Redundancy of CPU-Z

[CENS]

Hi team,

we have this incredible platform with hwbot that we mostly love and sometimes hate.
 

Train of thought:

Recently I uploaded a result with Benchmate commented by buildzoid who pointed out (and rightfully so as it is compliant with the rules) that one of my three cpu-z windows didn’t show the memory tab as I made this annoying mistake and opened up the same cpu-z tab twice. That I‘m sure happened to all of us once in the heat of the moment trying to conserve that precious score in a screenshot.

https://hwbot.org/submission/4810041_
w

 

Ah annoying! Well I re-ran it before it even got picked up by an admin the next day and put up the proper screenshot. No big deal right? 
 

However it got me thinking to the point that I wanted to write a thread to check if any of you feel a similar way.
 

So in my case described above all the relevant info about memory were present in the screenshot of our one stop shop: Benchmate. Despite the fact that we have this great tool in 2021 that has been constantly evolving over the past years which streamlines the benching experience, makes it all simple and safe we still have to open half a dozen cpu-z windows that in most cases don’t  offer any relevant additional info when used in conjunction with Benchmate. 

From a historical standpoint we’ve been using cpuz forever to monitor hardware info. However this is not history class, it’s overclocking so I don’t count an argument that is just like „we do it because we have always done it“. Let’s evaluate: Cpu-z has barely evolved at all. Same layout/gui as ever. Here is the deal: I’d be cool with it if there were like a combined window/tab with all important info in one, call it „benchmark view“ or whatever. But if it brings nothing new to the table we might just get rid of the necessity to include it in many screenshots/validations where Benchmate is used that in contrary manages to include all info in one tidy little window, simple, easy and compliant with judging requirements. 

Listen I love hwbot and XOC and it’s not a secret that it has issues attracting new users and interaction over a long period of time. It is kinda hard to see things from a new user‘s perspective after doing this for a long time but I remember at the beginning of my hwbot endeavors all the different benchmarks and their rules - it was all a bit overwhelming and intimidating eventhough I rly wanted to do it I guess at least I‘m still here right.

So working in a global hardware/software company I get the impression that hwbot needs to get a whole lot more accessible to increase the adoption rate. As we can see from the recent Corsair comp: great prices are not enough to make ppl play by our rules. Holding back highscores can’t be the solution either. Ppl these days want it easy without annoying obstacles, that’s why zoom was king over Webex and MS teams at the start of covid, that’s why ppl use windows over Linux, that’s why ppl use Apple over PC… you’re mileage may vary but I hope you get the point.
So for hwbot to stay relevant we need to attract more user’s, that might not be as hardcore. These days I’m certain the guys in charge of hwbot rely on their great connections within the industry to get us competitions with prices. We can make their lives a whole lot easier and our overclocking a whole lot more rewarding (comps with prices) a whole lot more often if hwbot managed to get more user to play the game of overclocking.

Hence I encourage you to evaluate how we can make the experience here a great one. Knocking off a new user because he forgot or didn’t know what extra windows to open which I bet happens all the time is not motivating. Or imagine you have been sitting there for hours and finally got the score you've been chasing there on the screen but CPU-Z bugs out and won't open for you to take the correct screenshot, man that sucks! The goal should be to streamline the benching process and I feel like we have the right foundation today. If it means to get rid of irrelevant bulk of tools/rules and even benchmarks that are unpopular, to make hwbot slimmer and more accessible heck then let’s stop being stubborn think outside the box and take necessary steps. 
 

Edited September 3, 2021 by CENS

[TaPaKaH]

Agreed.

Just a few things to consider:

• does BenchMate work with legacy systems? (talking WinXP and much older)
• does BenchMate require external dependencies that might hurt performance?
• does BenchMate cause a higher CPU load than CPU-Z? (opening the latter can sometimes be harder than passing Spi 32M)

[CENS]

Okay the thread makes it sound like I want to get rid of CPU-Z entirely. That is not necessarily the case. I look at scenarios where benchmate is or can be used and get's the job done. Obviously it's no point double up on monitoring. However in legacy OS situations or in situation where benchmate is not mandatory (which is the majority) you can still chose do use whatever you like if you see an advantage using CPU-Z ... I think it's just annoying if I have the option of Benchmate. I use it even for spi and it does a great job: https://hwbot.org/submission/4808812_ 

Making Benchmate mandatory in all applicable benching situations would be something I'd honestly prefer. One place to download all that you need. Somewhat more even playing field and you don't have to worry about cheating.

Atm I'd still offer ppl the option to chose. But once you are using Benchmate it should enable you to reduce the amount of windows and double checks. It's like getting vaccinated, the ones who are willing to do it can start having more freedom.

Then again do we rly want to bench on operating software older than Xp? Super old hardware and super old benchmarks? If the goal is to attract new audience I'd cut all that stuff out. 

Edited September 3, 2021 by CENS

[TerraRaptor]

37 minutes ago, TaPaKaH said:

does BenchMate work with legacy systems? (talking WinXP and much older)

No XP, there were some issues with timers in older hardware even on win7. 

So legacy should stay as it is anyway (too many things to fix/implement in benchmate to make it okay-ish for many benchmarks).

See no problems if benchmate will make things easier for "no xp support" systems. Just another change in rules to allow it.

[Splave]

Well said. Leave legacy alone, new stuff choice is up to user if they use benchmate alone or with cpuz. Score subject to review by mod either way if out of line. Should be nice to not have to delete any new users scores lol.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Splave

[Leeghoofd]

The simple answer is we will keep on using cpuz tabs on top of BM.

CPUZ tabs makes moderation way easier than to zoom in on the benchmate result.

CPUZ has legacy OS support.

 

Some questions pop to mind:

Do you know where benchmate will be in 2 years?

Your proposal will limit us to use benchmarks from the BM suite only

If we are fully dependant on one benchmark software tool and something happens from someone of the development team we will be at a deadlock...

What do we do with 3D benchmarks ? only show GPUZ ?

 

Our style of Benchmarking is not for the masses, Game benchmarks might be, but users here don't want to download Gigabytes of software that might be bugged by the usual "tweaks"

 

[Splave]

Do we know where cpuz will be in two years? If I recall the latest comps both had issues with cpuz?

 

I can get you cheap eyewear if it's too small to see ??

Edited September 3, 2021 by Splave

[CENS]

If it’s just visibility that is holding the mod team back, it’s simple, let’s ask matt to make the Benchmate summery window gui bigger ?? 
 

As I said no need to ban cpu-z entirely, especially for legacy. 
 

However if someone uses Benchmate adding in cpuz on top has nothing to offer but room for error and frustration imho.

[Leeghoofd]

Clicking 2 cpuz tabs, comon guys really... if you mess up, you mess up...

[CENS]

Clicking on a screen to open and check the stats … come one!

 

[CENS]

As I said no big deal if cpuz gets all in one window without having to waste minutes for everything to load and arrange to fit the screenshot. 

[CENS]

And the big picture is: less rules, less possibilities for error, less frustration, less obstacles for new users. 

It’s just a suggestion right, however if all stays the same we keep bleeding 

Edited September 3, 2021 by CENS

[der8auer]

From HWBot perspective I'm fine with either way, but I think we are at a point where things are already so complex that we're shooting ourselves in the foot on a daily basis. We have so many different plattforms and benchmarks that it's simply not possible to have one unique way of validation.

I'm also not a friend of changing things retrospectively. For example we could start "BM only" from Alder Lake and also ban WinXP with Alder Lake but not change older generations.

Yes, yes some will hate me when I talk about ban for the good old WinXP. However I'm with CENS, that things are very complex for new people and if they see that a 20 year old OS is required which might be older than themselves - could talk about how we handle this in future.

But again - I'm very open for changes as long as the majority of the community shares the view (same goes for the WinXP example).

[CENS]

Rolling out this change with Alderlake feels like a step in the right direction ?? So we see how it goes and adapt from there

[_mat_]

1 hour ago, Leeghoofd said:

CPUZ tabs makes moderation way easier than to zoom in on the benchmate result.

I was asked to make the result window smaller to fit the CPU-Z windows.

We can make it as big as needed!

[_mat_]

Having more time now to answer properly.

I understand the problems that I am just one guy keeping the main part alive. I do have a team, two guys doing web stuff for the validation platform (still unreleased and currently on ice due to other work arrangements we need to finance our lives) and one graphics designer. But the truth is that all you can currently see, the win application, was made by myself. For now at least.

I don't like that at all and yes, it's risky. But so is HWiNFO (Martin, 1 guy) and CPU-Z (Franck, 1 guy). HWBOT itself was basically coded by one guy as well. If you don't have the money for redundancy, you have to take the risk.

That said, early on when Roman decided to buy HWBOT we got in touch and talked about the opportunity for a cooperation or maybe even more so there is no form of competition for an already difficult niché. It did not work out at the time (guess Roman was busy, it happens), but I am still up for an official cooperation to bring overclocking and benching to a whole new level and to even out the odds that BenchMate could die from one day to the next.

In any case, my will leaves the source code of the software to Splave. I sincerely believe that he would know what to do with it.

[Mr.Scott]

7 hours ago, CENS said:

And the big picture is: less rules, less possibilities for error, less frustration, less obstacles for new users. 

 

And easier for the cheaters. That is the primary reason for all the redundant proof.

[Mr.Scott]

7 hours ago, der8auer said:

 

Yes, yes some will hate me when I talk about ban for the good old WinXP. However I'm with CENS, that things are very complex for new people and if they see that a 20 year old OS is required which might be older than themselves - could talk about how we handle this in future.

But again - I'm very open for changes as long as the majority of the community shares the view (same goes for the WinXP example).

Perfect. Throw out all the old guys that started this place in favor of the young guys that only want to push one button and run XTU and are never heard from again. 

[_mat_]

As for the CPU-Z redundancy, I really hope we can make at least a small step here.

If you already bench with BM you are already doing much more work to prove that you are not trying to fark the system and willingly take the (relatively small) impact of providing data during the run instead of afterwards. We all know that sensor information after the run can be far away from the truth, yet we take it as a baseline for all other scores. That's a thing of the past when we had no other tool at our disposal.

I thought about this for a while a few days ago and to me it feels like the right approach would be to turn the tables and let the odd scores do the work instead of putting it onto 99% of the others. We could flag scores that are out of line as "waiting for proof" and let the bencher rerun to bring additional proof so the score can be properly understood.

PS: I'm all for taking the step with Alder Lake of course.

Edited September 3, 2021 by _mat_

[_mat_]

48 minutes ago, Mr.Scott said:

Perfect. Throw out all the old guys that started this place in favor of the young guys that only want to push one button and run XTU and are never heard from again. 

It's about Alder Lake and running benchmarks on an OS that was not designed for modern platforms. I totally agree with Roman because we don't know shit about the validity of these scores, the timers used or even how stable RTC or the implementations of RTC on a modern platform is.

The only solution I can think of for legacy OS would be a separate piece of hardware with a crystal that measures the time independently of the untested OS/platform timer. To just believe that scores are not significantly skewed is very "unscientific" and should not be the standard we measure our work with.

Edited September 3, 2021 by _mat_

[Niuulh]

Only thing i want to say is, hwbot should stop thinking of legacy and move forward.

This community is so good as making drama for everything and it's not gonna change. So either hwbot keep stalling to avoid people crying for they own interest (justified or not...) or actually make things move forward.

Not even talking about BM being easier for everyone, screenshot validation always have beeing flawed. Just remember any lowclock contest ? Oh wait, any contest ?  

Imo file verification is the most trusted way for score integrity and everyone knows it, that's why hwbot always ask for files or verification links when they are dispute or suspicions.

 

Stop looking back and listen to crybabies, hwbot really need easier ways for everyone, staff and users.

[Splave]

1 hour ago, Mr.Scott said:

And easier for the cheaters. That is the primary reason for all the redundant proof.

I mean how can you cheat benchmate though? There is an actual file with all the info in it as well as the screen. You know we will catch the cheaters it's my favorite pastime here

[Mr.Scott]

Benchmate doesn't run on legacy Al, or are you in favor of throwing out legacy too?

Whatever. 

It would seem that opinions on legacy have already been made.

You will lose more long time members than you think.

No more posts from me here. 

 

 

[Splave]

13 hours ago, Splave said:

Well said. Leave legacy alone, new stuff choice is up to user if they use benchmate alone or with cpuz. Score subject to review by mod either way if out of line. Should be nice to not have to delete any new users scores lol.

scroll up mate 

[Guest endpunkt]

14 hours ago, Leeghoofd said:

Clicking 2 cpuz tabs, comon guys really... if you mess up, you mess up...

Use OC Snap app. Records cpu'z tabs, open and close easy