Sudden loss of points

[Leeghoofd]

2 hours ago, hammertone said:

Bot latest points algorithm. You saw this with latest Ryzen as it dropped Intel scores

IPC strong 12th gen so it will do it again. Go look discussions on 70% points cliff this hwbot revision.

That is the punishment. Not new architecture.

Fully correct analysis: 

A far better IPC will always shake up the rankings. Like stated before, with AL this has now happened a few months earlier than with the release of the new AMD's (expected ipc gain over 10%). This is a re-occuring effect in any competitive ranking and due to the amount of hw releases these effects are way higher than in previous years.

The 70% cut-off shall be gone in Q1 2022 and points distribution no longer percentual wise dependant on the nr1 score, resulting for lower ranked users to get more points.

 

To conclude no matter what we decide at HWBot it will never be fine for all users. There is always drama involved as users only see the individual concept of things, we have to take decisions not only for now but also for future things to come...

[Guest hammertone]

27 minutes ago, Leeghoofd said:

The 70% cut-off shall be gone in Q1 2022 and points distribution no longer percentual wise dependant on the nr1 score, resulting for lower ranked users to get more points.

Not make too easy. Should strive for better result

New Intel combo peeps if you love points keep the industrial wheels turning

[Mr.Scott]

16 hours ago, Leeghoofd said:

It is both, you get twice the fun with one chip.

Compare it with the unlockable AMD CPUs on AM3.  You bought a dual core and you could bench it in the dual, triple and even 4 core ranking (if you got a good CPU)  if it unlocked the cores. So this is not really new,

 

It's not the same comparison bro. HWBots own rules, you can core up but not core down. 

Right now, you are coring down these new chips.

[Leeghoofd]

This comparison was made to show there's already other hardware where you have the benefit of getting double or even triple points from the same hardware. Very energy consuming thread, like trying to convince a non vaxer of the benefits of a jab... 

And it is not coring down, you are disabling a cpu with different architecture on the same die. 

 

[Mr.Scott]

1 hour ago, Leeghoofd said:

 

And it is not coring down, you are disabling a cpu with different architecture on the same die. 

It's coring down.  

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Nobody is fooling anybody here.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Mr.Scott

[TASOS]

On 11/6/2021 at 9:01 AM, Leeghoofd said:

......

To conclude no matter what we decide at HWBot it will never be fine for all users. There is always drama involved as users only see the individual concept of things, we have to take decisions not only for now but also for future things to come...

True ... but

Are you talking about minority complaining or majority complaining here ?

 

Correct me if i'm wrong.

But , didnt the majority of hwbot users decited against this new ranking system , regarding this new Intel miracle cpu gen ??? (on the earlier thread).

 

Why force it ?

 

Since hwbot decited to vanish the "happy user" factor , there must be somekind of bigger "gain" elsewhere.

What would that be ? honestly asking ?

 

P.S.

Anyway ...

I really hope you wont find a way to put this Intel gen , into the single core and dual core categories.

On the other hand , why not ?

Lets trash those rare L3014 Xeons , those good cold samples of Semprons and also the legendary duals like E8600

 

Sorry Alby , sorry for being sarcastic , but i cant go along with you (meaning the hwbot) on this one.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest hammertone]

On 11/6/2021 at 6:01 PM, Leeghoofd said:

The 70% cut-off shall be gone in Q1 2022 and points distribution no longer percentual wise dependant on the nr1 score, resulting for lower ranked users to get more points.

Members miss the point. Point system will be adjusted in future

For now they are offered more benefit to run hybrid processor. Disabling of cores? Not same as main. These are gimp helping cores.

It was a similar thing as am3 sockets. x550 cpu can unlock dual to quad core.

Did notice avatar change too. Troll deodorant not working haha 

 

[denvys5]

On 11/6/2021 at 1:13 AM, Leeghoofd said:

What is the name of each core on your Pentium D?

Is core 1 running at the same clocks as core 2?

Can you OC these Pentium D cores individually?

Are both Pentium D cores based on the same technology?

Do both Pentium D cores have the same amount of threads?

Do both Pentium D cores share the same cache?

This set of questions defines what are P+E cores, okay. Change to ADL rankings is designed for future cpus in mind. 

My question is: what happens if future E-cores do not check all the requirements? For example, come in same uArch as P cores, do have same amount of threads. We can already see this happening, AMD already talking about this publicly. Looking at modern 2x CCD AMD chips, there is a clear difference between clocks and power for those 2 modules. And they can be clocked separately. In a future, as said in latest public statement, E-core is the same uArch as P-core for them, making further assumptions, maybe less frequency and less cache (like mobile chips right now)

Edited November 7, 2021 by denvys5

[Leeghoofd]

1 hour ago, TASOS said:

True ... but

Are you talking about minority complaining or majority complaining here ?

....

Sorry Alby , sorry for being sarcastic , but i cant go along with you (meaning the hwbot) on this one.

Well let me start by saying this is not only my show, this has been discussed/decided by more than one person. I was initially on the same boat as many of the people that chimed in here. But I got persuaded by valid argumentations, mainly due to things to come and HWBot is obliged to be more open to these manufacturer innovations. Remaining on the old cores level thinking will not work for these new and upcoming architectures. Moving to the threads option would be too complicated, keeping with the old core stuff will get HWBot rankings into problems next year.

As always there's a lot of resistance when something new is introduced like this or when shifting the global points or whatsoever. But does one eat the same sandwich or has sex in the same position for their entire life? 

Firstly this is a test, if it works it stays, if not it gets removed (yeah even more drama). Secondly Roman wants to do the same with all AL and new AMD CPUs, I would limit it only to the K(F) and analyze how things will go. My main reason is to protect the older legacy 2D stuff where a lot of them "happy" users still have fun.

People have to understand that boints don't last forever. Yes blood , sweat and tears gets wiped on a regular basis. People are forced to buy the latest and greatest, rebench all their 3D cards and/or focus on new benchmarks to retain their positions in the ranking. And that's my main point, most of you only see it at an individual level on what you are benching/running right now. AL CPUs are really not that expensive and there's no real requirement for DDR5 (yet) So why not do this upgrade and move on like most do ? The latter is entirely your choice, but at a certain moment you will have to decide to go along with the flow or focus on other rankings like hardware masters.

I wished the new points system was already up and running by removing the percental cut-off and doing the same for the complex algorithm dictated by the nr 1 score. Than this massive loss of points would not have happened.
Sadly Tim is only ready with some initial rankings and we have to decide on what to display yes or no, also regarding the future releases. By using this new wrapper, he's developing, we would get: 

• Less calculations being made each time a new score is added to the ranking. Thus resulting in a faster and more responsive website as now it is mainly handled by one server.
• Less error prone as the complex algorithm will be a goner.
• More boints will be given to lower ranked users.
• Rankings will get more competitive as there is no longer huge boint discrepancies between users.
   

There is also the idea to have a front page selection tab between extreme and non extreme users.
We need to have an automatic flushing cache and removal of deleted scores this to keep the Bot running on its own, without me having to remove thousands of deleted/incorrect submissions yearly.
And of course the tons of bugs that still need to be ironed out.

All the above causes massive delay on the point system that has been decided upon. Fingers crossed for a Q1 release.

 

 

[Leeghoofd]

1 hour ago, denvys5 said:

This set of questions defines what are P+E cores, okay. Change to ADL rankings is designed for future cpus in mind. 

My question is: what happens if future E-cores do not check all the requirements? For example, come in same uArch as P cores, do have same amount of threads. We can already see this happening, AMD already talking about this publicly. Looking at modern 2x CCD AMD chips, there is a clear difference between clocks and power for those 2 modules. And they can be clocked separately. In a future, as said in latest public statement, E-core is the same uArch as P-core for them, making further assumptions, maybe less frequency and less cache (like mobile chips right now)

This is the reason we are conducting this experiment, we got partial info from AMD and are aware of new Intel configurations that are right around the corner. At the moment the current path seems to be the best option. Choosing between the plague, cholera or massive flooding... no choice was the ultimate one and would create a stir whatsoever.

[speed.fastest]

This is like allowing i9 12900K/KF to competing in 2 core category with i7 7350K, this is my point. Even on the same gen is like allowing i7 7700K to compete againts i3 7350K, its same performance core but still different.

[Fasttrack]

1 hour ago, Leeghoofd said:

This is the reason we are conducting this experiment, we got partial info from AMD and are aware of new Intel configurations that are right around the corner. At the moment the current path seems to be the best option. Choosing between the plague, cholera or massive flooding... no choice was the ultimate one and would create a stir whatsoever.

You forgot corona virus Alby, lol

I most sincerely wish that HWBOT's decision will not prove wrong long term, because reversing such a decision ( with the weight it carries ), will have

a massive impact on the credibility of this site, as a reference place for overclocking. 

[Leeghoofd]

I'll play that one smart and let Roman do the announcement ?