Kings of the Overclockers - a Gautam interview
Software QuestionsYG: What applications do you use when overclocking and preparing for benchmark runs? G: ClockGen by Franck Delattre, Memset by FELIX and ATi Tray Tools by Ray Adams are the big ones. Besides those, I like keeping my installations as clean as possible.
YG: We're now a full half-year into the consumer release of Windows Vista. It's still a bit of a rocky road with regards to benchmarking, and many are sticking to Windows XP, which has more mature drivers. Some benchmarks, though, are producing higher scores under Vista. Do you favor one release of Windows over the other? G: I only favor what scores higher. But for example, even though I'm fully aware that Vista isn't the best benching OS out there, it's my OS of choice for day-to-day running.
YG: Futuremark's 3DMark series of products have become the standard in graphics benchmarking. Do you feel the benchmarks' popularity is justified? Are there any improvements in the software that you'd like to see? G: The popularity is most certainly justified. Every time a benchmark is released, it always gets heat for favoring hardware from manufacturer A, when manufacturer B is faster in certain games and the like. That will always be the case, but it isn't a big deal and just keeps things interesting. Every single one of Futuremark's benchmarks has its own quirks and all tend to favor different sorts of hardware. A true bencher runs them all. That's one thing that makes them interesting and popular. The other really big thing that makes the 3DMark/PCMark series so valuable is the ORB. It was definitely the first successful - and I mean on a very large scale - attempt to create an easily searchable database of scores. It's what brought overclockers from all over the world together, and it is very conducive to competitiveness. The one thing I'd like to see return is being able to run tests out of order like in 3DMark2001 SE. It'd make pumping out the perfect score that much harder since it'd give more room for tweakability.  One of many iconic scenes from Futuremark's 3DMark2001 SE. YG: Since the 3DMark series of products have become the de-facto desktop graphics benchmarks (and PCMark the dominant system benchmark), the products get their fair share of scrutiny by hardware enthusiasts and benchmarkers alike. Benchmarking is very much a community-driven activity, and Futuremark fosters that community through their forums and the ORB. In your opinion, is there anything Futuremark can do to improve their relationship with the benchmarking community and their customer base as a whole? G: Futuremark needs to pay more attention to the input from its most enthusiastic customers. I know they've made great efforts, and usually many suggestions are taken seriously, but at the same time, the staff is sometimes quite inaccessible. It'd be nice to see them have a presence on other overclocking forums outside of Futuremark discussion boards as well.
YG: Without tracking systems, it's impossible to compare worldwide benchmarking results. HWBot is an excellent service for tracking such results, but with regards to Futuremark products the results are explicitly linked to Futuremark's ORB database. Are there any improvements would you like to see in the ORB? G: The ORB is an indispensable asset as I said earlier. I like the recent additions that compares your system to others, and MultiCompare is a great feature too. I actually can't think of anything wrong with the UI as it is. Maybe it's because I'm so used to it. :)
YG: Ranking system in any field are magnets for controversy. How do you feel about the current state of online ranking systems for benchmarking? Is there enough impartiality with these systems, particularly with regards to reviewing questionable score submissions? G: However, this is one category where there is certainly work to be done, and in my opinion, precedence should be given to working on benchmark validation rather than fancy features. There are several methods of cheating that can be used to bamboozle Futuremark's benchmarks and give practically any score desired. I've brought these to the attention of several staff members, but since these are benchmarks which have already been released (obviously) that are affected, the action so far can only be described as bandage fixes that can still be broken easily by anyone with malicious intent. The next iteration of Futuremark's benchmark should absolutely have much tighter security than all of its predecessors. Cheating in competitive benchmark is an ugly truth that none of us want to think about, but ignoring it won't make it go away. Doping takes place in every competitive sport out there. Futuremark needs to respond accordingly, otherwise the benchmark at hand has no merit.
YG: Not so long ago, some top benchmarkers pulled their scores from the HWBot database in the name of giving others a chance to move to the top spots that they've dominated for so long. Any thoughts on this decision? Is this an attempt to bring benchmarking back to it's fun, community-based origins? G: I've personally spoken with several of the benchmarkers in question, and while I was uncomfortable about it at first, I think its a very noble move now. The benchers at the top aren't doing this because they're attention hungry. They do it because it's their passion. Thus, they aren't losing any of their own satisfaction. Sometimes moves like these have to be made, sadly, as people, either out of jealousy or ignorance always have a tendency to belittle the guys at the top. Competitive benchmarking isn't about being the guy at the top. It's about doing your best and deriving satisfaction from your own accomplishments. The message that the community should take from them pulling out is that they need to chill out and just have fun.
Related StuffTags |
 
 
See if your PC can handle the latest games:
 
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Articles: 
