Grandpa_01 wrote:... which by the way are only overvalued if you are folding them on a MP rig.
If that were true there would be no reason to use a core spoof to get p6903 and p6904, would there? In fact they provide a 157% increase in production over the average smp WU on a 2600K.
And who are you to say that is wrong, Kasson or VJ has not said that to my knowledge although 7im says he has. Could 1 of you point to that thread please. I do not remember reading it or is this another 1 of those statements that has been manipulated out of a broader statement and just a word or two have been left out.
And if you all remember correctley the 8101's when they first started were I believe doubble the current value untill certain people started griping about there value. Do you all want me to point out who those certain people were. I will give you a clue they are present in this thread.
7im wrote:Or it tells you 6903s need to be much lower, as kasson has said.
Really.... there are only 3 bigadv WUs: 6901, 6903, and 6904. All of them are consistent one another in respect to the number of steps, time to process, and points awarded. When a new WU is added making up 25% of the potential WUs to process and it is not consistent with the others, that tells me that new WU is wrong.
Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
Grandpa_01 wrote:And who are you to say that is wrong, Kasson or VJ has not said that to my knowledge although 7im says he has. Could 1 of you point to that thread please. I do not remember reading it or is this another 1 of those statements that has been manipulated out of a broader statement and just a word or two have been left out.
I think you know ChasR and I better than to assume we would have manipulated broader statements. Quoted for posterity.
Grandpa_01 wrote:
And if you all remember correctley the 8101's when they first started were I believe doubble the current value untill certain people started griping about there value. Do you all want me to point out who those certain people were. I will give you a clue they are present in this thread.
I think your rememberer is broken. Unless I'm off MY rocker, the points actually went UP from the initial values.
Initial post: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=20717
Base points 9829, preferred deadline 2.4 days. Our working final deadline is 4 days; however, we are considering shortening this deadline.
The k-factor associated with the 4-day deadline is 49.43; if we shorten the deadline, we will scale the k-factor accordingly.
After reviewing our initial (post-beta-release) data, we are adjusting the base points value on 8101. Please keep in mind that these values (base points, deadlines, k-factor) continue to be a work in progress and may be subject to change.
New base points are 22607.
Grandpa_01 wrote:
And who are you to say that is wrong, Kasson or VJ has not said that to my knowledge although 7im says he has. Could 1 of you point to that thread please.
I believe they are referring to the following 2 posts by Dr. Kasson, both with the implication that 6903 and 6904 are overvalued:
Grandpa_01 wrote:
And who are you to say that is wrong, Kasson or VJ has not said that to my knowledge although 7im says he has. Could 1 of you point to that thread please.
I believe they are referring to the following 2 posts by Dr. Kasson, both with the implication that 6903 and 6904 are overvalued:
viewtopic.php?f=66&t=20717#p207086
viewtopic.php?f=66&t=20717&start=15#p207102
You are correct in the post above my memory is broken. Never has been that good for these sorts of things that is why when I am not sure I use statements like (I believe ) I had it backwards and the griping did not start until they were raised. Like I said the things people quote as fact are just pure thread manipulation word's omitted statements omitted then manipulated and transmitted to be fact.
Grandpa_01 wrote:You are correct in the post above my memory is broken. Never has been that good for these sorts of things that is why when I am not sure I use statements like (I believe ) I had it backwards and the griping did not start until they were raised. Like I said the things people quote as fact are just pure thread manipulation word's omitted statements omitted then manipulated and transmitted to be fact.
We all have personal points of view -- and I respect all of those variations, whether I happen to agree with them or not. We also turn our points of view into supportive propaganda by forgetting certain details and emphasizing others. Rarely are we scientific about it, citing references or providing unedited quotes. It's just too easy to get emotional about it and state our POV or argue with someone with a different POV.
Lots of folks have expressed themselves and this topic has gone far enough afield in several directions. It's time to close it.
