Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

A new way to address CPUs (Cores/Threads) on HWBot


der8auer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Would it not make sense to keep global score for total cores the same and then add global points for overall thread count next?  I suppose people would re-bench everything with HT switched off to get some more points.

Then if that works out could you not add global points for the type of cores that are active for these new mixed CPU's.

People could get points twice on the mixed chips as they would get points for both types of core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 12900k has 16 cores, treat it as a 16-core cpu. Period. If Intel decides to make 8 of them stronger and 8 of them weaker,  have HT on one and not on the other, thats then Intel's decision. From what you hear it even performs like a "true" 16-core 5950x. So what's the big deal.

Also 12900k is monolithic. For example the 5950x isn't even monolithic and has chiplets. Can I disable chiplets and make it join the 8- or 4-core category? No I can't. 

So if you have a 12900k you can join two categories and essentially gain double the points in some way, that's just weird and complicated.

Allowing disabling part of the chip so it can joins a different category so it looks stronger is contradicting previously made statement regarding disabling cores for frequency validation. ppl can disable all they want it is still an 16-core chip, and therefore it should get treated that way eventhough some cores are stronger than others, some are more efficient than others. It's the overall performance that counts. Regardless of the amount of threads right?

When Intel comes out with with quad HT, what do we do then? It's still X amount of cores but 4-times the amount of threads. The way I look at it is the individual cores just got more powerful/efficient. But plz don't make it more complicated with dividing CPUs into multiple categories.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but we do we differ between a 6-core with HT and one without? 

Edited by CENS
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Crew

If we choose the option where the user needs to disabling cores, I would only let the performance cores result count. It would be unfair for a CPU to have the possibility to obtain 2 times global or hardware points. Also we need to consider that if we change our decision at some later point and decide that those processors can make use of their full native core configuration, all core disabled results are getting pretty useless. So we might want make some conservative decision now like the 16 cores are 16 cores approach and better implement something smart when there will be time for.

An, probably, over-complicated approach would be to create benchmark categories for the individual core configuration. I just took a look at the Snapdragon SoCs and there would be four possible combinations for 8 cores:

8P
4P + 4E
2P + 6E
1UP+1P+6E

So that means there would be an additional 4 + 4, 2 + 6, 1 + 1 + 6 Cinebench ranking for instance. Every user could compare apples to apples then. However, I would not give global points for each config as would be an insane inflation of points because of dozens of new categories. Instead we should group those configurations in an unified ranking. The easiest way would be to just count all existing cores again. So in the above example all those configurations go into 8 cores ranking. IMO that would be fair. No one tells that you have to win with a CPU featuring 50 % efficiency cores over a CPU with 100 % performance cores.

However if we want to change something, another approach would be to divide the amount of efficiency cores by two.

4 + (4/2) = 6 cores ranking (for Intel this would also mean 12 threads vs 12 threads, doesn't matter for ARM however)
2 + (6/2) = 5 cores ranking
1+1+(6/2) = 5 cores ranking

Wouldn't be to hard to configure those new CPUs with some cores less in the db. So really a quick and dirty solution. Biggest concern is when efficiency cores are getting better than Rocket Lake and Zen3 because of architectural improvements or changes like added HT or Quad HT. 

To pick up the idea with splitting categories into low, mid, high and high end we might could come up with grouping existing categories in an unified global points ranking. Like

1 core
2 cores
4 cores (consisting of 3 core ranking and hybrid variations)
6 cores (consisting of 5 core ranking and hybrid variations)
8 cores (also including possible 7 cores and hybrid variations)
12 cores (anything from 9 to 12 and hybrid variations)
16 cores (anything from 13 to 16 and hybrid variations)
24 cores (anything from 17 to 24 and hybrid variations)
32 cores (anything from 25 to 32 and hybrid variations)
64 cores (anything from 33 to 64 and hybrid variations)

Low core count categories are kept for historical reasons. 3 and 5 cores are getting killed as they are only Phenom and doesn't qualify for globals anymore IMO. Anything from 64 is server stuff and hasn't much to do with oc. It shouldn't be awarded just because someone works in a data center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Matsglobetrotter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion i would go with : 

  1.   (  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.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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 by Papusan
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...