HWBOT Team Cup 2012 - SC2: "Core 2 OC"

官方
在线
Follow on OC-ESPORTS

Following the spirit of the HWBOT Country Cup-series, on June 1st we're kicking off our first HWBOT Team Cup competition. Similar to the Country Cup, the Team Cup is all about group effort and joining forces. Only, this time, you'll be competing for the glory of your team!

The HWBOT Team Cup 2012 features 6 different sub-competitions, each focusing on different hardware and benchmarks and runs for a period of 3 months (June-July-August). More than enough time to gather the troops and aim for the highest spot! Good luck!

The Format

The Cup is, as previously mentioned, divided into 6 sub-competitions. For each sub-competition, you can gather points based on the team's final position in the sub-competition. In the end, the team with the most points wins the competition ... it's as simple as that! Similar to last year's Country Cup, there are three different sub-competition levels:

Level 1: 13 stages, 3 months.
Level 2: 7 stages, 1.5 months.
Level 3: 5 stages, 1 month.

The point distribution is as follows:

Stage points (all levels): 25-18-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

Update:: due to the level of complexity, we have changed the format for the overall Team Cup ranking. The ranking of the 2012 competition is based on the points you gather in each sub-contest. For a level 1 competition, this means you can gather as much as 325pts if you are 1st in all stages of that competition. Those 325pts will all count for your Team Cup ranking.

Sub-competition Prizes

The prizes for this sub-competition will be provided by GIGABYTE.

How to WIN	Provider	Prize	Info
Winning Team (#1)	GIGABYTE	3x Z77X-UD5H
Runner-up Team (#2)	GIGABYTE	2x Z77X-UD3H
2nd Runner-up Team (#2)	GIGABYTE	1x Z77X-D3H

Competition Hardware Requirements

Core 2 2000 series CPU
Core 2 3000 series CPU
Core 2 4000 series CPU
Core 2 5000 series CPU
Core 2 6000 series CPU
Core 2 7000 series CPU
Core 2 8000 series CPU

Stage Limitations

HWBOT Team Cup 2012 Roadmap


1 六月 2012 - 31 八月 2012: HWBOT Team Cup 2012 - SC1: "GeForce History Tour"


1 六月 2012 - 15 七月 2012: HWBOT Team Cup 2012 - SC2: "Core 2 OC"


15 七月 2012 - 31 八月 2012: HWBOT Team Cup 2012 - SC3: "Memory Clock"


			1 六月 2012 - 31 八月 2012: HWBOT Team Cup 2012


1 六月 2012 - 30 六月 2012: HWBOT Team Cup 2012 - SC4: "The AMD Family"


1 七月 2012 - 31 七月 2012: HWBOT Team Cup 2012 - SC5: "IGP Platform"


1 八月 2012 - 31 八月 2012: HWBOT Team Cup 2012 - SC6: "PCMark05 xCore"

HWBOT General Rules and Guidelines

Here at HWBOT we try our best to deliver a fair and enjoyable playing field for all those who participate in the rankings and competition. To be able to provide this kind of service we have tried to design some submission and general rules to help remove any doubts about whether something is allowed or not. Based on continued experience these rules will be updated, expanded and completed as time goes by. Please check back for any updates.

时间剩余：

关闭！

HWBOT Team Cup 2012 - SC2: "Core 2 OC" 排名

官方比赛

This is an online event. Participants can compete from all around the world, and make submissions online.

As this is an official level 1 competition, competitors will receive season points for the final ranking as following.

3 六月 2012 Rady says:

the core 2 x6800 is authorizes for this level ?

thanks

3 六月 2012 HobieCat says:

Are core 2 Quads allowed?

3 六月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Says Core 2 family, so yes - duals and quads:)

4 六月 2012 NoMS says:

Is E6XXX Wolfdale (eg. E6500K or E6600 ) fine to use in this competition or only old E6XXX Conroe?

4 六月 2012 Rasparthe says:

Pentium and Celeron duals aren't Core 2. I was assuming it was only dual cores but perhaps quads are included... I don't see any posted yet though.

4 六月 2012 Mikecdm says:

Several of these classes, like the E2xxx, E3xxx, E5xxx no actual Core 2 cpu exist. They are either celeron or pentium dual core, but they are all based on the core 2 architecture and part of the core 2 family.

4 六月 2012 Massman says:

They are allowed. The competition is for the Core 2 family

4 六月 2012 Dan Jacques says:

E3000 has only Celerons. E2000 has only Pentium DCs.

Pentium E6xxx can participate?

4 六月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Yeah. They're based on the Core 2 technology at least.

7 六月 2012 Dan Jacques says:

Thanks, guys!

Okay, let's go to Ebay.

7 六月 2012 Gigioracing says:

hi, I can not download the screensaver...

7 六月 2012 Turrican says:

hi, I can not download the screensaver...

hmm, which screensaver?

if you mean the background screenshot, it's here

http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=177774&postcount=20

7 六月 2012 Gigioracing says:

hmm, which screensaver?

if you mean the background screenshot, it's here

http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=177774&postcount=20

yes , is there. because the link here don't work

http://hwbot.org/competition/team_cup_2012_sc2/stage/616_core_2_2000_series/

thank you

8 六月 2012 ilusindo says:

It's very not fair if Q6xxx meet E6xxx in UCbench. In SuperPi E6xxx still can compete with Q6xxx . But it's ok, let's hunting Q6600 G0 SLACR . It's mean Q8xxx allowed too for stage Core 2 8000 series... right?

9 六月 2012 Rasparthe says:

Yes, it does. I do agree with you and don't much understand why this wasn't limited to just dual cores. A Quad makes every other dual core chip irrelevant. The 6000 series has 19 dual cores and 6 quads (3 are Extreme chips) and only the Q6600 is common (Sorry all you Q6400 users out there). So why limit the stage so severely and really make the Q6600 the only chip to use?

9 六月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Huh? There are many quads - did someone say the QX chips are not allowed?

In reality you need certain cpus to be able to compete in any such competition. E6320 won't do much good here even if you only allow duals, for example. This principle does not change if we allow quads or not. Still, it says Core 2 series, and quads are definately a part of that series.

9 六月 2012 Rasparthe says:

I don't have a problem with the rules, certain chips will always be better. By having a pool of (in the 6000 series) 19 dual chips to choose from would allow for more people to be competitive. By excluding the majority of the chips (and I don't mean that the 6320 is just a poor choice against a 6850 but that the very best dual on LN2 can't even catch a quad on Air) you are essentially making the rules read: Use only Q6400 - not even list on HWBOT, Q6600, Q6700, QX6700, QX6800, or QX6850.

Again I don't have problem with it, I own both, just trying to make a point that by limiting the contest to duals would have provided a wider field of scores and a great deal more interesting scores since all the duals are at least in the same realm of scores.

9 六月 2012 teurorist says:

the problem is i can't find a source for q7700

9 六月 2012 Turrican says:

the problem is i can't find a source for q7700

ebay?

9 六月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

the problem is i can't find a source for q7700

I like that challenge.

10 六月 2012 teurorist says:

nothing in ebay or I'm stupid

10 六月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

There was a seller who had a few a long time ago, so I bought them while they were still available. He had 3 models, q7500, q7600 and q7700. Pretty rare chips.

10 六月 2012 I.nfraR.ed says:

I was just writing that Knut bought them all

10 六月 2012 teurorist says:

but ther iis nothing anymore : (

when you'r uploading knopfler ?

10 六月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

I need to actually bench it first. I will do it, but not yet (exams...).

19 六月 2012 gugle says:

why 9000 series isn't included?

19 六月 2012 teurorist says:

qx9705 skulltrail

20 六月 2012 Planet says:

Qx9775*

3 七月 2012 nedernakker says:

so I guess it's time to discuss the manner of how to run the benchmark. since there seems to be posted scores witch have an out of proportion high score for their clockspeeds. this due to changing the benchmarks command line..

is this allowed? so yes then I'll rerun my benchmarks too..

rules state then benchmark must be run at it's standard settings..

3 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Which results are you talking about? I tried to run with all tests selected, and then only the one that produces the highest scores, and I got roughly the same scores in both cases.

3 七月 2012 Luebke says:

ive tried, too and between default settings and only the best test are more than 100 points difference.

i guess only default-settings should be allowed.

I tried to run with all tests selected,

you have to use default settings for a valid result, don´t you?

3 七月 2012 I.nfraR.ed says:

There's no difference when running only fastest or all instructions in my testing. At least for all cpu's I've tested.

Can you show us an example with such a difference? Maybe throttling, because of the increased time to have the score?

It was allowed, because noone saw it affects the final score like e.g. changing resolution in 3dmark. CPU still cracks the password, it just uses the fastest method which it takes the score from, even if you run all tests.

Ran it on my office machine, SSSE3 being the best here.

3 七月 2012 nedernakker says:

I'm not talking about leaving instruction sets out, I do that myself too, since SSE3 seems to give the highest score there is no need to run the others.

During the country cup 2011 Massman already approved scores with such settings.

I'm am talking about these two scores bij MR.Paco:

http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2290924

http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2290963

where he manually adjusted the affinity settings which clearly gives him a gain to beat scores which are with 500~600 MHz faster cpu's

3 七月 2012 I.nfraR.ed says:

Setting threads count is allowed as well, I think. It's like setting 4 threads in wprime, even if your cpu is dual core only.

However the boost there is not the same, if you get any.

In any case, everyone is running like this currently.

It was discussed before, I think, but don't remember where and what was the exact outcome. If it's still allowed or forbidden, then rules should be actualized.

Official rules state "default UCBench2011 settings" and that's why I was wondering as well if I'm allowed to do that, but seeing others do it and scores are not removed, lead me to the conclusion I can do it too.

Plus leaving instructions out is already messing with the default settings. Yes, it doesn't change the score, but reduces the load on the cpu, sometimes allowing you get slightly higher clocks.

Overall, I think rules should be updated.

3 七月 2012 nedernakker says:

in wprime setting more threads then the cpu has gives you a lower score (in my experience)

I just want to have a clear awnser or a link to the awnser from a mod if it has allready been given to make things clear.

if it is allowed the rules for the benchmark need to be changed because running like this has nothing to do with using the benchmark at standard settings

3 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a bug somewhere, it's totally anti-intuitive that 64 threads is faster than 2 on these CPUs, more threads to fight over the same resources. However, it's an easy thing to dettect, so IMO we could just allow it until it's proven to be a bug.

3 七月 2012 GENiEBEN says:

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a bug somewhere, it's totally anti-intuitive that 64 threads is faster than 2 on these CPUs, more threads to fight over the same resources. However, it's an easy thing to dettect, so IMO we could just allow it until it's proven to be a bug.

If I spill the beans app gets banned from hwbot

3 七月 2012 nedernakker says:

@ knoflerbruce

I think that is not the solution, a lot of people have put a lot of effort in producing score, some of them even using ln2. this means they have to redo al those benches without even knowing if the results will be accepted as legit.

HWbot should come with an awnser to make things clear....

3 七月 2012 Massman says:

If I get this right, MrPaco is basically enabling more threads and it gives a higher score? Interesting.

As far as I can see, the calculation the benchmark is doing is not changed by this little trick/tweak.

3 七月 2012 Rasparthe says:

If the scores were legit at the beginning of the competition changing it half way through seems unfair as well. There are always tweaks that some people know about and others don't. Changing the cmd line is changing the default settings so that first rule is already out the window. That was approved at Country Cup so arguing about cmd line tweaks now seems backwards.

3 七月 2012 nedernakker says:

but there is obviously a big difference between altering the tests being done and altering the way the test is done..

disabling all other tests except SSSE3 gives no change in the scores outcome. changing the affinity settings does.

don't know how these calculations are managed by the program, but is seems from the scores that each next core continues where the previous left of. since dual core scores consist of two parts where the first part is about half the points of the total score.

this means that if u change the affinity to 64 eacht core will have 32 tries to improve the score. although it has less cores the score does seem to improve due to the fact the cpu has more then one chance to do the calculations...

3 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Well, default settings for wprime is 1 thread. Just saying...

3 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

but there is obviously a big difference between altering the tests being done and altering the way the test is done..

disabling all other tests except SSSE3 gives no change in the scores outcome. changing the affinity settings does.

don't know how these calculations are managed by the program, but is seems from the scores that each next core continues where the previous left of. since dual core scores consist of two parts where the first part is about half the points of the total score.

this means that if u change the affinity to 64 eacht core will have 32 tries to improve the score. although it has less cores the score does seem to improve due to the fact the cpu has more then one chance to do the calculations...

OK, so choosing just one SSEx is fine - we agree on that. I guess messing with the cores in such a way that you run the stock thread count only (like 12 for gulftown) is also fine for everyone, that's no advantage except saving some Ln2.

3 七月 2012 nedernakker says:

Well, default settings for wprime is 1 thread. Just saying...

That depends on which os you are using, and is more due to the age of the hwbot version and detection of the type of cpu.

But that has nothing to do with ucbench.

3 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

That depends on which os you are using, and is more due to the age of the hwbot version and detection of the type of cpu.

But that has nothing to do with ucbench.

If you discuss "default settings" it's relevant. You change the thread number in wprime, just like UCBench. Running wprime at 64 threads on a dual core is allowed, so why not UCBench?

The REAL question is if UCBench is bugged or not at high thread count compared to core count. There is no such gain in wprime, some people run 2x core count and get a minimal boost, not 20% like in this case.

3 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Anyway, we're investigating this... if the conclusion is that it's a bug, then these scores will be blocked. IMO the best way to get a win win situation now is to run both 2 (or 4 for quads) threads, as well as 64.

Sucks that we didn't detect this earlier, but nobody notified us - and then it's not much we can do:)

3 七月 2012 nedernakker says:

I only found out about this yesterday browsing through the scores and noticing the difference.

i'm awaiting the outcome. for future events the rules should get more clear to prevent this from happening.

I only checked the submission in the top of the competition, found that some do manually set the affinity but do it according to the type of cpu they are benching, this doesn't affect the scores. the only two 'bugged' scores are those by Mr. Paco

3 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

I only found out about this yesterday browsing through the scores and noticing the difference.

i'm awaiting the outcome. for future events the rules should get more clear to prevent this from happening.

I only checked the submission in the top of the competition, found that some do manually set the affinity but do it according to the type of cpu they are benching, this doesn't affect the scores. the only two 'bugged' scores are those by Mr. Paco

If this is indeed bugged, the rule will most likely be that you have to select the number of threads matching the specifications of the CPU(s), or use the default selection.

It's impossible to take everything into account when making a set of rules, the rules are improved when issues appear (like this). The problem is that the people who bench it (including myself) needed a LOT of time to discover this option. If we (mods) are not aware of it, then how can we add a note to the rules? And if thousands of benchmarkers needed more than a year to figure this out it's unreasonable to expect the staff to have it all sorted before a launch.

3 七月 2012 nedernakker says:

i'm not trying to offend you guys. just saying this for 'the greater good'

the first E5300 submission 19 days a go got flagged too:

http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2290963

not by me but for what i can see the command line adjustment got mistaken and therefore no action was taken. just bringing it to light so we all know how to bench.. I have a lot of cpu's to rebench if this gets allowed.. it's only 11 days left and i have a life too

3 七月 2012 Rasparthe says:

The door was opened by allowing command line adjustments to start. Changing the rules on it mid competition seems unfair. Sure make the rules clearer but it should be done after the competition, especially since its obvious Mr. Paco didn't hide the fact in any way, shape or form. The command line adjustments shouldn't have been allowed to start (in my opinion) but once allowed changing it mid-competition isn't all that reasonable. It seems more like those that didn't know about the tweaks complain about how unfair it is, instead of what they really mean, "It is unfair that I didn't know about it"

3 七月 2012 I.M.O.G. says:

Being familiar with the benches and the accepted practices/rules at hwbot has always been part of the competition to me... Unfortunately rule documentation has always been a weak part of HWBot. There is a lot that isn't made unmistakeably clear.

Our team has been applying the UCBench tweaks for months (year?), and the submissions have never been contested. If you look around at submissions, many of them are using thread/instruction set tweaks that are just now coming under debate here.

In the rules, the "use default options" to me meant under advanced for "bench mode" you leave default selected - not time based, not password based.

I think the rules should just be clarified to reflect what has been enforced historically. I don't see any inconsistency in enforcement.

3 七月 2012 nedernakker says:

so what you say is that i'm a bad sport?

working the bench for this competition i allready found this out. I chose not to submit scores using these settings due to the strange outcome.

the discussion during CC 2011 was about wether to allow the adjustment of which test to run, not how it is run. this second thing is pure manipulation of the test. it's not that hard.

imho you are looking at things in a wrong perspective.

lets just let the mods decide..

3 七月 2012 MrPaco says:

Default Settings; interesting.

All the bench marks here at Bot are to be run at default settings according to the rules BUT you are allowed to run em and are legit if in:

3D Mark 01 selecting a few tests and change the order they are ran etc

3D Mark 03 UN check CPU Test

3D Mark 05 UN check CPU Test

3D mark Vantage UN check FEATURE TESTs

PC Mark 04 Too many to name

PC Mark 05 WAY TOO many to name

Wprime 32/1024 change thread count

and so on.

All NON default settings. These are just a few examples and UC Bench is no different, No special 3rd party application is being used. I have been running UC Bench since it was first introduced when there were no points given for it and in that time I have learned a few things about the bench,

yes high cpu speed is essential BUT UC Bench is NOT 110% solely dependent on just CPU clock speed alone. So a 500mhz cpu difference is nothing when it comes to the end results. Its not what you run but how you run it.

There are those that have ran UC Bench with cpus that have up wards of 16,32 even 64 threads at so called default settings and found that they had to change the line command. So whats the difference.

I am not trying to defend uc bench or even my runs, but All of my runs on this or any other benchmark are done legit and if I feel its questionable believe me I do contact a mod before submitting it and get an OK or NO GOOD.

With these runs mentioned (thank you btw, feels good to see that my efforts are noticed ) there is no bug, no illegal tweak or anything, its part of the bench mark. I dont see any one debating the non default settings in any of the other bench marks.

But I guess sooner or later some one had to say $#!?... Why I cant score like that

3 七月 2012 I.M.O.G. says:

so what you say is that i'm a bad sport?

working the bench for this competition i allready found this out. I chose not to submit scores using these settings due to the strange outcome.

the discussion during CC 2011 was about wether to allow the adjustment of which test to run, not how it is run. this second thing is pure manipulation of the test. it's not that hard.

imho you are looking at things in a wrong perspective.

lets just let the mods decide..

I don't know you and I didn't read your posts specifically. If you took my statements personally, please don't. It's just the way I feel based on my experience benching at hwbot.

3 七月 2012 nedernakker says:

I just don't understand why anyone thinks this has to do with jealousy or envy.. I don't give a shit about who has the highest scores.

i just want clear rules. people have been comparing and discussing the wrong things today. Like Mr. Paco is doing in his post.

even if i uncheck the cpu test in 3dmark tests it does not affect the GRAPHIC settings of the benchmark. which are the one of influence of the score.

if you allow the affinity 'tweak' we should also allow 3dmark 11 entry submissions as performance ones. Cause in fact that is what happens when fiddling around with the ucbench settings.

but lets just stop this discussion, it is leading to nowhere. just want to know if it is allowed so i can 'tweak' my runs in the same way or the tweaked submissions need to be removed...

@I.M.O.G.

that was not in response to you.. you ninja posted while I was responding to Rasparthe

3 七月 2012 MrPaco says:

I just don't understand why anyone thinks this has to do with jealousy or envy.. I don't give a shit about who has the highest scores.
i just want clear rules. people have been comparing and discussing the wrong things today. Like Mr. Paco is doing in his post.

Because based on your comment "how come I scored higher than you if I was clocked 500mhz lower than you". Thats why

even if i uncheck the cpu test in 3dmark tests it does not affect the GRAPHIC settings of the benchmark. which are the one of influence of the score.

The point is, its NOT truly default if you check or un-check ANYTHING except for RUN BENCH

if you allow the affinity 'tweak' we should also allow 3dmark 11 entry submissions as performance ones. Cause in fact that is what happens when fiddling around with the ucbench settings.

I'm not much of 3d bencher dont know where that is going. but as far as the affinity tweak as you call it. Its not a tweak if all I did was to allow the bench to run longer with more thread count as in wprime

but lets just stop this discussion, it is leading to nowhere. just want to know if it is allowed so i can 'tweak' my runs in the same way or the tweaked submissions need to be removed...

If that was true, your question should have simply been: "Is it allowed?..." Period.

As all the submissions till now have been allowed. I am no mod so I do not speak for them I can only say what has been told to me by them: It is allowed

3 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Default settings usually means that whatever settings that changes the amount of data computed should be left unchanged. Removing unneeded tests has nothing to do with default settings for the part of the benchmark that produces the score - which is why it's perfectly fine to skip CPU tests in 03 and 05. The question here is if ucbench calculates different things when forcing 64 threads rather than the default number of threads. wprime is very easy to understand that way, there the work is split into x number of threads and all threads run simultaneously. That COULD be the case with UCBench, but it's not that clear - it just seems odd to me that you gain 20% this way, when common sense says the performance should drop.

3 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Because based on your comment "how come I scored higher than you if I was clocked 500mhz lower than you". Thats why

The point is, its NOT truly default if you check or un-check ANYTHING except for RUN BENCH

I'm not much of 3d bencher dont know where that is going. but as far as the affinity tweak as you call it. Its not a tweak if all I did was to allow the bench to run longer with more thread count as in wprime

If that was true, your question should have simply been: "Is it allowed?..." Period.

As all the submissions till now have been allowed. I am no mod so I do not speak for them I can only say what has been told to me by them: It is allowed

It's allowed if it's not "bugged", which is what you've been told.

3 七月 2012 Antinomy says:

This is a very old case. Carl used it a year ago: http://hwbot.org/submission/2197835_turrican_ucbench_2011_athlon_xp_1800_thoroughbred_60.9_mpt_score after he saw GENiEBEN using it. If you check the rankings: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/ucbench_2011/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_221#start=0#interval=20 you can see that it gives up to 30% performance. Same way as wPrime sometimes.

What I usually don't get is why people start asking this long after the case appeared. Either everybody is slow to ask the crew before or they just know how slow the crew is so why bother?

I remember the codec rule update for PCMark being added only after 1-2 years after I've asked.

Pretty suspicious but such discussions mostly appear during Competitions and are rare for usual submissions.

3 七月 2012 Turrican says:

hey bro it's Karl.

3 七月 2012 GENiEBEN says:

Our team has been applying the UCBench tweaks for months (year?), and the submissions have never been contested. If you look around at submissions, many of them are using thread/instruction set tweaks that are just now coming under debate here..

The "Thread" tweak has been used since I've shown it after CC. The first "SSE3" only tweak was used during CC12 and I had to explain that one too. F.T.S.

This is a very old case. Carl used it a year ago: http://hwbot.org/submission/2197835_turrican_ucbench_2011_athlon_xp_1800_thoroughbred_60.9_mpt_score after he saw GENiEBEN using it.

Yep Ney and Karl noticed quite quick But Karl EDITED the score so it's not APRIL 2011 but MAY.2012.

Whatever you guys decide, legal or not (PowerToy anyone?), I still have the 3rd tweak I haven't used yet, so I for one couldn't care anyway.

PS: Ohh and no one noticed the Unigine one so far What takes you guys so long? I can take LN2 records on air with this one, not so good imho.

3 七月 2012 Mr.Scott says:

The question here is if ucbench calculates different things when forcing 64 threads rather than the default number of threads. wprime is very easy to understand that way, there the work is split into x number of threads and all threads run simultaneously. That COULD be the case with UCBench, but it's not that clear - it just seems odd to me that you gain 20% this way

Slippery slope you're approaching here. The same thing could be said for most of the PCM05 tweaks. You can't have it both ways, so choose your words and battles wisely. Honestly, there's quite a few threads where people have asked if it was 'legal' already. The answer has always been yes, including from the staff. Why all of a sudden is this such a problem?

Anybody that looks at a tweaked submission could easily see what was tweaked and just mimic it.

4 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Slippery slope you're approaching here. The same thing could be said for most of the PCM05 tweaks. You can't have it both ways, so choose your words and battles wisely. Honestly, there's quite a few threads where people have asked if it was 'legal' already. The answer has always been yes, including from the staff. Why all of a sudden is this such a problem?
Anybody that looks at a tweaked submission could easily see what was tweaked and just mimic it.

I'm not writing the rules right now, I'm just participating here:)

Most of the gains from the pcmark tweaks can be explained once you know how they work, right? That's not the case here - I've never seen 32 threads per core be a very efficient way of running a benchmark. What is it with this benchmark that makes it scale that way?

4 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

I don't know if i have the power to decide anything, but I'm thinking we allow this at least for this competition unless anything else has been decided within 45h30min from now (midnight july 5th my time:p). Simply to not ruin the competition and give people a fair chance to rebench if they want to.

4 七月 2012 Mr.Scott says:

I'm not writing the rules right now, I'm just participating here:)

Most of the gains from the pcmark tweaks can be explained once you know how they work, right? That's not the case here - I've never seen 32 threads per core be a very efficient way of running a benchmark. What is it with this benchmark that makes it scale that way?

I wasn't trying to antagonize you.

Here's what I've found after tweaking UCB for quite a while now.

There is no set pattern for number of optimal threads. It varies across platforms. The 'sweet' combination for threads for say 939, is not the same combination that you would want for socket A or AM3 for example. Number of physical cores seems to make no difference either. I've been testing thread combinations for UCB before Frank even knew there was a tweak. I turned him on to that. The combinations he uses on his Intel submissions aren't even close to being good on an AMD setup, so there's a difference in the way the bench is calculated right off the bat, based on CPU manufacturer.

4 七月 2012 nedernakker says:

but the remaining fact is that running the bench on just the threads it autmatically sets and adjusting the threasd results in more computing time..

where a normal submission would take 20 seconds. Mr. Paco's submission of his E4300 shows 20 threads all running ~8.5 seconds a piece.. (and that's what's only visible in the screen, there are 5 more not visible)that is 12~13 times as long as normal, that could easily explain the gain in numbers even though the threads are set higher...

and please Mr. Scott. I don't know you and you don't know me. there is absolutely no use in talking to me like you do here:

Shall I get you a tissue?

You mean like all the PCM05 so called 'tweaks' that are legal?

There is no difference, and the staff has already said it's ok in many different threads, so stop your crying.

I don't disrespect you so i'm expecting the same back. you have no right to talk to me like that.

This is just how the system works, mods can't look at every submission theirselves, that's why the report button is there just like the forum to discuss it. there is nothing wrong with that or me asking what is allowed or not. I'm just writing down what i see is happening and looking for an explanation for those numbers.

English is not my native language, so i'm guessing people are misunderstanding what I really mean since again there is assumed I can't stand losing which really isn't the case.

I'm just writing down what in my opinion looks like causing the strange behaviour of the benchmark. I don't know what kind of discussions have been held about this benchmark in the past, I haven't been using UCbench for years, nor have te time to dig through the forum to find posts from the past. I noticed it in this competition and found this the place to ask. I find it kind of harsh that some people react to me in such a disrespectfull manner and totally lose the point of this discussion.

So now I'm just gonna wait for an awnser.. this discussion allready took up too much of my time..

4 七月 2012 Massman says:

Just tested this little trick - doesn't do much aside from boosting the score by 20pts here.

- default thread count: 1224.6

- all threads selected: 1231.7

- only 64 threads: 1245.5

Link to screen: http://hwbot.org/blog/wp-content//Capture1.png

It's a legit tweak for the benchmark.

4 七月 2012 GENiEBEN says:

Just tested this little trick - doesn't do much aside from boosting the score by 20pts here.

- default thread count: 1224.6

- all threads selected: 1231.7

- only 64 threads: 1245.5

Link to screen: http://hwbot.org/blog/wp-content//Capture1.png

It's a legit tweak for the benchmark.

You're doing it wrong, but yeah legit.

The tweak consists in finding the threads that boost the score, not just selecting one like you did. I.e. I found best avg score is given by running in steps of 8 (1-2-3-4-8-16-24 etc), but like Mr.Scott said, it depends a lot on each cpu/platform.

4 七月 2012 Massman says:

Oh, pretty interesting. Did a run with all threads selected (link) and then one with 1/2/4/8/16/32/64 (link). Upto 1270 now. I disabled HT for the second run, though!

Cool stuff, lots of fiddling needed to get the highest performance

4 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Did any of you guys actually rerun the benchmark? I tried it using myq7700, and I didn't get the boost in the same spot both times... rofl.

4 七月 2012 nedernakker says:

just tried it on my 2160 and it gains 30 points at 150 MHz less cpu speed. all runs after were giving lower scores.

it's very inconsistent

4 七月 2012 I.M.O.G. says:

Oh, pretty interesting. Did a run with all threads selected (link) and then one with 1/2/4/8/16/32/64 (link). Upto 1270 now. I disabled HT for the second run, though!

Cool stuff, lots of fiddling needed to get the highest performance

That has been a red herring in my experience for LN2 benching. Different rules may apply on air/other cooling when you aren't stressing the limits of stability.

On the second run, if your clocks were maxed, you should not be stable enough to run 8-16-32-64 threads sequentially... If your clocks were maxed you could complete 1 out of those 4 tests if selected alone, but one after another would cause instability... Similar to the ability to complete wprime32 vs wprime1024. The shorter tests run at higher clocks - independently 8, 16, 32, or 64 may complete when ran alone, but will fail when ran in succession.

I've never been able to get higher scores at lower clocks on ucbench by tweaking... It's best to tweak, then do your run at the optimal settings you have found with your max clocks.

If I'm wrong and running more thread tests increases the score more than maximizing clocks, someone should be able to beat me in this challenge: http://hwbot.org/challenge/i.m.o.g.s_ucbench_2011_global_challenge___jul_4_2012_until_aug_3_2012/

As is usually true with hwbot, lower in the rankings there are often many exceptions with scores versus clocks and how things scale... But at the top of the rankings where the competitors typically all have learned how to optimize well, there is more consistency with clocks vs results.

EDIT: There's no guarantee I'm right. But the only 2 scores beating mine in 4x CPU class currently are CPUs that can run higher clocks: http://hwbot.org/submission/2291870

If UCBench were worth globals, there would be more people pushing it to its limits. Unfortunately, there are few people really trying hard at the top of the UCBench rankings.

4 七月 2012 GENiEBEN says:

Did any of you guys actually rerun the benchmark? I tried it using myq7700, and I didn't get the boost in the same spot both times... rofl.

Always restart PC after a run.

4 七月 2012 Robot says:

I wonder what you are all talking about. The rules for UCBench2011 say

Any online UCBench2011 submission must comply to the following rules:

- default UCBench2011 settings

- have a valid screenshot (see example below): clearly show ucbench dos box (with result), ucbench launch application, processor and memory settings in CPU-Z

using the advanced button to set the number of threads or editing the batch file etc. is of course not default UCBench2011 settings.

Some of the moderators should delete all the non default runs soon!

4 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Maybe we need to define "default settings" - what we actually mean (I think) is that settings that change the amount of calculations are not allowed. Splitting the work into 64 equal amounts instead of 2 does not change anything. Removing unneeded subtests: the same. The score is not a combined score. it picks the best result out of whatever tests you select, and then it does make very little difference if you remove the ones you have no faith in.

4 七月 2012 Robot says:

default run = default settings of the benchmark = loading it and pressing run.

> Splitting the work into 64 equal amounts instead of 2 does not change anything.

it changes two things! 1) the running time of the benchmark 2) the score!

I get a boost from 485 points do 627 in one run only by changing default into running it with 64 Threads.

its simply unfair against all others who think "default run" means running the benchmark and klick go.

I think moderators should react soon on this! otherwise the stage becomes a bad joke!

4 七月 2012 Robot says:

I remember someone reporting me in the last stage because i did not include the "optional" mem tab, and i had to rerun my results.

This is an overclocking competition and not a "who finds the best arguments to bend the rules to his needs competition".

4 七月 2012 Mr.Scott says:

I remember someone reporting me in the last stage because i did not include the "optional" mem tab, and i had to rerun my results.

This is an overclocking competition and not a "who finds the best arguments to bend the rules to his needs competition".

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

http://hwbot.org/submission/2278860_robot_3dmark06_2x_geforce_8800_gtx_27387_marks

No subtest details in SS, no ORB link.

4 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

default run = default settings of the benchmark = loading it and pressing run.

> Splitting the work into 64 equal amounts instead of 2 does not change anything.

it changes two things! 1) the running time of the benchmark 2) the score!

I get a boost from 485 points do 627 in one run only by changing default into running it with 64 Threads.

its simply unfair against all others who think "default run" means running the benchmark and klick go.

I think moderators should react soon on this! otherwise the stage becomes a bad joke!

Then we have to block maybe 50% of all 3DMark scores posted on HWBot, very few run 01 in the normal run order, include cpu tests in 3dmark03 and 05 - for example. Default enough to be verified by FM, but still not 100% default.

I agree that this is not an ideal situation, but the admin of the site already said this tweak is OK. Still 10 days for people to rerun if they need to.

4 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

I remember someone reporting me in the last stage because i did not include the "optional" mem tab, and i had to rerun my results.

This is an overclocking competition and not a "who finds the best arguments to bend the rules to his needs competition".

Since when did the mem tab become optional? AFAIk it has been mandatory since 2008 at least.

4 七月 2012 Robot says:

Where does he say that ?

i know the tweak and i have all my results twice. But don't you think it is totally unfair for all who look in the "normal rules" and take part in the competition. I think it is!

Then at last the admins should do an announcement on the cup page and edit the rules!

4 七月 2012 Robot says:

Since when did the mem tab become optional? AFAIk it has been mandatory since 2008 at least.

The rules page says its optional in 3DMark but it is no longer.

Sorry i forgot to say that it was about 3DMark and not UCBench.

4 七月 2012 Robot says:

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

http://hwbot.org/submission/2278860_robot_3dmark06_2x_geforce_8800_gtx_27387_marks

No subtest details in SS, no ORB link.

Yea, sorry for that, i am quite new to all this "Hwbot rules".

I am not talking about doing the screenshot 100% right here. It was just an example that on the one hand people are taking correct screenshots serious - that is good - but on the other hand the rules are not clear to people who do not read all the threads in the forum.

I just say someone from the hwbot-staff should take care about this, and just set the rules clear on the Team Cup Page.

5 七月 2012 Mr.Scott says:

Yea, sorry for that, i am quite new to all this "Hwbot rules".

I am not talking about doing the screenshot 100% right here. It was just an example that on the one hand people are taking correct screenshots serious - that is good - but on the other hand the rules are not clear to people who do not read all the threads in the forum.

I just say someone from the hwbot-staff should take care about this, and just set the rules clear on the Team Cup Page.

You missed the point. The point was, instead of b1tching and complaining about the rules, and being so quick on the report button to try to get submissions removed, one should be a little more concerned that one's own submissions conform to the rules.

When in doubt, ASK somebody first.

5 七月 2012 Robot says:

Hearing exactly from you that i am "b1tching" and quick on the report button is the joke of the year!

5 七月 2012 Massman says:

default run = default settings of the benchmark = loading it and pressing run.

That last step of the logic is not correct. The default benchmark is whatever calculation has to be completed before getting a score, but obviously in this little world we try to optimize in any way possible to get a better score. We

- set cores manually in Wprime

- change run order in 3DMark01

- adjust affinity settings for Aquamark3

- disable feature tests in 3DMark Vantage

- ...

The UCBench 'benchmark' does not change when only selecting SSE3 or manually adjusting thread count, hence both are legit. It does change when you would change the bench-mode to time-based or password-based, hence it's not allowed to change that.

5 七月 2012 Luebke says:

so it is allowed just to run the 64 core-thread?

or manually adjusting thread count, hence both are legit.

i´ll try benching core2 this weekend...

5 七月 2012 a2b says:

Did any of you guys actually rerun the benchmark? I tried it using my q7700, and I didn't get the boost in the same spot both times... rofl.

Could you please post a photo that's showing the IHS?

I've never heard that Intel produced a Q7700!?

5 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Could you please post a photo that's showing the IHS?
I've never heard that Intel produced a Q7700!?

http://img04.taobaocdn.com/bao/uploaded/i8/T1k0lDXf4fXXbBvMo0_035312.jpg_310x310.jpg - not my chip, but same model. Retail and all.

5 七月 2012 a2b says:

Very interesting. Lerning never stops.

Where did you get this, i would say, rare CPUs?

You also have lots of processors for Socket 939 and AM2 that i've never heard of. ^^

5 七月 2012 Mr.Scott says:

Hearing exactly from you that i am "b1tching" and quick on the report button is the joke of the year!

Keep it up. There are quite a few more of your submissions that don't conform to the rules. If I reported them all you'd have like 2 points left.:battle:

5 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Very interesting. Lerning never stops.

Where did you get this, i would say, rare CPUs?

You also have lots of processors for Socket 939 and AM2 that i've never heard of. ^^

Ebay, plus I got a friend who worked for AMD a long time ago:p

5 七月 2012 Robot says:

Keep it up. There are quite a few more of your submissions that don't conform to the rules. If I reported them all you'd have like 2 points left.:battle:

If you have nothing better to do feel free to report all my "standard stock clocking runs" with bad scores and make yourself ridiculous.

And please go through all the submissions in the core 2 stage that don't have correct screenshots too. Would save us all a lot of time

I also would suggest you as "screenshot prove guy" for Hwbot, you can look for not 100% correct screenshots all day then!

5 七月 2012 Mr.Scott says:

If you have nothing better to do feel free to report all my "standard stock clocking runs" with bad scores and make yourself ridiculous.

And please go through all the submissions in the core 2 stage that don't have correct screenshots too. Would save us all a lot of time

I also would suggest you as "screenshot prove guy" for Hwbot, you can look for not 100% correct screenshots all day then!

Not interested.

Just proving a point is all.

I'm done with this conversation.

6 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Sandbaggers!!

7 七月 2012 leeghoofd says:

Look it's the world against Knopf's CPU collection lol

7 七月 2012 HobieCat says:

So, is setting 64 threads allowed? If so, then I need to re-bench.

7 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Yep. I have to rerun a bunch of stuff too:p Oh well, better this way than to get our ass kicked in the last second I suppose (although I fear that will happen anyway, probably more tweaks out there I don't know of)

9 七月 2012 GENiEBEN says:

(although I fear that will happen anyway, probably more tweaks out there I don't know of)

Dont worry I dont participate But yes, there is another one.

14 七月 2012 knopflerbruce says:

Allright, I seem to have screwed up a couple of subs by not having the launcher visible... it's listed as mandatory. However, why is it mandatory? It's just a launcher, and AFAIK all info can also be found in the verification link. Is it fair to say that if you've got a verification link then the launcher isn't really that necessary after all, as the same info can be found there? (IMO the launcher not needed in any case, there's no relevant info there that's not covered by CPUZ).