Quote Originally Posted by zoson View Post
Hi Zalbard,
Thanks for keeping up the thread. It's a really nice way to organize the community of extreme overclockers.

Might I suggest for the thread update that you sort by GFlops, rather than speed? It would simplify the maintenance of the thread by making it possible to remove the different sections for specific CPU's. It would also express the ranking as a performance level, rather than just a benchmark. The speed milestone would still be the barrier to entry, but competition would be based on performance!

It would also make it very easy to see the clock per clock comparisons between old and new generation cpu's. 'oh hey at 100Gflops, xx cpu is lower clockspeed'. The community could zero in on those people who know tricks that boost performance(to get their insight) without having to sort through every result to find who is actually performing well, vs who is just running at a high clock.

Thanks again!
Hi, and thanks.
The problem about this is, these GFlops are not really relevant to real-life performance. For example, currently non-HT CPUs produce more GFlops than those with HT enabled. Yet if you try some rendering software, HT-enabled CPUs will be way ahead.
Another issue is memory performance. Linpack seems to be quite sensitive to that. It doesn't really translate into real-world advantage, though. For example, a 4GHz CPU with 2GHz RAM may be faster in LinX than a 4.5GHz CPU with 1GHz RAM, but it will be the other way around in pretty much all of the applications.
Not to mention that produced GFlops are often inconsistent.
I think it makes sense the way it is now. LinX is used to measure stability, not performance.
However, it's up to the members to decide. If I see many more people supporting your motion, I can rearrange everything.