The Indivisible Nature of a World Record - New WR Communication Terminology and Guidelines

  • News, Editorials, OC records, Articles
  • 43
  • HWBOT

The Indivisible Nature of a World Record – New WR Communication Terminology and Guidelines

Authors: Pieter-Jan Plaisier & Timothée Pineau

The world of overclocking is a magical thing. There are no teachers in universities telling us how to operate in this world which makes this a completely open field. That is one of the things we love about our jobs and passion.

In this job, we are fortunate enough to travel the world and talk with everyone involved in the process of overclocking. From the hardware manufacturer designing the products we use, over the distributor selling on feature sets to the end-users and overclockers enjoying the competitions we organize at HWBOT. Every week we learn something new and our vision is affected daily by the input of opinions and feedback from the people that cross our path.

In this editorial we will explain the stance we take on the term World Record. We introduce new terminology, publish communication guidelines and the only official HWBOT World Record table

A World Record Is Indivisible.

In the very near future, the terminology at the HWBOT site as well as its news articles will change drastically when it comes to overclocking world records. A World Record is indivisible. It is a thing of which only one can exist. Any derivative of the World Record cannot be called a world record, and can only be referred to as a “Top Score” or “Best”. To illustrate the communication, consider the image below

In the example above, you can find four different categories of overclocking top scores. First, there is the World Record. This is the best score ever achieved for a specific benchmark application. Secondly, there is the Global Top Score or Global Best. This is the best score achieved for a benchmark category. The category is defined as a subset of the benchmark scores, separated by core count. Thirdly, there is the Hardware Top Score or Hardware Best. This is the best score achieved in a specific benchmark category defined by a benchmark and a piece of hardware. As a fourth item, we have the Platform Top Score or Platform Best. This is the best score in a benchmark for a specific platform. Here’s another practical example

#1 3DMark03World Record
#1 3DMark03 1xGPUGlobal Top Score
#1 3DMark03 X99Platform Top Score
#1 3DMark03 1xGPU GTX 750Hardware Top Score

This Is Why

As we wrote in the introduction, it has been our frustration to sit in meetings and have casual conversations about overclocking as if the only aspect that really matters are the World Records. Especially since it is our conviction that overclocking is about a community of people who enjoy fiddling with hardware and compete to see who can achieve the highest performance with a given set of components.

Timothée: “Overclocking is about running a benchmark and using it to measure the performance increase before and after overclocking. At the heart and center of this, there’s the benchmark. A World Record is the highest performance achieved in a benchmark no matter what limitations imposed.
Like in athletics, the World Record is about being the best in your discipline. You can compare a benchmark to for example the 100M Dash. Claiming the record means you are the best ever in the specific discipline, undivided and as a whole. The term of World Record is en route to become something like claiming the fastest 100M Dash with Nike shoes or the fastest Time Trial with a Shimano bike. It is getting out of control.”

Pieter: “The evolution of the term World Record is very similar to that of the plethora of awards review sites hand out nowadays. I wrote hardware reviews for a while and experienced the dynamics of that part of the industry. It’s a commercial process where the hardware industry attempts to obtain accreditation for their products and the journalist industry trying to monetize this to survive.
I have shared my views on this process plenty of times and expressed how I believe the increased pressure for awards is hurting the industry as a whole. I said my goodbyes to that part of the industry because it is not in my power to change it. With HWBOT we have that possibility to change and I feel we are going in the right direction by restricting the usage of the term World Record and start naming things as they really are: Top Scores.”

Isaïe: “I’m confident that overclockers and the industry will converge to the same semantic usage because it will benefit everyone. The overclockers in their dedication and time involved for this recognition and the industry by having the same rules for everyone. The marketing messages will be better understood and valued. It all comes down to quality versus quantity.”

For the community and real overclocking enthusiasts, nothing really changes. We are still trying to squeeze every bit of performance and compete in friendly or competitive overclocking contests. For the partners, the situation will undoubtedly improve. By decreasing the amount of “Records”, the value of obtaining one of them increases significantly. It will no longer be required to hunt for an unlimited amount of meaningless scores. You will be measured in terms of quality, not quantity.

How to Communicate about Your Results

We have outlined the new terminology in the previous section. In this section we will outline how to correctly communicate about your benchmark results. Let’s revisit the example we used before.

#1 XTU

  • Correct: “I set a HWBOT World Record for the XTU benchmark”
  • Correct: “I broke the XTU HWBOT World Record”

#1 XTU 8xCPU

  • Correct: “I set a HWBOT Global Top Score for the XTU benchmark in the 8xCPU category”
  • Correct: “I set a new HWBOT Global Top Score for 8xCPU XTU”
  • Not correct: “I set a Global World Record for the XTU benchmark”
  • Not correct: “I set an 8xCPU XTU World Record”

#1 XTU Core i7 5960X

  • Correct: “I set a new HWBOT Hardware Top Score for the XTU benchmark in the Core i7 5960X category”
  • Correct: “I set a new HWBOT Hardware Top Score for Core i7 5960X XTU”
  • Not correct: “I set a Hardware World Record for the XTU benchmark with Core i7 5960X”
  • Not correct: “I set a XTU Hardware World Record for the Core i7 5960X”

For brands who want to use overclocking results for advertising or marketing purposes, we recommend using the following communication to ensure your audience understands your marketing message and you give credit to those who achieved the results. For example :

#1 XTU

  • Correct: “Our brand or product was used to set a HWBOT World Record for the XTU benchmark”
  • Correct: “User X established an HWBOT XTU World Record using our product or brand”
  • Not Correct: “Our product broke the HWBOT XTU World Record”
  • Not Correct: “Our brand set an HWBOT World Record for the XTU benchmark”

The Current HWBOT World Record and Top Score Charts

(Below tables include only the benchmark applications which have World Record, Global or Hardware points enabled)

Counter

  • 24 World Records
  • 181 Global Top Scores
  • 37,253 Hardware Top Scores

HWBOT World Record Table

OverclockerCPUMotherboardMemoryVGAPSUDisk
TeamAU 6 Intel 21 ASUS 9 G.SKILL 9 ASUS 9 Corsair 10 OCZ 1
Gunslinger 2 AMD 3 GIGABYTE 8 Corsair 6 EVGA 2 Antec 1 Corsair 5
8 Pack 1 Supermicro 2 Teamgroup 1 LEPA 1 Micron 1
AndreYang 1 HP 2 HyperX 1 Cooler Master 1 HyperX 1
Chi-Kui Lam 1 ASRock 1 Samsung 1
Dhenzjhen 1 EVGA 1
Fredyama 1
Hicookie 1
K|ngp|n 1
Knopflerbruce 1
Moose83 1
PreacherMan 1
Sofos1990 1
The Stilt 1
Wizerty 1
Xtreme Addict 1

HWBOT Global Top Score Table

OverclockerCPUMotherboardMemoryVGAPSUDisk
Dhenzjhen 22 Intel 142 ASUS 66 G.SKILL 41 ASUS 23 Corsair 31 Corsair 13
8 Pack 11 AMD 39 GIGABYTE 29 Corsair 31 MSI 11 Antec 16 OCZ 9
OVIZ Hardware Lab 9 Supermicro 22 Kingston 5 GIGABYTE 7 Cooler Master 5 Samsung 5
TeamAU 9 EVGA 11 Crucial 4 EVGA 4 Evga 5 G.SKILL 4
Sofos1990 8 ASRock 5 Teamgroup 4 Sapphire 1 LEPA 3 Intel 4
56+ 122+ 3+ 7+ 4+ 6+ 3+ 6+ 5+ 9+

HWBOT Hardware Top Score Table

Overclockers
Knopflerbruce 3382
MrPaco 1067
Christian Ney 617
GENiEBEN 606
TaPaKaH 579
Delly 567
Antinomy 537
Veld 479
John May 472
Gigioracing 432

43

Australia Uncle Fester says:

Good article Pieter, this needed to be clarified.

United Kingdom borandi says:

"which makes this a completely open field"

PR in manufacturers will do what they like and use the best positive language to promote their product.
As there is no overriding authority, unfortunately nothing you've written here will ever change that, despite its sentiment.
So if it's a 'WR for 8x CPU', it'll still be a 'WR for 8x CPU' in the press releases, because technically that is correct even if it's not an absolute WR.
Quite apart from which, the number of users who would pick apart the language in those PRs or promotional materials is slim compared to the number of users that will see them. The media can adjust the language when reporting them, but again that intersection between overclockers and reporting media is small.
One might argue that most of the readers might not understand what 'WR on 8x CPU' means - all that is important is 'RECORD!!!' and makes them think about that product a bit more.

Another point worth adding is multi-threaded benchmarks dominated by servers.
Motherboard manufacturers won't care that the top Cinebench R15 score might be on an 80-core beast.
They'll use the 'WR' term to promote what is commercially available, with or without the appropriate textual qualifiers.

Some of the manufacturers are huge (compared to HWBot especially) and will use whatever the language they like, regardless of what HWBot says. HWBot can take a stance (either passive or aggressive, calling people out) but it might not amount to anything, given the language required by the marketing teams in order to promote their products in the best possible way.

If anything, the list of people with WRs in this article: What you guys need is to show a random WR score in the bar on the main page when the site is first loaded. So when I click refresh, I see that X person has X WR in X benchmark. Whether you cycle around the sponsors of the site only or all 24 WRs is up to you.

France Wizerty says:

Agree with Borand for many point...

-Who care that Cinebench R15 WR, if it's on 80core rig... you can't compare, no one use this thing.
To take exemple of 100m dash, if I keep your mind, then Usain Bolt : 9.58s is not a WR... take a leopard, it run it in 5s. Or take a rocket. It's exactly the same as compare 1 core cpu to 80 core cpu, there is nothing similar
To be less extreme, you have WR for man, woman, blind, for young... some are more prestigious, like 100m dash man, everybody know it, but 100m dash blind woman ??? It's the same for CPU, 4core, 6 core are more used, and are more prestigious (for me) than " real WR" with 80core.

For VGA it's easier cause you only have 1,2,3 or4 card. But cpu test...

----
- Then "reader" :
I spend hour and hour trying to explain difference between rookie, extreme, elite, novice... hour to explain hardware point, global point, word record point.... When I made reviews, 99% of the reader don't see the difference between these category.
When I made reviews, a guy able to understand "Platform Top Score" is also able to understand that 4930k "world record" is not "world record", but only "x6 top score..." . All other guy have not enough knowledge to understand it. And if I use { World Record, Global Top Score, Platform Top Score, Hardware Top Score }, then, 100% sure I will lost them.
We have to keep it easy, to touch large amount of people. If the reader can't understand the title, then he won't read.



----
It's only my 2 cent, I don't really care (for me), I know hardware well enough to see if a submission is "prestigious" or not, but for less experiment people, I think these difference are hard to catch

Canada Trouffman says:

Wiz : regarding the reader point i don't really agree : * assume enthusiasts can do the difference between a real wr and special rules wr. Is actually misunderstanding the readers, the one able to differentiate that are.. in the community mostly. Regarding the other that might be lost using 3 or 4 terms instead of 1 is ctually the opposite. IT IS actually difficult to expalin what is a real wr and what is not so much because of the semantic used. 4 terms is actually more to simplify. For example you talk about a car in the same discussion you talk about a racing car, a SUV and an electric car. Just have the discussion with using ONLY th e word car (dont use the type nor the brand) : pretty confusing isnt it, and not sure everyone will have same understanding ? Now use the word : SUV, racing car and electric card. More words/ type but better understanding. With the clarification, people using the terms WR when it is not the case will actually confuse their readers instead of making it clearer. Hope i expressed myself coreectly :D

K404 says:

Really, about time that something was done about this, but to marketing teams, very little will change.

Canada Trouffman says:

Let me create a website marketingfactchecker.com and will call out all the marketing pr not complying ! Ahaha Tbh.. is marketing team doesn't follow the appeal of a wr will go down and their message will go down too ^^ its like "oh im running and my feets hurts, but i could stop running and walk, arrive a bit after or if i keep running i will *ck up my feet but will finish faster... and might not run as fast next time. Hehe

France Wizerty says:

Yes, it's clear ;), but I'm not agree. For my POV, "WR 6core" or "WR 4core" or "WR" ( with nothing) is more clear. So with really short title, you understand that it's the best score with this amount of core.

I think the main difference between your "target" and mine is : you write for Overclocking TV, Hwbot... so poeple reading already have some knowledge.
I write review for "cowcotland". On this media, you find 95% of news/reviews talking about product. It's not focus in overclocking. Actually, I'm the only one talking about OCing.
When 3000 poeple read my news, or 80000 read my reviews, only few guys are involve in overclocking. And even if you ask to rookie the difference between hardware and global, I'm sure many don't know, but if you ask the difference between x4 WR or x6 WR, everybody will answer "the amount of core".
Once again, for us it's easy, we all used HwBot for years...

Anyway if it seems better for every one, I will try to used it, but if too many poeple told my they don't understand, I will have to used "WR x6..." again.

So let's try and W&S.

United States Splave says:


I will make sure to write I set a HWBOT® World Record™ for the XTU® benchmark

United States Mr.Scott says:

Wizerty said: For my POV, "WR 6core" or "WR 4core" or "WR" ( with nothing) is more clear.



+1
:celebration:

Australia Dinos22 says:

Wiz, it all starts with you, the overclocker. If you tell them how you broke a pi fast WR knowing it really was a category top score, how is the manufacturer going to know any different. This is about education and what massman has to do now is follow this up with a meeting with all manufacturers to educate the people who run social media so that it eventually does happen.

Australia Dinos22 says:

Exactly. Massman needs to educate all PR. I have already sent an email internally to use the new terminology, hwbot needs to be proactive and it will happen.

United Kingdom ObscureParadox says:

I mean "technically" there is nothing wrong with using the term world record since it is the best in the world at its category. It looks a lot better for a marketing team to use the team world record instead of "catagory top score" or something of that description, because your average jpe blog is going to see the term WR and immediately think "that must be good then" whereas the latter could bring up a response like "what the hell does that mean?" Just my 2 cents and I know others will disagree.

Romania Monstru says:

dinos22 said: Wiz, it all starts with you, the overclocker. If you tell them how you broke a pi fast WR knowing it really was a category top score, how is the manufacturer going to know any different.



They would know any different because most companies interested in world records have at least on in house overclocker already...

TaPaKaH says:

Hooray for common sense! :)

Monstru said: They would know any different because most companies interested in world records have at least one in house overclocker already...
What if this "one overclocker" also uses the wrong terminology? :)

Australia Uncle Fester says:

I mean how far do you take it if you continue using WR.
I got super pi WR for my post code.
I got super pi WR for my street.

All of the above are true but really to anyone with any knowledge I am a wanker.

This is where us as users need to school the media and our readers of our content. Its NOT about "look at me I'm so cool, I got WR, give me more hardware manufacturers."
Which seems to be the current trend.

Australia Dinos22 says:

Monstru said: They would know any different because most companies interested in world records have at least on in house overclocker already...


That is true but you are forgetting that there is a disconnect with PR on HQ and local level between these. These are not a little firms with 10 people sitting in cubicles throwing paper planes at each other. I'm just saying what would be helpful

Romania Monstru says:

Sam OCX said: What if this "one overclocker" also uses the wrong terminology? :)


That means he does it on purpose...

Australia Dinos22 says:

I don't care what it's called as long as we standardise on something

France Wizerty says:

uncle fester said: I am a wanker.

Agree :D


--------
The thing is, if we use "global top score...." then we won't use world record anymore... exemple : X99
Superpi -> NO z97 better
Pifast.... -> NO z97 better
...
Cinebench -> NO 60x core better
HWbot prime -> NO 64x core better

So no WR for any x99. In poeple mind, no WR = Bad product...

************

Then I'm not crazzy... so I'm maybe a wanker, but I only used same word as Hwbot...
Small picture is better than my bad english :




Record, world record, world record.....

This is why I don't get you when you kidding me, I don't say : "I'm the best", "I need more stuff", "I'm this only one knowing how to break record"... I only use the same word as Hwbot... and doing my best to be as good as other.
So one more time, I'm not a wanker trying to be "the star", and I will try to use the "global top score..." but I don't like it, I think it's bad idea and it will be unclear in reader's mind.....

This is my POV, you have yours, I've got mine, respect this pls

Australia Uncle Fester says:

Lol wiz, my comments were not directed at you. Nice to see I am on your mind :)

Canada Trouffman says:

Interesting that we can discuss ;) regarding the terms used on the bot : in the editorial it is said they will edit all the reference in the next few days to have this semantic used ;) so wont be a double side message. For the remark about the user understanding : if there is no wr = it is not good hardware. The issue lies at the root cause of this clarification, because everyone is using wr for everything and nothing, after everyone use the global top score etc that will be : global top score = good hardware. Wr = special !

Canada Trouffman says:

Dinos : lobbying is the key ;) this is not addressed as our inside community only but my pov is : all it hardware marketing team, all it hardware press shoyld get contacted to know about this. ;)

South Africa ShockG says:

Wouldn't it be just easier to consolidate all these "Records". So there's one for 3D2K1, one for 03, that way you have the number of records matching the number of benchmarks. The rest are top scores.
The more explaining that needs to be done, the higher the odds of nothing changing. This industry is inherently, culturally even a one way communication channel. As such if there's any opportunity to be heard, the message must be concise. There are as many positions for world records as there are benchmarks. That's all. Top score the rest.

Belgium Massman says:

Wizerty said: Agree :D


--------
The thing is, if we use "global top score...." then we won't use world record anymore... exemple : X99
Superpi -> NO z97 better
Pifast.... -> NO z97 better
...
Cinebench -> NO 60x core better
HWbot prime -> NO 64x core better

So no WR for any x99. In poeple mind, no WR = Bad product...

************

Then I'm not crazzy... so I'm maybe a wanker, but I only used same word as Hwbot...
Small picture is better than my bad english :

http://forum.hwbot.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2442&stc=1&d=1411047258

Record, world record, world record.....

This is why I don't get you when you kidding me, I don't say : "I'm the best", "I need more stuff", "I'm this only one knowing how to break record"... I only use the same word as Hwbot... and doing my best to be as good as other.
So one more time, I'm not a wanker trying to be "the star", and I will try to use the "global top score..." but I don't like it, I think it's bad idea and it will be unclear in reader's mind.....

This is my POV, you have yours, I've got mine, respect this pls


Yeah, HWBOT is a part of the problem. We'll be adjusting the text ASAP.

Norway knopflerbruce says:

If you have a WR on a "per core" basis there are also WRs for each model (and I guess you can get more WRs here, based on type of cooling, for example). I agree with MM here. If that's not correct I claim to have 3000+ WRs. It's impossible to give good arguments as to why # of cores makes a WR and not specific CPU models.

K404 says:

dinos22 said: 10 people sitting in cubicles throwing paper planes at each other.


Bubble: burst. :(

K404 says:

GSG said: Wouldn't it be just easier to consolidate all these "Records". So there's one for 3D2K1, one for 03, that way you have the number of records matching the number of benchmarks. The rest are top scores.


Tempted to support this for the simplicity. If things start getting divided by core or card count, it ends up getting messy, especially once people stop understanding why (quick example) a one or two card 3D score can be higher than a three or four card.

World Record points = World record ranking.


(I am very very very well aware that this means single GPU benchers potentially lose out here, I don't need it explained to me, I am/was/will be? one of them)




Why am I even commenting? My opinions are untainted by company connections or personal ambition :)

Canada Trouffman says:

Personal ambition being the most important one.

Australia Dinos22 says:

it's going to be hard convincing anyone if the community are not in agreement. looks like this needs more refining and then a persistent lobbying as trouff calls it

K404 says:

If Massman takes this to vendors and suggest they check all claims, once/ if PR teams/contacts are briefed, that will be about it. If an OCer *doesn't* like the wording and tries to put forward a "world record" then once it's checked: BOOM. reputation with that vendor becomes "BSer"

Canada Trouffman says:

K404 that is the lobbying and enforcing the rules. There Is no need to enforce jn a brutal way because it is just much more easier and better for everyone. Claiming "WR" in every PR, is cou ter productive, after a while no one really care... not sure the sentence exist in english but we say : if you are calling at the wolfs everytime, when the wolf come to get you, no one will believe you and you might get eaten. (We say that to the kids ^^)

K404 says:

The vendors will be the ones doing it "on their own" "Oh. HWBot told us about an idea to tighten up the meaning of a world record. We have this claim from an OCer and it's not a WR according to the HWB idea and we trust HWBot. What is this person trying to do?" As you say, overusing the "world record" will devalue it. Again, that's all on vendors, trying to out-do each other with PR. Their fault. I know exactly the story you mean, in the UK it is usally just called "The boy who cried wolf" :)

Netherlands VictordeHollander says:

A page with the current 24 WRs would be a nice addition to the rankings submenu if you ask me.
hwbot.org/world_records/ :P

Belgium Massman says:

Something like this, Victor? http://hwbot.org/news/11312_ (work in progress)

United States Strong Island says:

It does kind of suck for single gpu benchers, it was kind of fun benching with one card knowing you have a chance at a World Record. Now unless you bench with 4 cards with the newer benches you have no chance. Not that I really had a chance but the thought was motivating.

United States eatdirt40 says:

I agree with Strong Island above,

By making a world record the single score at the top, it leaves out 99% of your overclocking audience. You know, the people who make the majority of your posts, the ones who dont have gallons of LN2 or the latest $400+ CPU or quad SLI graphics...

Australia Uncle Fester says:

Thats the point of a world record guys. A WR is a WR there is no room for make believe WR.

Belgium Massman says:

To put things a bit in perspective: if we only consider the benchmarks with points enabled there are, - 24x World Record - 181x Global Top - 37,000x Hardware Top

K404 says:

eatdirt40 said: I agree with Strong Island above,

By making a world record the single score at the top, it leaves out 99% of your overclocking audience. You know, the people who make the majority of your posts, the ones who dont have gallons of LN2 or the latest $400+ CPU or quad SLI graphics...


Any world record with any definition leaves out 99% of people and.... let's be honest....... without LN2 or top-end parts, a user isn't in the running for a WR anyway.

GENiEBEN says:

Massman said: To put things a bit in perspective: if we only consider the benchmarks with points enabled there are,

- 24x World Record
- 181x Global Top
- 37,000x Hardware Top


Interesting, 23% of HW Tops are owned by top10. Lots of ground left to cover.

Norway knopflerbruce says:

GENiEBEN said: Interesting, 23% of HW Tops are owned by top10. Lots of ground left to cover.


I thought the same :p

Canada Vinster says:

Makes sense. why didn't we do this earlier?

Please log in or register to comment.