POLL: CPUZ Feelz, let your opinion be known.

[Splave]

First off the poll is anonymous so only leeghoofd will know how you voted, feel free to be honest. 

 

CPUZ is a silly bench but its one of the most sought after by the chip makers. In the past it seems to have been a gentleman's game to keep the chip how its intended with all cores active. (behind your back you are being shamed if you disable cores) I assume there are two parties here and also an opinion from the AU guys that I couldn't even dream of anticipating. (no offense). One being you're an idiot and a try hard if you leave all the cores on and Two you bring shame on your family name for disabling cores. Just curious what the consensus is in the community. 

I wonder if we could make a category for fully torqued all out all all core and threads and one for 2 core chicanery. 

Edited April 4, 2021 by Splave

[der8auer]

The good thing is that we don't need a poll to decide this. I already talked to Albrecht last week to tell him we will not allow CPU-Z submissions anymore with disabled cores. We are currently thinking of when exactly we are going to enforce this rule. If already starting from this Gen or next one. You can give opinion on this if you want.

But for the future Only full cores + HT will be accepted. Everything else is just nonsense on a technical level.

[buildzoid]

Apparently CPU-z wasn't bin to win enough as is.

So next are we gonna ban maxmem for memory frequency valids and require all mem channels instead of just 1?

[ground]

so old rankings will be impossible to beat with CPUs that are impossible to validate as allcore with HT on? I see CPUz valid just like memory frequency, only goal is CPUz showing the frequency in the valid, no matter how that is achieved. Off course having a seperate category for allcore + ht valid would be fine I suppose.

[buildzoid]

I agree that if you want a all core valid ranking it should just be separate from the existing CPU-z valids.

[der8auer]

Also to make it more clear:

New submissions with old hardware: Old rules! You can still do single cores

New submissions with latest gen (still have to decide if we already start with 11th gen): New rule: All Cores + HT

 

This way pretty much nobody is affected. No old submission, no global ranking. No need to get mad

[mickulty]

40 minutes ago, Splave said:

I wonder if we could make a category for fully torqued all out all all core and threads and one for 2 core chicanery. 

This is really the only sensible way to approach it IMO, I'd go further and say that you might as well include some stability test as well.  @der8auer mentioned on the discord that part of the motive is making the value clear to non-overclockers;

Quote

Like even if you put days and days in it the reply is always "but this is only one core".

The problem is that if you enforce all-core and everything that just becomes;

Quote

Like even if you put days and days in it the reply is always "but this isn't stable".

On the other hand, a separate category for measured frequency across a short stability test - not a 'full' test obviously, that would be horrendous for LN2, but maybe 1 minute of prime95 - would probably have much more value for PR.  You could also do the same for memory frequency.  It's still not 'real' stability because no-one wants to have one error after 5 hours of prime95 on LN2, but I think it's a good compromise where it's relatively meaningful without being horrific to run.

[jessec0626]

I'm sitting here thinking to myself. "Glad I never cared about max freq." Lol

[redux]

  

49 minutes ago, buildzoid said:

I agree that if you want a all core valid ranking it should just be separate from the existing CPU-z valids.

This seems like the simplest solution. I don't care how many cores people use to validate but I don't like the idea of restricting the option of disabling cores because some people don't like it. It doesn't really make sense when CPU-Z isn't ranked by core count and modern hardware and overclocking is moving away from fixed all-core clocks anyway.

Edited April 5, 2021 by redux
by core count

[Bones]

My thought is with some benches like Super PI, it doesn't matter since it's single threaded - The result will still be the same without as much stress on the hardware or the cost in Ln2 used just to get it done.
I do understand the thing about all cores active for a CPU-Z validation but again, it's not like some are capable of doing it and some are not. Anyone can do it that way if they want so it's really more of a personal preference to bench it that way than anything else (To me).

I too don't care how many cores are used for a validation, we've been doing it that way for a long time now and even I have some that's "Up there" with less than all cores in use, in fact for example, with FX I tend to run two instead of just one.

However you guys want to handle it, I'm fine but just stating my opinion about it.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Bones

[der8auer]

Okay so we had some interesting discussions especially on discord and we can see how this goes and what you guys want. Will give it some more time

[yee245]

When Intel goes with the big.LITTLE with Alder Lake next gen on the mainstream platform, do we know how that's going to affect frequencies and stuff, as reported by CPU-Z? And/or, how might it be affected next year by these potential rule changes to CPU-Z validation? So, somewhat related to the third question of this poll, if the little cores don't/can't clock as high as the big cores, wouldn't that sort of effectively be like the situation where you're running some cores at lower frequencies (if not disabled entirely)?

[KaRtA]

yeah, I get where you are coming from Roman, but it's looking like the community isn't on the same side as you. Will pop onto discord and check the discussion there. 

[unityofsaints]

Late April fool's joke?

[TerraRaptor]

I see no other value in cpuz validation except highest possible frequency for a single core. Too many ways to manipulate/cheat if it will require all cores/HT enabled anyway (priorities, affinity, forced throttling etc). We already have multithreaded benchmarks to evaluate "all cores active" frequency. CPUZ is about the edge of stability and nothing else (well, plus some basic system info).

[5erveD]

Who gives a fcuk about highest frequency anyway.

 

Sure, make a single and all core+ht/smd category. 

No global en such. 

 

Never gotten the memo on the gentleman's agreement btw. When was this ? 

 

Now, can we please get back to benching.

 

No cores were harmed in this post.

[TheQuentincc]

It's obvious all core can't clock the same, you can't call someone a "tryharder" only because he take some of his time to clock every core, one by one to get his best score, the time he used to validate his max freq should not be considered as wasted time, it take time to get the best result like with every other bench.
Then validate the max freq using load is non sense since we have a lot of 2D bench to do so.
CPU-Z max freq is also one of the only bench to be reported on media, higher the score is, higher the hype is and so the chance of seeing new face on the bot.

[Niuulh]

7 hours ago, der8auer said:

The good thing is that we don't need a poll to decide this. I already talked to Albrecht last week to tell him we will not allow CPU-Z submissions anymore with disabled cores.

The "good thing" should be to ask and listen, not to impose what  YOU think is best.

IMO full core only benefit those who are close to brands cause they want to see "real" capabilities of ships. For all other it's just a huge loss of fun and money (as hw isn't expenssive enought...)

Don't get me wrong, if users want full core i won't bitch about it at all. But if you do it anyway even seeing how the pool goes, that's cleary a shit move...

Edited April 5, 2021 by Niuulh

[GeorgeStorm]

Didn't realise this was an issue, it's been allowed for as long as I can remember, it's allowed for other benches so why wouldn't it be for this?

Gives people a better chance of needing less binning, instead of 1 core holding back 7 good ones for example.

 

If people really do care then having two categories is reasonable, but don't see any logic getting rid of the current one.

Edited April 5, 2021 by GeorgeStorm

[suzuki]

Like coming to a competition with a motorcycle with sidecar and complaining the other ones should do the same, instead of getting of it all the unnecesarry stuff, and be light.

[Sparks.nl]

8 hours ago, der8auer said:

Also to make it more clear:

New submissions with old hardware: Old rules! You can still do single cores

New submissions with latest gen (still have to decide if we already start with 11th gen): New rule: All Cores + HT

 

This way pretty much nobody is affected. No old submission, no global ranking. No need to get mad

So I can still disable cores on my Athlon XP setup ??.

[Leeghoofd]

I know me and Roman already talked about this at CES when he had a 7GHz 7700K running on all cores for an entire evening during an Intel press event. That was great PR for Intel's architecture and overclocking in general.

My 2 cents:

I could live with the proposed from next gen on rule and nothing changes for all the older CPUZ Frequency records.

What I proposed last week was to have a core selected option, like we have now with them unlockable AMD CPUs. However this would not mean creating a 1-2-3-4-... CPUZ frequency category.

Again to avoid confusion we are only talking about CPU frequency records!!!

 

[Sparks.nl]

I guess I follow the flow for this one. I really can’t care because top places are not in reach anyway for newer hardware. 

[pro]

12 hours ago, der8auer said:

The good thing is that we don't need a poll to decide this. I already talked to Albrecht last week to tell him we will not allow CPU-Z submissions anymore with disabled cores. We are currently thinking of when exactly we are going to enforce this rule. If already starting from this Gen or next one. You can give opinion on this if you want.

But for the future Only full cores + HT will be accepted. Everything else is just nonsense on a technical level.

Roman you're a reasonable guy that makes informed decisions, that's why your NOT going to make CPUZ benchmark all cores/threads

1. the community has voted, you can go against this, but all that stuff you said about HWBOT saying community based goes out the window, you lose the right to say that anymore. regardless if its true or not, this looks like asusbot, thats not good for you, the community or asus

2. this looks really salty on the back of the gigabyte beating asus, regardless if its true or not, that's how everyone is interpreting it and thats fact

3. lets look at this logically, are we going to start making people run superpi with 8c/16t? pifast? memory validation with whatever the default timings are? this is what we do, whatever is required to reach the highest frequency possible. if its amd is with all cores at 1.6ghz except the valid core, if its memory at 1000-1000-1000 whatever is the highest possible timings are, bring it on, we want to see the highest frequencies/scores ever. this is extreme overclocking!

lets leave whatever has just happened between companies out of this and make a logical decision

[keeph8n]

OP is ASRock in house bencher. Roman benches everyone anymore.

 

ASUS salty for losing? Man people got a weird way of reaching conclusions