Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

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


der8auer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :P

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :P

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Crew
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...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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;

 

4m8c.thumb.png.9f8a5ad75242913e86fc8efa0900faae.png

4m4c.thumb.png.618d485e2835d4b2e98203a63b1cf4db.png

2m4c.thumb.png.9069a26c67c1d5392e27a547df3a75aa.png

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Crew
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

ALDERLAKEPOST.jpg

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

 

Meaning you have twice the fun with just one CPU

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

ALDERLAKEPOST.jpg

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 by Papusan
  • Haha 1
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...