you want to sandbag. In a situation
with five intermediate stages, it may
be more interesting to hold on to
at least five results. The increased
importance of sandbagging caused
by the introduction of intermediate
stages might lead to participants
submitting even less during the
competition, and hold on to the scores
even tighter. After all, a bag of sand is
now worth five times more!
Time is not relevant to the value of
a score.
The second criticism requires more
elucidation. Let’s assume that at the
end of each intermediate stage,
one (1) point is awarded to the
best score, and ten (10) points
at the end of the competition.
So if you submit the best
score between the start of
the competition and point
A, you get a point. Also
assume that the winning
score of the competition
stage is 300,000 points in
3DMark03 – that would
be a World Record. So,
the value of the “World
Record” at the end of a
competition is:
10 points, if
submitted in between
point D and the end of
the competition.
14 points, if
submitted in between
the start of the
competition and point
A.
According to the
logic, it means a score
becomes more valuable
over time. That is not
sensible! The value of a
benchmark score relates
only to the selection of
hardware components
and the amount of scores
beaten. For example, scoring
below 10 minutes in SuperPI
32M with an AMD Phenom II –
something only one person has
achieved so far – is impressive
regardless the date it was achieved
it. It was impressive in 2011 and it
will be as impressive in 2015.
One could argue that next to the
factual parameters (hardware
components and scores beaten),
there are subjective parameters that
should also be taken into account
when valuing a score. For example:
effort, dedication, skill, knowledge, or
persistence. Most of the parameters
relate to the overclocker, not the
hardware. Although these are hard to
quantify or measure, I tend to agree
they could add extra value to a certain
benchmark score. Sometimes it takes
weeks to beat a record that someone
else set, just because the hardware
does not clock that easily. In that case,
breaking the record can be considered
‘more’ impressive.
What does it take to submit early in
competition? From the Country Cup
comments, I find that the following
items determine if you can set a score
early in the competition: hardware
availability, cooling availability, and
time. Even though the Country Cup
stretched a period of a month and
a half this year, many teams did
not complete all the stages with
the required amount of scores. For
example, even the Country Cup winner
Australia didn’t manage to close the
AMD Aquamark stage with 5 scores.
The reason is usually simple: the
hardware did not arrive in time.
The question then is: “Is it
reasonable to give extra points
to teams who have the time and
hardware to submit scores early in the
competition?” I don’t believe so.
In conclusion, I am convinced
the timestamp of the benchmark
submission does not affect the
value of the score. In addition, not
submitting a score early is usually not
a matter of unwillingness, but rather
related to the availability of time and
of course the hardware. Therefore, it
is unreasonable to give more points to
a score because it’s submited earlier
during the competition.
A DAVID AND GOLIATH STORY
A couple of days ago Hendra, better
known as Coldest, from Jagatreview
came by our Taipei office. Of course
we debated the topic of sandbagging,
and during the discussion we realized
we overlooked another part of the
sandbagging story: the perspective of
the sandbagger.
After all, why would anyone want
Issue 29 | 2014 The OverClocker 17