speed.fastest Posted September 18, 2021 Share Posted September 18, 2021 Treat it as it is, 16C is still 16C doesnt matter slower core, faster core, or different clocked between core, core count is still same. If 12900K/KF lose to 5950X/10960X, leave it as it is, because actual multithreading performance is slower, they still have single core performance advantages anyway. No need more complicated rules, now is already complicated enough. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matsglobetrotter Posted September 20, 2021 Share Posted September 20, 2021 (edited) My suggestion would be to test any potential new introductions to fundamental changes in categories by organising one or more challenges specifically set up for such changes so the community can actually see what it does. If it turns out to have real value and gain interest then it can be discussed afterwards with more evidence base. Edited September 20, 2021 by Matsglobetrotter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted September 20, 2021 Share Posted September 20, 2021 In my humble opinion i would go with : ( We simply list the 12900K as a 16C CPU. Might sound like an easy option for now but I see that this would make it very difficult for the future years especially thinking about that AMD will eventually also use different performing cores on one single chip. ) . Then wait and see how it goes from there. Best bet is to wait for the cpu to be out and available and see where performance lands , then we can make a propper informed desision. No need to rush things or get ahead of it ,let's wait and see , meanwhile listed for what it is a 16 core cpu. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flanker Posted September 23, 2021 Share Posted September 23, 2021 if new section like 8C+8E or 6C+4Ewill be to complicated on HWBOT, then keep the sinmply 16C, 10C for Laderlakes, Rapros, meteros or Rapahels in the future... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unityofsaints Posted September 26, 2021 Share Posted September 26, 2021 We already have chips with weird core configurations in the database: some consumers even got refunds because FX was marketed as 8c. On that platform you can't even clock every core individually, a surefire sign they're not really individual cores, right? Still we call them 8c. The same should happen with Alder Lake imo. It's a new microarchitecture on a new process, they will score fine vs. Skylake-X 16c. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noxinite Posted September 26, 2021 Share Posted September 26, 2021 (edited) Tbh, over the course of this thread and a bit of thinking I've changed my mind, I honestly think we should just keep going as we already are - so 16C. *Shrugs* Edited September 26, 2021 by Noxinite 7 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasttrack Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 We must not try and re-invent the wheel Cores are cores, whatever tricks companies do to evolve technology and improve performance. 7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splave Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 so assuming we will see probably 8 p core base for a long time with more and more E cores, Im fine with 8+8 category 8+12 8+16 etc in the future. we have never considered ht in the equation for categories so no point in starting now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matsglobetrotter Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 6 hours ago, Joaquin10 said: The problem is watt and heat , always for air or watercustom. 16 cores for water ,uff and 5.2 GHZ. Well some people like Masochism. But cudos to those who still try push the limits like that. Its tough but great to see anyone succeed on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yosarianilives Posted October 2, 2021 Share Posted October 2, 2021 I mean people should stop acting like the slower cores are shit, they're still supposed to be faster than rkl. So 16 core alder is still way faster than 16 core rkl. If the point of new categories is to make it more fair then let's not do that as it would still be unfair, we never allowed down core to compete in more categories because it would still be unfair. Higher core count cpus have more advantage than just more cores, they have extra cache etc. If Intel wanted it to compete in 8 core they wouldn't call it 16 core. The only way aside from just counting all the cores I see as fair is if you make a category called 8+8 that's separate from 8 core and 16 core. Would need to go back and do it for all the big little arm cpus as well so might create a lot of work over time, but anything other than just counting the cores will create a lot of work. Regardless I think each cpu should only count towards one global category per benchmark, so either a 16 core or as 8+8 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzk Posted October 2, 2021 Share Posted October 2, 2021 If two categories are introduced for AL, then what happens with benchmarks which won't scale past 16 Threads (so 8 big cores + SMT)? Could a user just submit these benchmarks twice and get points for both? A good example is 32M, as it doesn't scale at all. Could i submit it to 8+8 and 8+0 category? I also think that having to disable cores to participate in a certain benchmark will cause issues and faulty submissions. So we need to have a ranking for "all cores enabled" to simply have the users submit into the right category without thinking too much. I'm also not sure if a separate mixed category will help us at all... So i vote "AL = 16C" and done. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yosarianilives Posted October 2, 2021 Share Posted October 2, 2021 2 hours ago, Tzk said: If two categories are introduced for AL, then what happens with benchmarks which won't scale past 16 Threads (so 8 big cores + SMT)? Could a user just submit these benchmarks twice and get points for both? A good example is 32M, as it doesn't scale at all. Could i submit it to 8+8 and 8+0 category? I also think that having to disable cores to participate in a certain benchmark will cause issues and faulty submissions. So we need to have a ranking for "all cores enabled" to simply have the users submit into the right category without thinking too much. I'm also not sure if a separate mixed category will help us at all... So i vote "AL = 16C" and done. Like I said single global listing per cpu, so alder would be 8+8 or 16, this whole 8+0 listing would be just a way to cheat. We don't let 11900k participate in 4 core rankings so why let 12900k participate in 8 core. Superpi 32m would be single core as per normal, and if we're lucky wprime 32m will go away 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brutek Posted October 3, 2021 Share Posted October 3, 2021 It is equal wich way you go. In transistion phase, maybe Alder Lake will be trated unfairly but in future these CPU types will maybe standard. In my opinion this is a 8 + 8 Core CPU, also 16Core. Next Generations will follow and may be Intel i 11 18900k will have 32 big cores and 128 small cores and 192 Threads. As stupid as it sounds, it will be a 160 core CPU. Real cores should count as them HT doesn`t matter. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumper118 Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 make a poll. As many others have said i think it should be a 16C rank cpu nothing else. I think that is option 2. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papusan Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 (edited) On 9/30/2021 at 3:20 PM, Fasttrack said: We must not try and re-invent the wheel Cores are cores, whatever tricks companies do to evolve technology and improve performance. Yep, and 8 it will be if you try go after most boints on the bot. Leaker Allegedly Exposes Alder Lake's Inner Workings tomshardware.com A truckload of unconfirmed information https://www.tomshardware.com/news/leaker-allegedly-exposes-alder-lake-inner-workings "Alder Lake purportedly has good headroom for overclocking. The leaker mentioned that a 5.2 GHz to 5.3 GHz all-core boost clock is available if you turn off the Gracemont cores" Edited October 13, 2021 by Papusan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splave Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 why not leave the gracemont cores on and OC them also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papusan Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 54 minutes ago, Splave said: why not leave the gracemont cores on and OC them also We'll have to see if they drag down the oc headroom or not. But I expect everything is possible with sub zero cooling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TASOS Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 On 8/11/2021 at 9:05 PM, der8auer said: 2. We simply list the 12900K as a 16C CPU.... Let's keep it simple. Number of cores are .... , number of cores. End of story. 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0minat0r Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 5 minutes ago, TASOS said: Let's keep it simple. Number of cores are .... , number of cores. End of story. All people agree with that. +1 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0minat0r Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 In the end INTEL MARKETING 1 | 0 HWBOT USERS But probably INTEL pay hwbot servers and hwbot administration need fulfill a intel wish. Maybe boys from Portland organize some competition and impair Intel for a few CPUs, micelles happen 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraRaptor Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 13 minutes ago, d0minat0r said: In the end INTEL MARKETING 1 | 0 HWBOT USERS Like if hwbot belongs to Kazakhstan , hehe 2 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chispy Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 Sooo , at the end our opinions did not matter huhh ? , like at all ... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rauf Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 Maybe wait for something official, so far it's only a database entry... And please stop with the Intel marketing nonsense. It's just ridiculous that they would care to influence hwbot. In the past Pieter tried to please everyone here on the forum, and still got nothing but shit for it. And no one was happy with what came out of it. I only hope current administration has a strong plan for the future and stick to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yosarianilives Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 What was the point of the thread if ultimately was going to ignore what all the community feedback ended up at? Was the thread a failed attempt to get a decision rubber stamped by the community? 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splave Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 roman will pop in im sure, but he told me its because the entry system is so broken that 8+8 is not possible atm so rather than not have any 12900k submissions that we will use both 8c and 16c and hope for the best for now. it's not for intel marketing I assure you since 16c category 5950x is ahem still pretty strong with its extra threads 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.