HWBOT Tales of Taipei #5 - Mobile Overclocking and Taipei Hackerspace

  • News, Editorials, Articles, Tales of Taipei Blog
  • 10
  • HWBOT

10

Belgium Massman says:

Now correctly linked on front page

United States l0ud_sil3nc3 says:

So time to tear apart the Note 3 and strap a pot on huh?

United States Splave says:

Are phones really lacking in speed though? I think 95% would find a way to down clock and save battery than have a smoother angry birds load time.

K404 says:

I think people would have to see this as a hobby separate to owning & tweaking a smartphone. Too many people are too reliant on their phones (the reasons are varied and none of my business) How many people would risk their brand new HTC/Samsung/MS/Apple/whatever handset, or have it "out of action" while they tweaked their benchmark efficiency? THIS IS A GOOD IDEA, I am not being critical per se, but I think that it needs to be seen as a "further purchase necessary" activity, which is tough, given the price of the good stuff.

GENiEBEN says:

*silently waiting to spam hwbot with mobile scores*

Belgium Massman says:

When I talk about mobile architecture, I mean devices like this:

Not the run-of-the-mill reference designs that go in phones; the development boards where SOCs have the room to breathe :)

Slovenia tiborrr says:

Putting those dev boards on the side - what's the point in overclocking something that runs on the batteries?

Also, I would be very careful about adding more benchmarks in the future, you might achieve the opposite effect from the extreme OC community. Not the ones that are doing this for living (HW manufacturer's in-house overclockers) but those that do it for the fun in the evenings like myself. Especially when you enable points in new benchmarks which also work on the hardware we have all already benched.

It was fun benching when there were a few 3D benchmarks (3DMarks, Aquamark) and few 2D benchmarks (Pie, Wprime, Fast Pie, PCMark). But adding such obscure benchmarks like you do lately and award them hardware points it's something you cannot do without the consensus from majority of community. IMO. It is becoming increasing difficult to participate in all benchmarks even if I put all my spare time into it. The days are just too short.

I know what you do for living and why you expand the benchmark suite every time you find a decently cheat-proof benchmark. I understand the economic side of it, but I have a hard time accepting this. I hear you will be adding even more benchmarks to the suite in new revision... To bad the creator doesn't give more hours to day as fast as you add new benchmarks.

I really feel like Hwbot is loosing focus. More =! (always) better. Drop old, add new if you have to, but too much is too much.

Belgium Massman says:

I agree with pretty much everything you said, Niko. Except for the conclusion and the remark on the economic aspect. Money has not really much to do with adding benchmarks as there is simply no correlation between the amount of advertising and the amount of benchmarks. Also, you should take into account that the increase of benchmark applications is a natural process. For example, Futuremark will release a new benchmark every X year, and of course there's always the possibility that new benchmarks attract interest from the enthusiast community. For example, Aquamark back in the day. Now Catzilla. In addition to that, it also seems a constant that the diehard XOC tend to express the desire to hold on to older benchmarks. For example 3DMark01 or SuperPI. There has never been a time where simply removing the older ones was supported by the majority of the community. But sticking to only the existing benchmarks shuts out the people who might be interested in overclocking too (but not in the old benchmarks). So there are two processes: 1) Always new benchmarks coming out (and added to hwbot by community request) 2) Diehards love their older benchmarks and want to keep them. And they work a bit as opposite forces. I don't know of any other solutions than to offer you the possibility of choice. Basically you can run any benchmark you want, and compete in the rankings. In Australia they call this freestyle :). I agree it makes it more difficult for people who like to focus on getting all the cups for one type of hardware. If you have any ideas to improve the situation for you, feel free to post. Also, can you elaborate on what you think our focus should be?

Slovenia tiborrr says:

Thanks for the reply, Pieter, it's always good to have a nice discussion regarding such important roles. I admit I have overlooked the possibility of 'freestyle' which actually sounds like a good trade-off between old and new benchmarks. But, to add I would recommend adding a single (50% community votes and 50% hwbot team votes) 2D and 3D benchmark once every year, maybe each January 1st. Community could suggest their candidate until October 1st 2013 and maybe have a heated discussion and voting period until December 1st. Hwbot would then use the one month to implement the benchmark selected by the community on a trial period which would last until ~ April 1st, maybe even add bonus boints or higher bounty for cups. Should the benchmark be ignored by the community it would get removed from the list and participants keep their hardware cups obtained during this period. The benchmark could be re-voted back. That's just my proposition :) Who knows, maybe you find some parts interesting and worth tinkering about. Also adding vendor-locked benchmarks (like XTU) should be a big no-no on hwbot, but since this is a big PR for you it's understandable. This should be solved with proposed 'free-style' anyhow but still. Regarding my remark about focus: I have a feeling that mobile market benchmarking is getting a tad too much focus from Hwbot lately. Yes, it's another benchmarkable platform like any other, especially thanks to the uniform OS ecosystem (which wasn't possible 3 or 4 years ago) but there's no real benefit from either overclocking something that already runs on limited amount of energy (Wh). Watthours are limited on these devices and if you increase the watts you loose the hours. And if you run these devices off a charger the whole 'mobile' looses it's point or is moot at best. iPhone and tablet generation really don't care about benchmarks. And even if they do - before you achieve anything with your OC platform they will already lose interest, especially if it requires more in-depth computer knowledge. If the youth could ditch twitter and FB for the sake of even more dumb-down, but faster communication channels then rest assure they will not be bothering with it for long. Working for a aftermarket cooler manufacturing company I can tell you that people are getting more technically challenged (=stupid) every day. Maybe I'm generalizing too much but that's my guts telling me about shifting trends. Regards, Niko

Belgium Massman says:

Actually, we proposed a similar "democratic" way for the community to have a say in the benchmark suite about a year ago. I don't recall the thread content exactly anymore, but we had to cancel the feature because there was too little interest for this. I brought up a very similar argument,

"The main issue is that it is becoming very difficult to introduce new benchmarks without saturating the bot. We can't continue like we do now and end up with 100 benchmarks that get points ... but we do need to be open for new benchmarks too. The rule that "everyone can choose what to bench" is relatively fine, but it does mean that everyone will just stick to what he likes and (almost never) try something new. I like the idea that we can push new benchmarks that may seem boring in the beginning but after a while get really interesting and competitive."

As for XTU. Sure, that project was very interesting for us PR and economically. PR-wise, it's great that a company like Intel works together with a small organization like us. It gives HWBOT a lot of credibility in the eyes of other companies. Also, along with our other partners, they helped us get through 2012. But! That is not the main reason why we took on XTU as a project, nor is it the main reason why we will keep pushing the benchmark. The main reason is related to getting fresh, new blood into overclocking. I recently build a report about the effect of XTU on HWBOT and this was one of the charts:




XTU is an incredible driver for enthusiasts to join HWBOT. More so than any other benchmark we host rankings for. Now I am not saying that every new member will become a diehard enthusiast like you or me, but there is a lot of potential. We still need to work on how to convert the new members, but this exposure is why we value XTU.

If AMD comes along and wants to do the exact same with their Overdrive benchmark, I wouldn't hesitate a second to discuss a cooperation.

As for how tech-savvy the new generation is, I can't really comment on it. The one thing that comes to mind is that the Raspberry Pi foundation is trying to get young kids to learn programming. Not just for future purposes, but as a logical thinking skill too. There is an argument to be made that the same applies to hardware; a fundamental understanding of how "things work" inside a computer/smartphone is not bad.

Please log in or register to comment.