOT LEGIT (as for FM) right?....
    Correct.

    This would fall under "tampering the benchmark". Any result obtained in this way would not be comparable to results obtained without such tampering as the workload is not identical - making them effectively meaningless.

  19. #119
    Diablo 3! Who's Excited?
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    9,440
    Quote Originally Posted by FM_Jarnis View Post
    Correct.

    This would fall under "tampering the benchmark". Any result obtained in this way would not be comparable to results obtained without such tampering as the workload is not identical - making them effectively meaningless.
    Good to hear. Any chance you guys could beef up security on this? I would like to see PCM05 remain competitive rather then relegated to the trash bin.

  20. #120
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    10,379
    I would love to keep pcmark too, but how to check scores ? Impose cap limits like with the HD XP startup for eg for browsing and video encoding ?
    Question : Why do some overclockers switch into d*ckmode when money is involved

    Remark : They call me Pro Asus Saaya yupp, I agree

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •