Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

POLL: CPUZ Feelz, let your opinion be known.


CPU-Z should be allowed to disable cores?  

103 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think disabling cores should be allowed for CPUZ submissions? IE. 2 cores of 8 enabled on 11900k

    • yes
      86
    • no
      13
    • not sure
      5
  2. 2. Do you think disabling HT/SMT should be allowed for CPUZ submissions?

    • yes
      90
    • no
      11
    • not sure
      2
  3. 3. Do you think moving only ocing only one of the cores should be allowed for CPUZ submissions? IE. Ryzen 5950x all cores at 1600mhz one at 6400mhz

    • yes
      71
    • no
      21
    • not sure
      11


Recommended Posts

  • Crew

So entertaining about the conspiracy thoughts and apparently hard "money" facts that are soaring over the Internet about HWBot...

I already gave up a long time ago Mike to do good for everybody, it won't ever work... Everybody takes it way too serious and remain biased even after a decade of HWBot mayhem 😆

Maybe the OP's timing was far from top here Roman... links are made

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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?

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 thinkin

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 binn

Posted Images

  • Crew
27 minutes ago, keeph8n said:

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

 

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

seriously? splave benches for asrock? who would have known?

thanks for the update kid

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, pro said:

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

It's absolutely pathetic to read something like this from you. Why would I care about what ASUS does? Use your brain next time before posting. That said it also seems like you didnt even read what I posted above that I will see how this evolves right here.

Also funny that all I did so far and even for launch of 11900K was in cooperation with Gigabyte and nothing with asus. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Crew
Just now, der8auer said:

It's absolutely pathetic to read something like this from you. Why would I care about what ASUS does? Use your brain next time before posting. That said it also seems like you didnt even read what I posted above that I will see how this evolves right here.

Also funny that all I did so far and even for launch of 11900K was in cooperation with Gigabyte and nothing with asus. 

absolutely pathetic is you attempting to punch back in such a way. im trying to talk to you with respect and you feel the need to push things in another direction. im not sure if you feel you get to talk to people such a way way because of your social media status? its certainly not from overclocking as your not in the right tier to come at me in such a way.

take a step back and make the right decision Roman

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Crew
2 minutes ago, NATA 58 said:

sorry all this only concerns hwbot cpu frequency benchmark?

Yep, spot on, imagine the drama we will experience once the new points are here.... we need to upgrade the forum probably 😛

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, pro said:

seriously? splave benches for asrock? who would have known?

thanks for the update kid

Kid? You might want to check yourself before you start down that road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pro said:

absolutely pathetic is you attempting to punch back in such a way. im trying to talk to you with respect and you feel the need to push things in another direction. im not sure if you feel you get to talk to people such a way way because of your social media status? its certainly not from overclocking as your not in the right tier to come at me in such a way.

take a step back and make the right decision Roman

You come up with conspiracy theories and then expect respect? You did nothing to earn my respect here. We had a very good discussion last night on discord and all of that was far more mature than what you just dumped in here

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Crew
6 minutes ago, der8auer said:

You come up with conspiracy theories and then expect respect? You did nothing to earn my respect here. We had a very good discussion last night on discord and all of that was far more mature than what you just dumped in here

i'm not going to engage in whatever fight youre* looking for because the poll has gone against your wishes Roman

do the right thing

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, der8auer said:

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

@proyou don't read very well do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Crew
8 minutes ago, keeph8n said:

@proyou don't read very well do you?

look sorry i dont mean to be rude, but the grown ups are having a conversation, and i have no idea who you are

Link to post
Share on other sites

My main concern here is that if there ever comes another 8Ghz capable architecture on it's way that we can't do what we did back with bulldozer, ie. in theory we could have a architecrure that clocks the same but due to all core rule scores will be low.

Right now you're right it doesn't matter as CPUs don't clock high enough for globals, but this whole thing sounds like something with the potential to screw over 8G benchers like myself wayyyy down the road :D

Allso it's bad enough if CPU-Z is harder than some benches on old stuff, really don't like seeing it the same on new stuff, as imo. CPU-Z has to be the lightest bench with the highest clocks...

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Crew

its great to see oc hasn't changed

i come here with good intentions to represent what those close to me and i feel is important, and within an hour the owner of the site and some random have had a go at me

i cant remember pj ever personally attacking anyone before, i guess everyone has their own styles of management

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

What has happened here, wasn't this supposed to be a discussion about cpu max freq via cpu-z valid ?
Kinda silly but it looks to me if there was never post 23 there wouldn't be this drama

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another argument for allowing to disable / downclock cores: continuity and simplicity of rules. Imagine a new person trying to submit a score in 2021 and having to learn about differences in rules for pre-2010 and post-2010 hardware?

Perhaps a separate hardware point category for all-cores-same-clock would suffice? It's not like there aren't hundreds of these already per each piece of hardware.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, pro said:

its great to see oc hasn't changed

i come here with good intentions to represent what those close to me and i feel is important, and within an hour the owner of the site and some random have had a go at me

i cant remember pj ever personally attacking anyone before, i guess everyone has their own styles of management

Good intensions. That's just complete bs. Several posts above you I said 

Quote

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

 

So either you didn't even read the entire thread or you just wanted to post your accusations and conspiracy nonsense here anyway. And now you're playing the victim that I'm having a go at you xD Yea that all makes sense man. Good work

 

Again: "we can see how this goes and what you guys want"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, der8auer said:

So either you didn't even read the entire thread or you just wanted to post your accusations and conspiracy nonsense here anyway. And now you're playing the victim that I'm having a go at you xD Yea that all makes sense man. Good work

They said clearly how it looks, not what it is.  You attacked them as if they said that was what it is.

EDIT: I wanna add that like, I get it.  This has generated a reaction from a lot of people, and that adds up to a very strong reaction.  That can be difficult to deal with.  Posts start feeling like more of an attack than they are.  I think this thread might just need cleaning of a lot of the responses to pro.

It doesn't do any good to talk about the conspiracy idea anyway IMO because I don't think it's that relevant anyway.

Edited by mickulty
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Crew
5 minutes ago, der8auer said:

Good intensions. That's just complete bs. Several posts above you I said 

 

So either you didn't even read the entire thread or you just wanted to post your accusations and conspiracy nonsense here anyway. And now you're playing the victim that I'm having a go at you xD Yea that all makes sense man. Good work

 

Again: "we can see how this goes and what you guys want"

i'm sorry but i clearly said multiple times 'regardless if its true or not' because i was trying to make you understand how your post being interpreted without pointing fingers. however your post was dismissive and made hwbot members feel like their voices don't matter, regardless of what you said afterwards

its great if you are going to SEE HOW IT GOES, but i also don't apologize for raising my concerns and attempting to discuss the issues, i thought that was the purpose of this thread

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Crew
33 minutes ago, TaPaKaH said:

Another argument for allowing to disable / downclock cores: continuity and simplicity of rules. Imagine a new person trying to submit a score in 2021 and having to learn about differences in rules for pre-2010 and post-2010 hardware?

Perhaps a separate hardware point category for all-cores-same-clock would suffice? It's not like there aren't hundreds of these already per each piece of hardware.

We already have this new/old rules issue Sam due to some evolving OC behavior, mostly for the better or sometimes for the worse... one can't win it all... I prefer to keep them as simple as they are for newcomers...

I only would do a seperate category if you become an admin and move the scores into the right section handsome 😛 I pay in beer quantity, that sounds okay?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm sorta double posting here but I want to make a separate post for the on-topic stuff rather than the discussion that needs cleaning.

Some community-oriented reasons to stick with 1-core valids;

  • OC is sold to people as "drag racing for computers" - doing everything possible in hardware to get the score, including disabling, makes sense
  • The people who say "yeah but it's only on 1 core" will just say something else like "yeah but it's not stable" instead (a little over 30 tech site comments about giga's score were sifted through on discord and the only one that complained about disabled cores also complained about low cache clock)
  • It means there's a little more refinement/effort/skill to valids

Some technical reasons to stick with 1-core valids;

  • AMD and Intel are both pushing high preferred core clocks as a way to maximise gaming performance, so 1-core valids are relevant to the public
  • Future big.little designs may not even be able to run all cores synced, the concept of all cores being at the same clock is on the way out
  • All-core requirements for valids potentially add more ways to bend rules or cheat, like finding a way to keep some cores asleep or move all load off weak cores
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)

Just thought I'd pop in again to say love the drama, AU guys never disappoint. One of the few times I'm agreeing with the AU side, although I didn't realise the Giga vs Asus thing, it's all luck of the draw with binning chips from intel, not about the board I think but people like to fight over stupid stuff so I say let them :D

 

Also whilst I agree with 1 and 3 from pro, you could do with looking at the way you come across and maybe tweak it if you want people to take you seriously. Telling people what they're going to do, stating opinions as facts, just being plain rude etc

Edited by GeorgeStorm
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is the right time to discuss that the validation of a fictional number like the CPU frequency is not a credible basis for competitive ranking.

I'm thinking a small workload would be more suitable for this kind of task (idea by @mllrkllr88). Something completely independent of memory, but big enough to show the scaling (in comparison to other CPUs of this generation). This workload could even come in multiple flavors like single-threaded, multi-threaded, AVX*, each separated into their own categories here on HWBOT.

Not an easy task all in all but a big improvement for the moderation and therefor the credibility of suicide runs.

Edit: It also makes a lot of sense to use effective clocks instead of the fictional numbers. Much more reliable (although harder to comprehend for the overclocker when benching).

 

Edited by _mat_
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, _mat_ said:

Maybe this is the right time to discuss that the validation of a fictional number like the CPU frequency is not a credible basis for competitive ranking.

I'm thinking a small workload would be more suitable for this kind of task (idea by @mllrkllr88). Something completely independent of memory, but big enough to show the scaling (in comparison to other CPUs of this generation). This workload could even come in multiple flavors like single-threaded, multi-threaded, AVX*, each separated into their own categories here on HWBOT.

Not an easy task all in all but a big improvement for the moderation and therefor the credibility of suicide runs.

 

always open to stuff like that :D I personally like this idea

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Crew

Correct Mat, I compare CPUZ max Freq, by measuring the Horsepower of an engine on a testbench. On a track it can pop in under a lap.

But plz finish the latest BenchMate before indulging in another project :)

How about an added column in the CPUZ ranking? Is that a feasable solution for all parties ?

 

cores.png

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Preface: I'm a casual bencher who won't likely be effected either way by this decision. I don't see a need to change the rules for CPU-Z validation, but personally I will take the time to look at the result and see if cores are disabled and HT/SMT is on or off.  I'll be honest and say that I use the argument that it's much more difficult to achieve a high result without disabled cores etc., but it does not take away from the achievement. In my opinion this is why having a variety of benchmarks is needed. 

 

+1 for Leeghoofd's idea about the active cores column and if possible and HT/SMT - on/off column (this would make it easier when casually browsing results)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...