mickulty

They're all the same clocks, except for the 210 which I think is actually a bit slower. Shouldn't be any benefit to the other models other than maybe a little easier to get hold of for some people in some situations, especially if someone wants a job lot to bin.

5450 would be good, they really are cheap as chips and seem to be widely available (think they were in production to relatively recently, might even still be made?). Could it perhaps also include the other Cedar rebrands? So 6350, 7350, 8350, and R5 210. That way there's more flexibility to maximise availability.

Do you think that counts as "sensible"? I don't. Rich has the right idea, recognise that most people want them included and go from there.

I hope the results will be interpreted sensibly as it looks like the single option with the most votes will be "No, as new members can not possibly compete with existing members as the competitions are closed" whereas many more people are voting for some form of "yes".

So... are you calling for no cap on the number of subs attracting globals or hardware points that count? No-one is suggesting a time limit for competition points after all...

I'm talking the ranking that matters, which for most sports is single seasons but for OC is career. If you were to start treating career stats in OC like in sports in order to justify an advantage based on account age, you'd have to also take the rankings off the front page and off people's profile pages, instead hiding them behind a tab on profiles like hardware library. I don't want that, because I value the fact that old scores aren't discounted just because they're old.

Yes. For meta-analysis. If manchester united is having a terrible season you don't say they're still the best at football because of their 1998-1999 season performance. I'm all in favour of a high cap, for the totally different reason that it makes it worth competing for newer people even if they don't expect to do well, but unlimited for competitions is just stupid.

Other sports/hobbies don't have such a ranking outside of meta-analysis because in a competitive sense it's inherently broken.

that "system pic" still cracks me up

Very few people bench titans, tight? Even the OG titan gets less hw points than the 1080Ti, for example. Now, right now titans are used to get top 3D scores. They get the very most globals and that won't change. However, they don't really get much by way of hardware points especially when relevant for globals. Top 'consumer' cards still get close on globals but they get strong hardware points as well. If you need best hw+global together, I think the top 'consumer' cards should be a better bet than cards than can acheive a little more globals but no hardware points.

I would argue hw+globals reduces the impact of high-end hardware because it makes titans irrelevant.

don't worry, hw points are staying - this is just globals that needed a fastish (depending on bench) card and top-end CPU anyway

There comes a point of diminishing returns.

Better if picking the wrong one makes it tell you off IMO

I think relying on honour is fine - the idea is just to help prevent honest mistakes.

I love legacy 3D too, but we have plenty of CPU benchmarks that get globals already.

No 32B?

I think it's more relevant for Skylake-X as it also uses AVX-512

Damn, is it not? Guess the score's invalid then, better take it down ?

I agree, not making the mistake I made last time either... http://hwbot.org/submission/4007362 Bit late in the day for anything other than a very quick very dirty run on the daily but a sub is a sub. EDIT: I've been informed that the fourth gpu-z sensor tab isn't fully visible, so I guess I had better remove it

If enough people bench with it, it's official.

Well if you overclock you accept risk, that's what we tell people on day 1 isn't it? But I don't want to tell people just straight up "wrong hobby" when they start complaining because there's a risk, better to work out a way to mitigate it if someone's going to be so concerned, people pick their own risk level. Can't have it both ways, it doesn't make sense to go "my chip died bench bad" then "I don't wanna have limits, that's not the point". Like... yeah, share your experiences. Warn people. Get upset, I would. It sucks when hardware dies. I just think it comes a long way below relevance, security and ability to run on different hardware when deciding if a benchmark is a good benchmark. Off-topic but maybe relevant to some readers, apparently Luumi left his 9900K in a dewar for a couple of days and it's reanimated.

It sounds counterintuitive that you can make your eyesight *better* by putting weird curvy bits of glass in front of your eyes as well, but you don't see me insisting to you that small books should just be got rid of and these "glasses" things are moronic. Yes, there is an amount of stress that causes parts to fail. A great way to stop them from failing is to limit the stress to below that amount.

People run at hard memory settings at ambient and we don't hear of deaths from that, and LN2 should be safer at the same voltage, so there's no need for the mud of the memory controller to cloud the waters. You should be able to set current limits in bios per intel datasheets - 193A for 8c coffee, 138A for 6-core (-K SKUs - some lower power bins have slightly less tolerance), 100A for 4-core. These are specified on page 124 of the 8th gen core family datasheet, volume 1. Above those limits, chips are going to be damaged - that's the nature of extreme overclocking. As far as temperature scaling, it's a long time since I've done this kind of 'pure' maths but I think after filling two sides of A5 with rearrangements and simplifications of Black's equation the "safe" current (IE same MTTF as at the max specified by Intel)............................ does still ultimately depend on unknown factors. I tried (even thought I'd nailed down a proportional relationship to e^(1/t) before I checked my work and found a mistake lol - it's actually proportional to (e^(1/T))^x where x is some unknown constant depending on the material properties, so fat lot of good that is). But honestly, that's life. It will be more but might be 0.00001A more, it all depends on the actual material properties of Intel's process, specifically of the aspect used for whatever the weak point is. Of course, this stuff about setting current limits is all assuming that electromigration is THE explanation. It could as bones said be related to mechanical stress from differences in thermals in different parts of the chip or substrate. This would also have the same possibility of brief "reanimation" when refrozen. It could even be a combination of both. What we do know for sure is it's not x265's fault if Intel chips get really weak at true 100% load, and you no longer have roll-over there to hold your hand.

To bring this back to benchmarks rather than ridiculous ad hominems; For those who don't know, one of the ways chips fail is electromigration. This is a phenomenon where the physical movement of electrons causes damage over time to the conductor. Because this is a physical effect, it's entirely possible that a connection could be brought past the brink while cold but not actually physically disconnect until the slight expansion associated with warming back up happens. This would appear to fit with what people have reported (I'd be really interested to hear the results of refreezing one of these 'walking dead' chips, in the event someone ends up with spare LN2). Electromigration can be predicted according to an equation called Black's Equation. Several of the factors are unknown to us mere mortals (though probably estimated/studied internally at Intel etc) but it does tell us that reducing the temperature gives a longer time to failure (but not indefinite extension with 'only' ln2), and increased current gives a shorter time to failure. If the weak link that's failing is in the power delivery within the chip (or the package, I suppose), then the current draw by the entire core would be what matters. That would mean something like whycruncher, XTU or x265 that pretty much maxes it out, hitting all the execution units most of the time (AVX2 is a good way to do this, I'd have to look up architectural info to know if it's possible without AVX2, it certainly could be), is going to be a worst case scenario for chip life because the current going into the cores is way higher for the same voltage and clocks. It's also possible that x265 happens to hit different, weaker bits of Intel's chips than cinebench does. However, you can just compensate for this with less voltage. Technically semiconductors don't follow ohm's law, but in practice if you reduce voltage, current reduces roughly in proportion (buildzoid did a study demonstrating this). The conclusion is that you absolutely can run x265 and other super-heavy benchmarks safely, just use less voltage to do so unless it's a suicide run. There's no problem with the software, it's just a heavier load than people are used to and maybe requires that you back off on voltage more than people realise. Regarding this original comment; You can absolutely run it on LN2, you just need to rethink the voltage. Normal "safe" voltages may not apply. Fundamentally, there is not some CPU instruction invoked by x265 that causes chip death only if you're under -100C. It's just a heavier load, causing more stress than you're used to for the same voltage (probably very close to the maximum stress possible), whereas the "classic" benchmarks are clearly a long way from maximum stress. An interesting example of this that's actually documented, by the way, is The Stilt's "strictly technical" analysis of PBO limits on Pinnacle Ridge. AMD program a much higher boost voltage for single-core loads, not only way way above what's programmed for multi-core but also way above what's safe for 24/7 all-core use even well within safe temperatures (this isn't just a theory, people have tested safe voltages - 1.425V@60C degrades a 2700X noticeably over ~3 months). It's not about keeping a lid on thermals, because the boost algorithm controls for them separately. It'll be some part of the chip that can withstand the current from one core at the higher voltage, but not from multiple.