Jump to content

Featured Replies

Posted

Hi everybody

 

I noticed that the incoming divisions include coffeelake, non-sense imho

i7 now is 6/12 vs "older" 4/8

i5 now is 6/6 vs "older" 4/4

i3 now is 4/4 (and better L3 cache) vs "older" 2/4

 

so, they will be just coffee challenger?

  • Replies 73
  • Views 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Author

don't want to stop progress (sadly by now marking i7 or i5 or i3 a cpu doesn't mean nothing about core number as before) but everybody understand that more-core chips always will win vs less-core chips

maybe not-multithreads benchs (e.g. pifast, superpi, geek3/4 single, am3, 3dm01, 3dm03, 3dm05, UHB, UHX....) will make more attractive the battle; or to divide the bench result for core number

 

just my thought :)

  • Administrators

We thought a lot about this, but we will not change things anymore. When skylake came, same core count Haswell and DC became more or less worthless, when 7350k came i3s were worthless, when ryzen came all older amd were junk. Some of the stages are single core or gpu limited, others are multicore and on one or two I made core division, but coffeelake is released for half a year now and we cannot limit it especially when you know that for older single threaded benches coffeelake does not support xp

  • Author

no problem, just share my thought and understand what people think about that

for example, ryzen already have 2 own divisions, div IV for ryz 7 and div V for ryz 5

Edited by superpatodonaldo

no need to be banned, just their own divisions or to be balanced with less-core-but-same-class-chips (i7 i5 i3)

 

Current-gen Intel already has 1 more division than current-gen AMD: i7 / i5 / i3 vs. R7 / (R5+R3). Do you really want to inflate that to 6 vs. 2 divisions?

Differences in number of cores is usually handled by "per core" scoring as Websmile mentioned. As long as "per core" is applied to all the stages sensitive to core count, the playing field is nominally leveled.

 

We don't have to rush about in a panic looking for binned CoffeeLakes, or worse, the very few and now rare OC motherboards for the unique CPU pinout.

 

The Pro OC stages have an even worse issue with the wide range of core counts among Skylake-X CPUs.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing notes on the stage pages about the "per core" scoring.

  • Author
Current-gen Intel already has 1 more division than current-gen AMD: i7 / i5 / i3 vs. R7 / (R5+R3). Do you really want to inflate that to 6 vs. 2 divisions?

 

not sayd that, maybe my poor english doesn't help me to correct express my thought;

ryzen example was just for show difference between div IV-V and div VI

 

just want to say that (for example) 6 core and 4 core cpus should not be in the same division unless result be handled by "per core" (in multithreaded 2d benchs)

 

As I remember in challenger divisions results never be handled by per core

I just noticed a change in DIV I restrictions. Instead of allowing only i7, the restrictions now prohibit 2011, 2011-3 and 2066 sockets. DIV II and III still allow only i5 and i3 respectively.

 

The effect appears to be that i3 CPUs like 7350K can be used in DIV I. The two-core processors could have a competitive place in the challenge if their PER CORE scores are high.

 

Do PER CORE stages use the number of cores in the actual CPU (2 for 7350K) or is PER CORE scaling limited to 6 and 4 cores for the i7s?

  • Members
I just noticed a change in DIV I restrictions. Instead of allowing only i7, the restrictions now prohibit 2011, 2011-3 and 2066 sockets. DIV II and III still allow only i5 and i3 respectively.

 

The effect appears to be that i3 CPUs like 7350K can be used in DIV I. The two-core processors could have a competitive place in the challenge if their PER CORE scores are high.

 

Do PER CORE stages use the number of cores in the actual CPU (2 for 7350K) or is PER CORE scaling limited to 6 and 4 cores for the i7s?

 

There are per core stages?

  • Crew
No wallpapers for any division

 

Not good, expect back up score galore... Sorry I can not find myself in this decision... I have no clue what the competitors find about this but I would strongly advise to use a new background

Edited by Leeghoofd

Not good, expect back up score galore... Sorry I can not find myself in this decision... I have no clue what the competitors find about this but I would strongly advise to use a new background

 

Totally agree. Bad idea.

Main thing is if there is a background requirement it needs to show up immediately. I know several people that are benching on ln2 this weekend and would be disappointed if it were worthless for the comps.

youve had enough trouble already havent you, and you want more ??? have no background for the comp div's and see what trouble youll have to deal with, honestly boys, honestly, this is getting more ridiculous by the day with all the hap hazard decisions being made , might as well make rev 8 now and try that one

 

i would think at "least" your "team background" should be a mandatory

Edited by ozzie

If it's difficult to find someone to make the backgrounds I would suggest at least to have the correct date set in Windows. Lots of people have lots of old scores lying around...

who knows ? it'll be probably changed in the next days ahead ,..... but its fine by me !!!!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...