Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


der8auer last won the day on August 25

der8auer had the most liked content!


About der8auer

  • Birthday 06/07/1989


  • Location


  • Interests


  • Occupation
    Product Engineer @ Caseking


  • realname

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

der8auer's Achievements


Apprentice (3/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges



  1. That was my point before but I'm glad at least you saw this. If we would follow Intel marketing we would just list it as a 16c CPU. It would be very easy and no headache. But I also already know what 13900K and 14900K will probably look like and same goes for the coming AMD parts. It's much easier for us to start this way. If we notice we were wrong in the next 1-2 generations - just delete the category. That is pretty simple (even tho we would also get hate for that :D) but if we figure out we should've done this decision 2 generations ago, we can't travel back in time. Right now everybody starts the same and we will see how things change in the future.
  2. During FX, Intel Lakefield and everything else you mentioned it was a different Administration. So comparing the current situation and the past is a bit wrong. The latest rumors state that AMD will bring Big-Little with Zen 5. This could be in maybe 1,5 years from now. Not too far away. It's also very tiring to read the same conspiracy stuff over and over again. I can just repeat that we talked with Intel about this and even Intel said they are fine if we just list this as a 16c. Let's just see how things evolve and how you guys are working with it once it's actually on the market. Deleting a category afterwards is just one click, but if you don't even try you will never know if it was a good idea or a bad idea. As Allen already said there is a lot more what we would like to do, but there are still months of work ahead to be even able to think about it. Like the ranking changes Rauf proposed and so on.
  3. Let's just talk during the next days/weeks to get back on what we planed Just too much stuff going on and too much other things we had to fix on here first
  4. From HWBot perspective I'm fine with either way, but I think we are at a point where things are already so complex that we're shooting ourselves in the foot on a daily basis. We have so many different plattforms and benchmarks that it's simply not possible to have one unique way of validation. I'm also not a friend of changing things retrospectively. For example we could start "BM only" from Alder Lake and also ban WinXP with Alder Lake but not change older generations. Yes, yes some will hate me when I talk about ban for the good old WinXP. However I'm with CENS, that things are very complex for new people and if they see that a 20 year old OS is required which might be older than themselves - could talk about how we handle this in future. But again - I'm very open for changes as long as the majority of the community shares the view (same goes for the WinXP example).
  5. Welcome to 2021 where core is not core anymore or why do you think I started this discussion? Thanks for your useless input
  6. I guess eventually it might make more sense to split globals in few categories such as Mobile, Desktop, High End Desktop and Server similar to what Rauf already suggested. I'm very open to such solutions but as I already pointed out we will need quite a lot of time to make this happen. Regarding AMD FX I have no problem changing this to 4 Cores if this makes the community happy. Probably won't change anything tho?
  7. Yea I would like to avoid drastic changes like that. So right now I think we will go for the dual listing. If we figure out after one or two generations that it was a bad idea we can still remove one of the two listings. That will be easier than changing the entire bot.
  8. Unless there will be a new single core CPU this won't change but I don't see how this is part of this discussion. Same as we don't see quad GPU stuff anymore these days. Tech changes and now it's changing to something new and we have to think about how to work with it. You might only be worried about how it is unfair for previous generations but we also have to make sure that HWBot stays interesting in the future. Intel showed during the architecture day that Ultra Mobile will have 2P Cores and 8E Cores. This would be in the 10 Core ranking against 10900K.
  9. While discussing things internally we also had the idea at some point to add "mixed" categories. So instead of adding this kind of CPU to the normal 16C ranking we could also create "16C Mixed". However we would still see different types of CPUs in the mixed rankings. For example "12C Mixed" could contain 8+4 desktop CPUs and at the same time 4+8 mobile CPUs. To me it felt like this cause more problems than it would solve. Opinions on this?
  10. I like the idea from a global points perspective. Realistically speaking I don't see how we could implement this within 2021. There are still too many bugs we have to clean up but at a certain point we want to change the global points anyway so we can talk about that again early next year.
  11. Technically possible. Things to consider with "xC Mixed" ranking would be: - the native 8C, 12C, 16C... rankings might not change anymore as future CPUs might always feature mixed cores. In the end similar to 1C or 2C rankings which are pretty much dead after certain years. - We might see strange CPU combinations in one ranking. E.g. 8+8, 4+12, 12+4 which could result in big performance gaps
  12. 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!
  13. always open to stuff like that I personally like this idea
  • Create New...