denvys5

After short discussion in NotExactInRound, we have come to some conclusions: 1) The main goal of boints is to encourage benching and competition, and current formula update is improving that aspect. It brings motivation to bench different platforms, that were LN2 only (like AM3+, for example) 2) Current "demo" system on UAT is really unbalanced in regards to point curves. Unpopular and mid-popular hardware gives too much for golds, really bad/weak scores (e.g. stock) give too much points, golds in popular hardware give not enough points (to differentiate them from less competitive rankings), global rankings are somewhat broken (e.g. vantage extreme, there worst 20 scores get ~15 boints just for their existence) 3) Broken (in regards to points) platforms became even worse. It is 1155, the worst case of this. Popular platform, and really low score ceiling brings ridiculous point rewards for subs in those categories. Judging by statements above, we expect that current hardware masters would get less motivation to improve and sub new hardware (even reaching a point there their ~top100 subs have maximum points), while there may come new hardware masters, who would just stockpile junk and make ~stock submissions = non-competitive hw-masters ranking. However, we have expectations that after proper point curve adjustments, and/or implementation of better formula, there will be higher quality of competition in both hardware, global and personal rankings

Strong!

Intel - virgin, scales with cold AMD - gigachad, scales with HOT

samopal revision ?

Great efficiency, good job!

Not a Steel Legend ?

On the other hand, these scores may become more different over time. Currently, disabling e-cores allows for higher ring clocks and a bit better p-core clocks. In some time, we may see 1T runs with, e.g., 1+1 configurations, for the best score in P+E category. I dont think that result would be directly comparable to 1P core result. Although, thats just a worse result than 1+0 in 1T by definition. From another point of view, E cores maybe be used for score optimization. *Speculation* Like we already have 3-4 core runs in SPI/old 3dmarks, those cores may be E-cores with seperate frequency control, which may allow to clock higher single P-core (1P+4E) But, I dont have any particular opinion on the solution for this right now.

DDR4 strikes back! Vdimm modded, or sticks can do low volts?

Steel legend? :D

5950X.... Apex 13? ?

That may indirectly encourage backups. Coz if implemented system counts only your latest sub, there is no point to improve it ever, unless it is beaten. You may rerun benchmark in the future and get a better score, but you are encouraged to keep that score as a backup by the system.

So hot... Wanna see this chip doing 10b ?

This set of questions defines what are P+E cores, okay. Change to ADL rankings is designed for future cpus in mind. My question is: what happens if future E-cores do not check all the requirements? For example, come in same uArch as P cores, do have same amount of threads. We can already see this happening, AMD already talking about this publicly. Looking at modern 2x CCD AMD chips, there is a clear difference between clocks and power for those 2 modules. And they can be clocked separately. In a future, as said in latest public statement, E-core is the same uArch as P-core for them, making further assumptions, maybe less frequency and less cache (like mobile chips right now)

Hello there. Please, add SK Hynix P31 Gold NVMe SSD link SHGP31-1000GM-2 for 1TB model

pizduli have no limits))

So that driver works for you, interesting. I had issue with radeon panel not working. You used powerplay tables? Or it just works for you?

"Unigine Superposition - 1080P Xtreme - GPU Family" What rules on subs for SP? *Broken* online Valid? Or the old ways, only screenshot?

@I.nfraR.ed Deal!

Vega and Titan V? No gddr6, but yes to HBM

TeamCup is over, drama keeps flowing. About flag... I'll tell the story from our team's point of view. We were faced with multiple misconceptions regarding our country selection and name of our team. We had gotten a lot of hate from different CIS communities during TC for our name during competition (USSR_OVER) and our country selection. Firstly, we created a team with no country specified, but faced a problem: we couldn`t compete in regional ranking (not relevant to TC) at all. So we decided to pick a team based on our team composition - Russia. That generated drama, so we switched to Kazakhstan, and then to Ukraine. That got us more drama, so we switched to another CIS country, which we considered as a neutral choice. We changed national flag to unique one, to limit connections with selected country. Since we mitigated all the initial drama, we were convinced that this choice was truly neutral and did not offend anybody. For our representation we consider ourselves as an international OC team. We changed name of our team after the end of competition. No drama included, end of story. No politics whatsoever. We didn't want to hurt anyone.

That was fun, indeed Local meme went too far ?

GL!

Cinebench single core, maybe? Like R15 Also, y-cruncher was fun to bench. Wanna see more of it ? For gpu, TSE would be a good addition ^Everything above is only about modern stuff, please, dont force us to run TSE on 775/am2?

4.4@1.46V? Thats a very sad cpu :'(

Looking at Intel information on new thread scheduling rules (Intel Thread Director), it makes most sense to do one single ranking for each cpu, by adding up cores. My previous point was based on expectation that cores have different instruction sets. With confirmation that 8E cores are running same instruction set (AVX2 enabled), just as other guys above suggested, 8P+8E = 16C makes the most sense.