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

[yosarianilives]

9 minutes ago, Splave said:

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

Why have two categories at all then? Just call it 16 core for now and if it sucks that's Intels fault

[Splave]

Idk, its kind of fun to bench it both ways. Feels HEDTish one way and mainstream the other. We do still try to have fun here right

[yosarianilives]

22 minutes ago, Splave said:

Idk, its kind of fun to bench it both ways. Feels HEDTish one way and mainstream the other. We do still try to have fun here right

Of course not, fun is not allowed. This is a serious hobby for serious people

[Leeghoofd]

1 hour ago, yosarianilives said:

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? 

If a dozen people that cast a voted a vote here are "the community" than we better shut this place down right now...

We looked at the inputs and for future purposes we decided option 4 is the way to go, especially with the upcoming CPUs with even weirder combos than just basic 8+8 or 6+4 like we have listed now.

HWBOT has to get ready for the future and this is the most logic and simplest way we can prep for a new era. Will it cause drama,  of course that's the plan....

Once performance and clocks are unveiled the fog might clear up... If this decision doesn't work out the dual ranking might be removed.

If it's popular why not benefit from twice the fun for the price of one...

[mickulty]

On 8/25/2021 at 3:16 PM, der8auer said:

Regarding AMD FX I have no problem changing this to 4 Cores if this makes the community happy. Probably won't change anything tho?

Yes.

Since apparently the change is going ahead for ADL, it would be a good idea to add one core per CU options for consistency across brands.  I don't think going as far as listing the 8-core as a 4-core in all situations is necessary, but rather adding for example "FX-8350 (4P)" for one core per CU mode.  Exception is the FX-4200 which is already one core per CU.

This is especially relevant because AMD have indicated they're not pursuing big.little in the immediate future.  CPU-Z shows the module count with the L2 and L1I cache configuration, so it is moderateable.  It also does make a big difference for performance, see attached;

 

So although the technical mechanism is not identical, disabling the "excess" cores on FX (and presumably A-series/athlon with dozer-derived cores) has much less performance impact than straight downcoring.  AMD's so-called "CMT", like big.little, also sought to add more cores without the area cost of more full cores.  Therefore they are far more similar to one another than either is to regular downcoring.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To those who, unlike roman, are against shaking things up for bulldozer-derivatives; I think a big part of why there's a bad taste in people's mouths is because this change is being pushed now.  Not when mobile big.little appeared, not when lakefield appeared, but now, when it has an effect on an intel enthusiast launch.  However, this big launch is the first time it's really been brought into question.  The FX-8150 probably wouldn't have set GFPs in one core per CU mode anyway.  So it is understandable.

However since the change is being pushed I think it's important to the future of HWBOT to define things in a way that doesn't single out one vendor's approach.  You can hardly blame people for seeing "HWBOT, supported by Intel", also seeing  a change the benefits an Intel launch, and coming to a cynical conclusion.  Therefore the opportunity to make it a general principle, not just "if AMD ever do exactly what Intel does", ought to be taken.  This is why I previously suggested a general principle that could be applied that isn't just "if a company does what intel is doing..."

Also the locked Intel SKUs need P-core categories too, obviously.  Again, the current state where only WR-capable chips get the special ranking, would make someone think it's only so they can get WRs... that needs to be fixed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Long-term moving to thread count might be a better idea.  Otherwise, if someone decides to make monster cores with SMT3/SMT4, they might "unfairly" dominate.  But that's a long process.

[der8auer]

During FX, Intel Lakefield and everything else you mentioned it was a different Administration. So comparing the current situation and the past is a bit wrong.

The latest rumors state that AMD will bring Big-Little with Zen 5. This could be in maybe 1,5 years from now. Not too far away.

It's also very tiring to read the same conspiracy stuff over and over again. I can just repeat that we talked with Intel about this and even Intel said they are fine if we just list this as a 16c. 

Let's just see how things evolve and how you guys are working with it once it's actually on the market. Deleting a category afterwards is just one click, but if you don't even try you will never know if it was a good idea or a bad idea.

As Allen already said there is a lot more what we would like to do, but there are still months of work ahead to be even able to think about it. Like the ranking changes Rauf proposed and so on.

[mickulty]

7 minutes ago, der8auer said:

During FX, Intel Lakefield and everything else you mentioned it was a different Administration. So comparing the current situation and the past is a bit wrong.

The latest rumors state that AMD will bring Big-Little with Zen 5. This could be in maybe 1,5 years from now. Not too far away.

It's also very tiring to read the same conspiracy stuff over and over again. I can just repeat that we talked with Intel about this and even Intel said they are fine if we just list this as a 16c.

Please keep reading;

Quote

However, this big launch is the first time it's really been brought into question.  The FX-8150 probably wouldn't have set GFPs in one core per CU mode anyway.  So it is understandable.

 

[Papusan]

I expect this is an typo? 

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Papusan
Added a new pict.

[Strunkenbold]

Core configuration is correct except i7 12700KF (8P) which was still at 12 cores. Fixed this now.

i9 12900 is 8P + 8E = 16

i7 12700 is 8P + 4E = 12

i5 12600K is 6P + 4E = 10

i5 12600 and below just have performance cores

[Leeghoofd]

8 hours ago, Papusan said:

I expect this is an typo?

Wow it seems already confusing for some users... small recap what we did:

12900K will have 16 cores label by Intel , 16 core number is made up of the 8 Performance and the 8 Efficient cores, 16 Cores = 8P + 8E configuration.

HWBot will allow the current K & KF SKU CPUs to be listed twice:

Once with all cores enabled so 16 cores
Once with the E cores disabled. so for the 12900K: 16-8E= 8P

Small table for the K SKU

12900K: 8P + 8E ---> 16 core ranking & 8 core ranking (E cores disabled)

12700K: 8P + 4E ---> 12 core ranking & 8 core ranking (E cores disabled)

12600K: 6P + 4E ---> 10 core ranking & 6 core ranking (E cores disabled)

 

Spot the difference between the out of the box configuration on the left

On the right it is the same cpu but with the Efficient cores disabled.

 

Meaning you have twice the fun with just one CPU

 

[speed.fastest]

Im okay if disabled e cores but score is in with original category, meaning 12900K is still in 16 cores category. My guess is maybe e cores causing cold bug or bad behaviour under cold.

[Papusan]

8 hours ago, Leeghoofd said:

Wow it seems already confusing for some users... small recap what we did:

12900K will have 16 cores label by Intel , 16 core number is made up of the 8 Performance and the 8 Efficient cores, 16 Cores = 8P + 8E configuration.

HWBot will allow the current K & KF SKU CPUs to be listed twice:

Once with all cores enabled so 16 cores
Once with the E cores disabled. so for the 12900K: 16-8E= 8P

Small table for the K SKU

12900K: 8P + 8E ---> 16 core ranking & 8 core ranking (E cores disabled)

12700K: 8P + 4E ---> 12 core ranking & 8 core ranking (E cores disabled)

12600K: 6P + 4E ---> 10 core ranking & 6 core ranking (E cores disabled)

 

Spot the difference between the out of the box configuration on the left

On the right it is the same cpu but with the Efficient cores disabled.

 

Meaning you have twice the fun with just one CPU

 

I know, sir. But both Cpu's should show all real cores in the specs. No reason to list 8 cores for 12900K and 12 for the 12700K? This just make it confusing for the people

Edit. Scrap it. 12900K is listed two places. One with 16 and one with 8?

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Papusan

[Alex@ro]

Honestly i didn't have a great laugh in ages, reading this announcement, this topic, this poll and everything that was said and discussed. I mean i am laughing not to cry, don't get me wrong, after the failures of the idiots that ran this place before it is really sad to see a matter like this popping out.

I am only going to say that there are divisions everywhere, in boxing, in olympics, in bodybuilding etc. I have yet to see Usain Bolt winning olympics then competing in a wheelchair in paralympics or whatever is it called.  

 

Oh and last thing, if i was rich enough i would pay some hackers to erase this website content and instead turn it into some LGBTQ+++ whatever social website. With explicit pics and videos of course. 

 

Seeing two teddy-bears calling themselfes daddy and having some fun is as disgusting as seeing this decision.

[Leeghoofd]

Some more Romenian luv, entertaining to say the least... seems the centre of the universe shifted to somewhere else or is it COVID to blame or even vaccine induced bitterness?  A  free to use website with really frustrated people hanging around, moaning and whining. Imagine if one had to pay .... blimey, spare us all... one wonders why nearly all the crew left...

[der8auer]

1 hour ago, Alex@ro said:

Honestly i didn't have a great laugh in ages, reading this announcement, this topic, this poll and everything that was said and discussed. I mean i am laughing not to cry, don't get me wrong, after the failures of the idiots that ran this place before it is really sad to see a matter like this popping out.

I am only going to say that there are divisions everywhere, in boxing, in olympics, in bodybuilding etc. I have yet to see Usain Bolt winning olympics then competing in a wheelchair in paralympics or whatever is it called.  

 

Oh and last thing, if i was rich enough i would pay some hackers to erase this website content and instead turn it into some LGBTQ+++ whatever social website. With explicit pics and videos of course. 

 

Seeing two teddy-bears calling themselfes daddy and having some fun is as disgusting as seeing this decision.

Happy I could make you laugh ❤️

[Alex@ro]

14 hours ago, Leeghoofd said:

Some more Romenian luv, entertaining to say the least... seems the centre of the universe shifted to somewhere else or is it COVID to blame or even vaccine induced bitterness?  A  free to use website with really frustrated people hanging around, moaning and whining. Imagine if one had to pay .... blimey, spare us all... one wonders why nearly all the crew left...

Oh...i don't give much about my country but if you judge me because of that we are going to have a big problem.  Not sure what you reffer to but i was strictly talking about this situation. 

If you really want to talk politics  i will message Xtreme Addict and he will post few pages of good political info and after reading that i am pretty sure you will never recover

So...what, i am not allowed to complain if it is free? If i send you guys 1K euro can i rant on every topic i want whenever i want? Sounds like fun  

Further on, don't make the mistake to think that because it is free people will not care. I can assure you they do, for every single damn submission affected on the road by some futile management decision, they do. 

You really are missing the point. It is a very good thing that Roman took hwbot. And also that you Alby are still here you old fart. However what is this topic about? You have real concerns and you gave a lot of thought for what? If intel's alderlake should be categorisez as a 16C, as 8C, as a 8+8 hybrid ? Let's see. Intel spec page lists it as 16 total core. Intel;s marketing reffers to it as a 16 core. It has 8 big cores with very good ipc and 8 efficiency cores which are more or less skylake. 8+8 equals 16, not 8 not 12 not whatever you disable from bios. 

What is the amazing innovation here? I fail to see. Where is the fun in disabling those poor cores. WOW, you have a brand new cpu except ...it is the same. 

Quick question. I have a 5950x and one ccd is 300 mhz better than the other. Why can't i disable the worser one and bench like a 8core.?   

 

Have fun, over&out

 

 

[Leeghoofd]

You missed the best OCer in Romenia rant thread I guess Alex... Politics, lol I don't give fluck bout those... 

We took this decision because we need to look further into the future as Intel will deliver some weird upcoming combos. Also it's an evalution in progress as stated on the front-page. If it works great, if not, these p categories might get removed 

And nope your 5950x sports the same cores... 

[der8auer]

2 hours ago, Alex@ro said:

you really are missing the point. It is a very good thing that Roman took hwbot. And also that you Alby are still here you old fart. However what is this topic about? You have real concerns and you gave a lot of thought for what? If intel's alderlake should be categorisez as a 16C, as 8C, as a 8+8 hybrid ? Let's see. Intel spec page lists it as 16 total core. Intel;s marketing reffers to it as a 16 core. It has 8 big cores with very good ipc and 8 efficiency cores which are more or less skylake. 8+8 equals 16, not 8 not 12 not whatever you disable from bios. 

What is the amazing innovation here? I fail to see. Where is the fun in disabling those poor cores. WOW, you have a brand new cpu except ...it is the same. 

 

That was my point before but I'm glad at least you saw this. If we would follow Intel marketing we would just list it as a 16c CPU. It would be very easy and no headache. But I also already know what 13900K and 14900K will probably look like and same goes for the coming AMD parts. 

It's much easier for us to start this way. If we notice we were wrong in the next 1-2 generations - just delete the category. That is pretty simple (even tho we would also get hate for that :D) but if we figure out we should've done this decision 2 generations ago, we can't travel back in time. 

Right now everybody starts the same and we will see how things change in the future.

[Alex@ro]

Ok, this has a point. However the following thesis comes. Instead of all this hassle, wouldn't it be simpler to count only the performance cores? Efficiency ones are there like some sort adjuvants to help the consumption go lower when performance is not needed. Some might say older 8cores would be in disadvantage but hey, each gen should be better than what it replaces. 

To further move one, what if tomorrow a new cpu is announced which has 8 cores but 32 threads ? Yeah, it can run 4 threads on a core, this is really not sf. Where would you put that cpu? In 8 core, 16 core or 32 category? 

[unityofsaints]

I know I am late to the party but was it considered to implement the E-cores on / E-cores off split via a drop-down instead of separate hardware categories? Subbing some 3D scores recently I realised that it's very easy to forget to switch between the two categories, which will lead to an inaccurate database over time I think and also searching for results is not easy because the search form asks you to pick one or the other. 

One idea to combat this would be to use the drop-down system used e.g. for the 555 BE already, where you have to pick if 2, 3 or 4 cores are active and you can't forget to do this because the default is blank. How hard would this be to implement? I am also thinking medium-term about more complicated core configurations like a L-core / M-core / S-core type of architecture. Here the separate hardware categories would be an even bigger pain but the dropdown would only have to be expanded by one entry. Just an idea, I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this.