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

15 minutes ago, Leeghoofd said:

Proposal 2 has CPUZ limitations as mentioned in other posts, so that might be something for the future

Regarding the memory proposal we have already tried it out in Country and Team Cup and indeed it is more challenging, but again CPUZ is not 100% bulletproof.

bullet proof hehe. we are working on the edge of all hardware so no wonder the software gets.. flaky hehe

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

I am another ambient bencher who this likely wont make a huge difference for either way. That being said, having 2 categories one for all core and one for single core seems to be the best answer to both sides. Just seems to make the most sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Leeghoofd said:

Ah so you are giving up so easily? ever thought about providing good arguments or even better maybe alternatives instead of feeding the troll machine or spicing up urban myths about HWBOT.

Nah, not really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Leeghoofd said:

Try e.g. hotplugging dimms, you might be surprised what readouts one gets :)

oh there are also platforms where you can drop channels in such a way all tools but taskmanager fail to detect how many channels are currently populated (making a certain tc stage a couple years ago quite pointless...). Can see in Taskmanager(due to capacity) and bios only one out of 3 sticks is detected, yet cpu-tweaker and cpuz detect all 3 channels as populated and running at high frequency...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Crew
22 hours ago, Leeghoofd said:

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

 

cores.png

I think this is going in the right direction. But that still would have the problem of not knowing if someone downclocked his cores. If I got it right, this discussion is about showing if someone overclocked all of his available cores to a specific maximum frequency, right?  So what if Tim codes a script, which reads out the page from the provided CPU-Z verification link and IF 100 % of x cores are active AND frequency between them is within a reasonable deviation mark them as all core max frequency and call it a day. This way you could filter them too like in your above example.

Im twisted about the possibility of separated ranking. I mean CPU max frequency is not really a bench. Its simply the take whatever it takes to maximize your clock game. If you want to have all of your cores at the same level, youre simply not playing it right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it makes sense  to measure max frequency and so far CPUz has done the best job of doing so since eons ago. Though i sometimes hate the crashes in validation 😉

To simply say that we would not be turning off cores though does not make sense since most world records are based on adjusting the same which is a simple change in the bios. probably there since the first dual core was introduced.. I am quite sure some of the 3D benches would not have the records they have without some cores being turned off also, afterall some of them are not multithreaded.

Since now intel and i guess AMD also allow to turn off selected Cores and maybe some specific hyper threads on any core why would we not allow people to play around with it to max it out.

Meanwhile if it is possible to confirm that all cores are on ( i thought CPUZ was better at such confirmation but maybe not i do consider we need two categories. 

Am just now playing with my 3930K and it seems most CPUZ  validations and Superpi subs are with 2 cores and even 1 core at times. why would I then limit myself to 6 ?? and 300 Mhz slower CPU? and non competitive results on CPUz, Superpi, Pifast?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2021 at 12:41 AM, _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.

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).

Adding my two cents. I'm fine with max freq as is and I like mat's suggestion (above) of a new way to do "max freq valid" using some kind of very light workload instead of a CPU-Z valid.

I also like the suggestion of creating a new benchmark for all-core + HT on CPU-Z valids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like seeing new benchmarks being developed however i also realize that software seems to be a commodity that have short expiry date. The code is propriety and linked to a specific developer. The moment the developer get tired of the project the software somehow dies off. I liked Hwprime, Catzilla (when it worked) , XTU.  I also like CPUZ as its the one single longest lasting benchmark/measurement tools that seems to surpass all the generations of CPU's and motherboards. i guess because its the so far most robust tool for the same (despite some flaws). I wonder what the lifespan has been for anything else in relation to that. What is great about CPUz is that it has its own score board also thus has its own ecosystem irrespective of the bot. Meanwhile I only validate to put it here on the bot.  Fundamentally i think it would be dangerous for the longevity of the bot if it was dependent on inhouse developed benchers/tools for everything.  CPUz is used by all communities not just hwbot. Its also the standard for most reviews in most magazines globally. Meanwhile scores Mhz, Ghz wont mean anything if we suddenly change validation to lighter loads. Meanwhile not even HWinfo, Ohm, Sysinfo, none of them seems to be able to confirm cpu core speeds relevantly across all platforms. This was proven in some of the challenges lately where CPUz was showing one value, HW info another sampling every xx milliseconds and then futuremark made some scores disqualified as sysinfo showed spikes 500 mhz beyond what we could even get any single core to do in reality. 

I am non believer in creating yet a new solution if there is an issue in a software. Try fix the software first 🙂 especially if its a very active one.

Meanwhile ofcourse CPUz is also the golden standard all hwbot submissions is demanding for frequency validations same as GPUz for gpuz.

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...