New Formula One Overclocking Competition Announced

[dinos22]

why not just shift the hole F1 to AMD parts ?

AMD only

No thanks

[massman]

massman > simply making it a professional sport and really putting the hammer down with some strict rules to prevent comps like this from blowout results where NO ONE would want to watch someone repeatedly win and win due to some advantage they have

Okay.

So, the suggestion to prevent winners to win because some advantage is to use only retail samples?

>> Winner =
The one who finds the ultimate sample =
The one who can either test most, or have someone test them for him =
The one who has the unfair advantage.

Even the suggestion to put a limit on the used frequency is laughable ... this way, a manufacturer should not push its motherboards, but just make sure it can run a certain frequency.

How do you define unfair advantage? I mean ... if for instance Evga has a board that allows you to run each cpu 200MHz higher, the Evga team has an unfair advantage, no?

[3oh6]

Explain to me what the difference is please. Maybe I'm missing a vital point here

same here...what is the point of an F1 competition or a NASCAR race if it is just going to be stock Corolla's running around a track at 75MPH?

look at the history of any great sport or competition, most notably extreme sports and motorsports. everything has started from the grass roots, from rum runners down in the south to Talledega on Sunday afternoon with hundreds of thousands in attendance and millions watching on TV. skateboarding is another great example where manufacturer involvement pushed the sport to a level that there are an entire X-Games based around the same involvement for all the sports included.

NASCAR wouldn't be what it is today if they didn't push the limits and showcase the unbelievable. that is what a competition like this is about...pushing the limits to advertise and create loyalties of a brand. manufacturers sponsor/pay/furnish an overclocker competing against other overclockers sponsored/paid/furnished by another company. spectators watch, they like overclocker A or overclocker B, they cheer for them in the competition, they buy the gear they use. same reason my hick of a brother in law buys Chevrolet...not because it is a better brand, but because Dale Earnhardt drove one...and the ones Dale use to drive sure as hell don't resemble the crap he drives off the lot in.

let HWBot do it's thing - be the SCCA run offs of the overclocking world - and let this be what it should be. it isn't about letting everyone compete, it is about showcasing what can be done....not what everyone can do.

[dinos22]

i'm not smart enough to give you these answers but i am looking at the bigger picture

it will be one boring comp if we keep seeing same team win over and over again

how do we make it right is the $64,000 question

[cadupradoo]

So, I have just finished reading the whole thread...

I think the main idea of a competition is to be fair. Everything that's not fair is called cheating. So you should decide what cheating will be.

In my opinion, it is almost impossible to avoid the luck. Even if all competitors have to proove that they actually bought a given chip, it depends on how will the bought chip perform. Probably different from how another competitor's chip will. Of course that providing cherrypicked chips to some of the competitors isn't fair, unless you do it to every competitor, and show that all the cpus are really similar. And that won't be easy to do. Imagine, you may give a hand picked chip to somebody and another handpicked chip, worse than the former, to other person...


So I thinkg it's easier to use only retail products, like Francois have said. By the way: Francois, if Intel isn't gonna give any hand picked chips, and I'm not gonna participate, can I have one?

Now serious, like one have said, it's not overclock if you limit the clock. It's hard to figure this thing out..

I think the only way for it to be perfectly fair is doing something impossible:

There would be differente "kits" of hw.. The first, with a weak gfx, and a motherboard, cpu and memories. This would be used by team 1 on the first month to do spi, for instance.

Meanwhile, team 2 would have a different kit with stronger gfx to do some 3d bench.

In the second month they would exchange their kits, and go for different benchmarks.

I guess that's the only way to make it completely fair and take luck outta here.

But of course, for many reasons, that's no possible and probably not fun.

So I think there should be no handpicked pieces and you should accepet that some luck will take part of it...

Any chance of Brazil taking part of it on 2nd season?

[Buckeye]

Good point chris

Will the scores posted on HWBOT in anyway be put into the mix of everyones scores ?
It's might be a lot to ask of HWBOT to handle all this.

I do agree that there needs to be a clear set of rules that the manufactures agree to.

[massman]

it will be one boring comp if we keep seeing same team win over and over again

Oh, very debatable topic!

All depends on how you explain the victory. It's very simple: if someone wins because he's 200MHz ahead of the competition, do you use the argument:

- Luck: tests a few chips and has best
- Money: tests a lot of chips and has the best
- Motherboard: uses best motherboard
- Skill: makes the best of out good

It's a know issue of the overclocking community to very little use the "skill"-argument as explanation of the victory. Most comment I hear on the bot: "Score not possible, check my frequencies".

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

this could get expensive but why not do a monthly chip swap? just for cpu... winning teams chip goes to the lowest scoring team - lowest to winning and so on a so forth

[[XC] gomeler]

this could get expensive but why not do a monthly chip swap? just for cpu... winning teams chip goes to the lowest scoring team - lowest to winning and so on a so forth

bad idea. I know if I'm benching with a chip that is required to last me 6 months I'm going to treat it differently than knowing I'll have a different chip in 4 weeks time. Plus these chips are going to be battered very badly and chances are a few will die.

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

Yeah but dont you think there could just be a new chip sent in the event of a dead chip? there would have to be a system for that anyway... also everyone would already have a backup chip if I read earlier in the thread correctly.

[Drwho?]

I really think that making sure the processors and GPUs are production quality, with proof of purchase is the best way to level the ground. No sample provided by manufacturer should be use.
weird to hear this from me, but this is the only way to insure "fairness"

Francois

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

If the manufacturers arent providing samples then how are teams gonna equip themselves? out of pocket?

[stangracin3]

I really think that making sure the processors and GPUs are production quality, with proof of purchase is the best way to level the ground. No sample provided by manufacturer should be use.
weird to hear this from me, but this is the only way to insure "fairness"

Francois

i would add mobo to that list too. as ive gotten some mobos that clock like crap and others that clock great.

[massman]

I really think that making sure the processors and GPUs are production quality, with proof of purchase is the best way to level the ground. No sample provided by manufacturer should be use.
weird to hear this from me, but this is the only way to insure "fairness"

Francois

Insure fairness to what or who?

[K404]

What if replacement chips arent as good then get sent on to another team.


One of the possible sticking problems I suspect is the use of "F1" what we're doing here isnt F1.

F1 limits everyone to a set of guidelines which mean that in a good season, the podium finishes are decided by the drivers because the cars are so closely performing.

I appreciate that the lap times for the benches are the aiming points and world records WILL be broken but at the same time, F1 doesnt generate land speed records. There can be world records and head-turners but still have "limiting" factors. By "limiting" id rather mean "equalling"

Im more worried about the money side of this. All it takes is one company to have a component that is a MUST HAVE in order to stand a chance of winning, supply it to their own team for free and make everyone else pay.

Because of the sums of money involved, companies might not want to give away so much for free

We will still be a marketing tool here, its unavoidable.

These comments are disjointed...sorry!


Also... will companies still sponsor/support people who arent involved in this? At the moment, overclockers get hardware for a bunch of reasons. If all the focus is on F1, will support dry up for anyone not in that circle...which might make it harder to get into the circle in the first place.

Some companies are already ridiculously tight for no real reason.

I want MORE people to get hardware support, not fewer.

[[XC] gomeler]

Ok so we've come now to the point where everyone thinks we shouldn't receive products from manufacturers in the name of fairness. How is this event going to be possible then? I don't know if I'm even competing but I know without manufacturer support I'd be even more limited in performance than I already am. The idea of having manufacturers backing hardware would mean benchers could dump more money into LN2 and peripherals.

[hipro5]

I really think that making sure the processors and GPUs are production quality, with proof of purchase is the best way to level the ground. No sample provided by manufacturer should be use.
weird to hear this from me, but this is the only way to insure "fairness"

Francois

If you remember your writings, you'll remember that BEFORE i7 975 go retail, you have programmed a GOOD ES 965 sample to be shown as "975" to FUGGER to bench it...
So you can do whatever you want with these chips right?

Now- WHO can assure me that you will NOT find a PERFECT ES i7 975 (or whatever), RENAME it to i7 975 RETAIL, GIVE it to FUGGER to bench it and we are all get screwed?......

[dread77]

If the manufacturers arent providing samples then how are teams gonna equip themselves? out of pocket?

Well, now you are getting there... That's the point!!! The safest and most fair to compete is the way Francois is suggesting, Retail Out of Shop hardware with Purchase receipt for everybody.

At least this is fair for the so called "guests".

Please check the first post, just under the word Sponsorship. Participants have to find their own sponsorship that will cover their h/w expenses, LN2, etc...

[massman]

Well, now you are getting there... That's the point!!! The safest and most fair to compete is the way Francois is suggesting, Retail Out of Shop hardware with Purchase receipt for everybody.

At least this is fair for the so called "guests".

Please check the first post, just under the word Sponsorship. Participants have to find their own sponsorship that will cover their h/w expenses, LN2, etc...

= HWBOT!

[miahallen]

I really think that making sure the processors and GPUs are production quality, with proof of purchase is the best way to level the ground. No sample provided by manufacturer should be use.
weird to hear this from me, but this is the only way to insure "fairness"

Francois

If the manufacturers arent providing samples then how are teams gonna equip themselves? out of pocket?

Ouch

Ok so we've come now to the point where everyone thinks we shouldn't receive products from manufacturers in the name of fairness. How is this event going to be possible then? I don't know if I'm even competing but I know without manufacturer support I'd be even more limited in performance than I already am. The idea of having manufacturers backing hardware would mean benchers could dump more money into LN2 and peripherals.

QFT

If you remember your writings, you'll remember that BEFORE i7 975 go retail, you have programmed a GOOD ES 965 sample to be shown as "975" to FUGGER to bench it...
So you can do whatever you want with these chips right?

Now- WHO can assure me that you will NOT find a PERFECT ES i7 975 (or whatever), RENAME it to i7 975 RETAIL, GIVE it to FUGGER to bench it and we are all get screwed?......

= HWBOT!

EXACTLY

[dread77]

= HWBOT!

Yes massman. Exactly like HWBOT. Though, I can see HWBOT getting diminished in the future, because the way things are going this is going to be a sport just to watch and not a sport to participate.

[massman]

Only if you think "racing sport" equals "F1 only".

I think many people are forgetting the fact that this F1 competition is supposed to be the most extreme competition on the planet. It's NOT intended for everyone to compete in; it's not intended for regular overclocker X to compete against legends such as KP and H5. This is all about pushing technology to its limit and that includes speed binning by the manufacturer and R&D teams of manufacturers taking care of the needs of these overclockers.

Hwbot allows people to compete on very different levels; not only the high-end hardware. It shouldn't be exactly the same as this competition. There are different levels of the overclocking game. Hwbot is, by the way, working on a platform that should integrate all these levels into one big game: low-end and competitions and events and F1 and ... but that's all the info I can give.

[dread77]

Cmon massman. Are you saying that great scores that will be produced in F1 Overclocking will not count in HWBOT?

And if not how will HWBOT manage the loss of great scores from great o/cers like KP and Hipro? Because obviously, they will not be able to compete in F1 and in HWBOT at the same time.

[k|ngp|n]

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

Why are you BS'ing people man? The chips at GOOC 2009 were handpicked, someone told me they heard those EXACT words came out of your mouth maybe after one beer two many or something . SO why are you trying to say no handpick no for this event and all this baloney about the driver and not the card? HYPOCRISY!!!

YOU are the one that started all this BS manuf ES handpicking do you realize that? YOU are the reason that it's even an issue today. Everything AMD has done has been in response to how you have and STILL operate. You don't want the overclock community to turn into a marketing tool eh??

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

Can OVERCLOCKERS please make the rules for the contest and NO ONE ELSE OVERCLOCKER magazine? Seriously...
It seems though alot of things are up in the air and there isn't anything solid yet with regards to rules and regulations and I think that needs to be 100% cleared up before I can give full commitment. Whoever made the f1-scca comment was spot on .

[Dualist]

The only way I can see to stop the fairness/unfairness of cherry pick chips is like in F1 you have an engine limit, set a limit not low but 5.3-5.5ghz then any combo of mobo or chip can hit then it's just how you use it. Basically making use of the driver and his skills.
Also if your worried about someone changing the cpu speed after benching doesn't the ORB say what the cpu speed was while benching.?

No one is complaining about cherry graphics cards so they can be whatever.

just my 2cents worth.