Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/25/21 in Posts

  1. Hey there! Q3/Q4 we will see new Intel CPUs and these Intel CPUs are also going to open up a new era. From the information that is publicly available Alder Lake (i9 12900K), will be made of 2 different types of cores: up to 8 Golden Cove and up to 8 Gracemont cores. Previous leaks described this as P-Cores and E-Cores. (8P + 8E) The Golden Cove cores will be the "fast" cores and Gracemont cores will be "slow". Now we're thinking about how to list these CPUs at HWBot. The first thought might be obvious to list the CPU as 16C CPU, as we have 16C in total. However from what we know about future AMD CPUs, we also know that AMD will eventually move the the big/little concept. I personally also expect that this kind of CPU design will be the future for desktop CPUs and we might see it for a long time. So it's probably good to think about this precisely before throwing it into the database or apply sudden changes. Things to consider: Only the P-Cores will feature Hyperthreading. So even though we have a 16C CPU with HT it will have 24T in total Future CPU designs from both Intel and AMD might have strange big/little configurations such as 8 big cores and 20 little cores - some with HT and some without HT Simply throwing the 12900K into the 8C ranking would be unfair for the rest of the 8C CPUs because of the additional E-Cores Simply throwing the 12900K into the 16C ranking could result in the fact that the CPU won't be competitive in some rankings and for the future it would also mean that if we have an obscure big/little configuration we might see desktop CPUs with 28C that performs worse that a 16C from 3 years ago. Possible solutions we could think of so far: Change the entire HWBot and judge CPUs by the amount of Threads instead of the amount of Cores. While this might make sense from a technical perspective especially for future CPUs it would result in a massive change in our database. For example a 6700K (4C) would suddenly compete with a 9700K (8C). It would change a lot regarding rankings and points and it would be a lot of work because we'd have to change benchmarks and CPU listings We simply list the 12900K as a 16C CPU. Might sound like an easy option for now but I see that this would make it very difficult for the future years especially thinking about that AMD will eventually also use different performing cores on one single chip We simply list the 12900K as a 8C CPU. In this method we would just go by the amount of "fast" cores and the small cores would act as a booster to the CPU. The issue I see here is that it won't reflect the performance of an old fashioned 8C CPU. Could be pretty unfair We list the 12900K twice. This solution would be a mix of #2 and #3. We list the 12900K as: - i9 12900K (8P + 8E) [this would be in the 16C ranking] - i9 12900K (8P + 0E) [this would be in the 8C ranking, the user would have to manually disable the E-Cores in BIOS to participate] At this point we would prefer option number 4. because it offers both ways to judge the CPU performance and we don't have to do fundamental changes to HWBot itself. If you have other brilliant ideas we are open for suggestions. Thanks!
    1 point
  2. Hey guys, let's talk and post results of the hynix djr ic here. You already know that these broke memory frequency WR on Z490, well things only got better on Z590. With the better IMC from RocketLake now these sticks can be used for competitive benching as well. I had a shot with them on Asus Maximus XIII Apex and things are interesting. Let me put it this way. On air a decent Hynix DJR Kit is most of the times better than a very good B-die kit. On cold if your Cpu can handle both high core clock and memory clock at same time, a decent Hynix DJR kit is similar to a great B-die kit. To tell the whole story, Hynix DJR is way easier to handle, no need for maxmem, if it enters windows it usually runs without hickups. I was really excited about the Hynix DJR performance and really hoped that they will send the Samsung B-die at the thrash bin after so many years of painfull benching, sadly they cannot top but they are a very very viable alternative. You can find 3 profiles in Apex Bios which work and they give a good starting point if you want to try Hynix DJR on your brand new Apex and Rocket Lake Results on Intel 11900KF and Asus Maximus XII Apex: Hynix DJR cooled down to -150: DDR4-5866 17-27-27, memory score at 5 ghz on older microcode bios ==> 12058 Which is better than the memory score of Samsung B-die DDR4-5333 15-15-15 (12034) in same conditions. Hynix DJR on air can do between DDR4-5600-5700 with C19 and the performance is equivalent to a Samsung B-die DDR4-5000-5066 C14. Cold findings with Hynix DJR: - they scale good till -50, at -150 there is a small gain but not much. - trcd and trp remain same air vs cold, no gain - trfc which really helps these ( 20 values tighter in TRFC gives 100 points boost in geek3 memscore) sadly is the same on cold - secondary and tertiary go very low, on ln2 tighter than air but no performance gains. There are no twr or trtp or whatever issues Samsung B-die has. Here is my best result with HyperX DDR4-4600 C19 based on Hynix DJR on ln2: Similar performance to Samsung B-die at DDR4-5333 15-15-15 Feel free to post your results and experiences as well, maybe we can find some better binns or better sorting methods.
    1 point
  3. DDR4-5600 19-27-27 1T Very Tight passed
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...