New Formula One Overclocking Competition Announced

[Drwho?]

What I am saying is simple: if it turns to a manufacturer contest (If not using Store parts, intel will not participate, and will voice that it is not a fair contest, we will stay on the high road, no consumer misleading demo, that s it.), you got to take into account what people do with them ... and it is mostly Air and Water ... removing this from the contest create a very misleading image of the market.

You don't want the OC community to turn into a marketing tool... it is the worst that could happen to it.

by the way, It is easy to bin parts when you don t produce a lot of them, agreeing to binning for OC is admitting that you are not under pressure of delivering as many parts as you can, that means, people don t buy your parts, and you have time to bin them more ... humm hummmmmmm in simple words, that is a very bad news if you have time to bin for extreme OC ...

Francois

[soundood]

.

You don't want the OC community to turn into a marketing tool... it is the worst that could happen to it.

hasnt it already, isnt this whole thing about marketing for companys, since they, after all are dictating teams?

[Drwho?]

hasnt it already, isnt this whole thing about marketing for companys, since they, after all are dictating teams?

That is what we have to fight as much as we can, it has to be about the "driver" of the car, as much as about the "car" ... and it has to be inside a set of rules ... even Formula 1 has its own rules, and they are very strong.

I OCed my 1st PC in 1985, it was a 80286 in a Bull Micral 30 and an olivetti with 80186 ... I toke the 80286 from 8Mhz to 12Mhz by changing the Quartz by hand ... and the 80186 from 4.77Mhz to 7 Mhz ...


trust me, OC is something special to me! I really want the contest to be something honnest and as Fugger told you, I went through many layers of my company to insure that Intel will be elegant in the way we behave, I hope my competitors will hear the call and align ... let s see!

Store parts or nothing!

Francois

[dinos22]

Francois
i like what i hear from you but i wonder how this will actually work in practice

[Drwho?]

Francois
i like what i hear from you but i wonder how this will actually work in practice

We probably need to start creating rules and charters that companies will engage themselve to sign up and respect them, the exact same way the F1 or all the technology sports do.

I can give a hand if the organizers of this contest, I can provide lawyer support to write a draft, and set up one time for all, some public rules that the company participant, and Overclockers has to follow.

If you look at the Spec Web site, there are rules to be allowed to participate, rules about what you can use during the contest, and how you actually publish your result. They have rules as well on when the hardware you are using has to be released, and they have a verification commision.

SPEC.org is very much what you want to be inspired by, AMD, Intel, IBM and most of others industry players agreed to sign up on those rules, I know intel will sign up on similar rules if apply to overclocking.

It is time to move OC to an other level, as an organized sport/Hobby, not only a marketing tool.

Like every championship, the rules has to evolve over time, here is an example:
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/Docs/runrules.html


Notice:
1.3.2 Obtaining Components
Therefore, it is expected that the components used in a published result can in fact be obtained, with the level of quality commonly expected for products sold to ordinary customers. Such components are required to:

be specified using customer-recognizable names,
be generally available within certain time frames,
provide documentation,
provide an option for customer support,
be of production quality, and
provide a suitable environment for programming.
The judgment of whether a component meets the above list may sometimes pose difficulty, and various references are given in these rules to guidelines for such judgment. But by way of introduction, imagine a vendor-internal version of a compiler, designated only by an internal code name, unavailable to customers, which frequently generates incorrect code. Such a compiler would fail to provide a suitable environment for general programming, and would not be ready for use in a SPEC CPU2006 result.


If we can inspire a "charter" out of the Spec example, we can establish a very fair and honest contest.

Francois