Hardlimit test bank

[Xevipiu]

You should put a direct tab to https://bm.hardlimit.com/

[Namiga]

@cobito said

In addition, he has sent results of a Xeon X3430, but it seems that the results were not sent under optimal conditions and have been discarded by the system. This happens when there are background processes consuming CPU while the benchmark is being run. Nevertheless, if you are curious, the validations are always available and you can find them through the search engine.

Well, you are right. It is a server, and in a hurry I put w10 on it. There are no video drivers for w10... so the one from Microsoft was installed, which we know is not worth much... so it could have been that.

I will put a 2008 server on it and repeat

[Namiga]

@cobito
I've already installed the W2008 server and its drivers OK... but I can't run the HLM.
It says that a library is missing...
I've tried downloading the one you put in the link but it says it's not the right one, and in w2008 x86 I've already installed everything that's in Windows update

Error... I've already seen the problem.... it's only available for W2008 x86 without SP.
I've installed SP1 and it's installing SP2...
After that it should work... I'll let you know

[Namiga]

Ya. Por fin he podido pasar el hlbm al xeon.
Dime si son resultados coherentes

[cobito]

@namiga The problem detected is that the boost frequency is 2.6Ghz instead of the 2.8Ghz it should reach. Coincidentally (or not), those 2.6GHz is the medium load frequency, that is, when two cores are in use. I can think of two things: either there is still something consuming the core while running the benchmark or for some reason, the CPU is unable to reach the boost frequency (high temperature, some issue with the BIOS, etc.).

The truth is that I can't think of anything you can do except take a look at the BIOS settings or check if the memory is running at the correct frequency. But I think it's too much work if it's just to send good results.

Regarding the results in these cases, they are usually reliable in multi-threaded. The problem is that the benchmark in single-threaded mode was run at 2.6GHz and that is not representative of this model. That's why they are automatically discarded from the model's datasheet. In the same way, when overclocking the processor, those results are not used to get the model's score but appear in a specific zero ranking for each datasheet.

[Namiga]

@cobito OK. I will check the Bios, see if I see anything strange and repeat the test

[cobito]

@xevipiu said in Hardlimit Test Bank:

You should put a direct tab to https://bm.hardlimit.com/

Note taken. The program's development cycle is slower than the central's because the process of releasing each new version between compilations, quality control, and sending the executable to antivirus developers to add it to their whitelists is too slow to incorporate just a couple of changes.

@QVENGADOR I've expanded the space for the username in the signature, so it no longer overlaps with the results table.

@namiga said in Hardlimit Test Bank:

@cobito OK. I'll check the Bios, see if I see anything strange and repeat the test

thanks

[cobito]

@Xevipiu brings us a micro fresh out of the oven: a Ryzen 7 2700X.

It would have been interesting to compare it with the 1700X, but the results that exist are either from AMD or not passed under optimal conditions and have been discarded. But we have other Zens in the database that serve perfectly as a reference. For the 1800X, the 2700X is 8-10% faster, so although the difference is practically imperceptible, it is noticeable that Zen+ has improved a step compared to its predecessor. It should be noted that the change from the 0.014µm process to the 0.012µm process has allowed an increase in frequency and indeed, the 2700X runs 300MHz faster than the 1800X (although with an increase of 10W in its TDP). With this, we can conclude that in the comparison of Zen+ vs Zen, the architecture itself has not brought any improvement since the performance/frequency ratio is the same for both generations. In this aspect, it seems that Zen+ is more of a "tick" step (in Intel terminology) than an architecture change.

Continuing with the previous Zens, the 1600X is left far behind not only by generation but also by range (6 cores vs 8).

If we compare it with Intel micros, the closest one we have data for is the i7-8700, which can be said that with its 300Mhz extra over the Ryzen 7, it is barely able to outperform in single-thread in programs optimized in AVX2. With its 6 cores, it is unable to compete with Zen+ and its 8 cores in multi-thread. It is interesting to note that at this point, the performance per MHz of the Coffe-Lake (Intel's 8th generation) in AVX2 programs is considerably better than that of the second generation of Zens.

[Xevipiu]

The performance of the 2700x is terrible!

[kynes]

@xevipiu said in Hardlimit Test Bank:

The performance of the 2700x is terrible!

Do you mean it, or is it ironic?

[Namiga]

@cobito said in Hardlimit Test Bench:

@namiga The problem detected is that the boost frequency is 2.6Ghz instead of the 2.8Ghz it should reach. Coincidentally (or not), those 2.6GHz is the medium load frequency, that is, when two cores are in use. I can think of two things: either there is still something consuming the core while the test bench is running, or for some reason, the CPU is unable to reach the boost frequency (high temperature, some issue with the BIOS, etc.).

To be honest, I can't think of anything you can do except take a look at the BIOS settings or check if the memory is running at the correct frequency. But I think it's too much work if it's just to send good results.

Regarding the results in these cases, they are usually reliable in multi-threaded tests. The problem is that the mon-threaded test bench was run at 2.6GHz and that is not representative of this model. That's why they are automatically discarded from the model's datasheet. In the same way, when the processor is overclocked, those results are not used to calculate the model's score but appear in a specific zero ranking for each datasheet.

Well, I haven't seen anything special in the BIOS. Just a section related to cooling, which was already set to "performance"...

I'm attaching screenshots of the computer at rest and after the test

and here almost finished

As you can see, the processor is always at 2.5Ghz... not 2.40, even when all 4 cores are at 100%...
strange... and there's no OC... it's a server ?

[cobito]

@namiga Indeed, I had made a mistake. The frequency that has been measured is not 2.6Ghz but 2.56GHz (taking into account the measurement error, it is the 2.52GHz specified by Intel at full load) which is the frequency with the 4 cores occupied, not at half load as I had said.

But that is not the normal behavior of that processor. According to Intel, it should reach 2.8GHz with the use of a single core. The frequency table is as follows:
2800 MHz (1 core in use)
2667 MHz (2 cores)
2533 MHz (3 or 4 cores)

I imagine it will be some limitation that HP has put in its configuration, or SpeedStep is disabled in the BIOS.

[Namiga]

@cobito well I assure you that the processor speed is always the same.
In single and multi...

So it will be a matter of HP and the BIOS

[cobito]

A few hours ago @kynes has posted a fairly recent portable micro: an i7-8550U that ranks in the top10 overall for stock frequency single-threaded.

Its nomenclature indicates that the nominal frequency is 1.8GHz but the boost frequency goes to a not insignificant 4GHz. In summary, it is a 4-core Kaby Lake with HT whose abysmal difference between boost and nominal frequency gives us a misleading first impression regarding performance. As mentioned, it is in the top10 single-threaded (ranked 7 to be more precise) and despite having a number of cores in line with its i7 nomenclature, it drops to 15th place in multithreaded.

If we look at the data, we see that its multithreaded performance in AVX2 mode is 2.6 times its single-threaded performance and if we go to FPU performance, the speed in multithreaded only doubles the single-threaded. That is, its 4 physical cores and 8 logical cores are closer to being a mirage than a reality.

With these peculiar results in hand, it is impossible to find similar micros since previous generations for which we have data are much more balanced in terms of their operating frequencies. If I am not mistaken, I would say that Intel has released a model with performance very different from what we are used to.

With this characteristic micro, I can't help but wonder if there is a real technical reason why Intel has decided to materialize these characteristics or if it is really a ploy. That is, what is the point of quadrupling the number of cores and adding HT to achieve 2-2.6 times the performance of one of them?

Intel has not disclosed all the technical information. We do not know its frequencies at half load (it would be very damaging and quite absurd that using only 2 cores, they would be reduced to only 1.8GHz).

Perhaps its owner can give us his point of view since from here everything seems a bit confusing.

As a positive note, I cannot overlook one of the most interesting things: it has a TDP of only 15W.

[kynes]

It is a "complicated" micro in the sense that those 15W greatly limit its capacity. When you look at a program like throttlestop at the reasons that are limiting the frequency, it is continuously jumping the maximum power alert, or the amperage one. If you allow it to go up to 45W, it will certainly give a very high performance, but that is what it has to be able to use it in an ultrabook.

Playing around with it a bit, after undervolting it, I managed to increase the performance in multithreading by about 15-20%. It is for office work, it is not essential that it is the most powerful equipment, but it is a shame how tamed this micro comes.

[kynes]

Let's see if I have some time later and I try frequencies with 1-2-4-8 threads, and with OCCT.

PS: It's not exact, but a quick approximation:
One thread: 3.9-4 GHz.
Two threads: 3.2-3.4 GHz.
Three threads: 3-3.1 GHz.
Four threads: 2.8-2.9 GHz.
Six threads: 2.4-2.6 GHz.
Eight threads: 2-2.3 GHz.

Come on, what you gain with extra threads, you almost lose due to the drop in performance per thread, a lot of engine but little gasoline.

[cobito]

@kynes said in Hardlimit Test Bench:

Let's see if I have some time later and I test frequencies with 1-2-4-8 threads, and with OCCT.

PS: It's not exact, but a quick approximation:
One thread: 3.9-4 GHz.
Two threads: 3.2-3.4 GHz.
Three threads: 3-3.1 GHz.
Four threads: 2.8-2.9 GHz.
Six threads: 2.4-2.6 GHz.
Eight threads: 2-2.3 GHz.

Come on, what you gain with extra threads, you almost lose it because of the performance drop per thread, a lot of engine but little gasoline.

I hadn't read the edition. To be honest, I find it a bit strange that there are frequency changes with more than 4 threads. The numbers more or less add up, although if it's true that when it uses HT it lowers the frequencies, it's possible that without HT the micro would perform better. Maybe if we pass the test bench with only 4 threads we'll find out.

On another note, @Namiga is back with another U model: an i7-6600U.

There are only valid validations in FPU mode since load was detected during the execution of the rest of the tests. This CPU has little to highlight and is being the typical processor of this series: 2 cores, HT, 4Mb of cache and a TDP of 15W.

As in recent months I've been getting by with an i7-5500U, I know what I'm talking about: These models don't deserve to be labeled as i7 (almost not even i5). Their performance is sufficient for office work, browsing and basic tasks, but with only 2 cores and such a tight TDP, it's very difficult to get much out of it.

In the case of Namiga's 6600U, with the data available, it can be said that it's similar to my 5500U with the difference that it runs at slightly higher frequency. Personally, I find the nomenclature misleading and seeing what they've done with the 8000 series that Kynes presented us (doubling the number of cores for nothing), it becomes increasingly clear to me that the U's are a bunch of nonsense. If at least the nomenclature were in line with what they offer, they would have a good pass.

[Namiga]

In all the years I've been doing this, I've never been able to understand Intel's u series.
Low voltage, low consumption... Okay... But I just don't see the point of having a low-power i7..... Having a high-performance CPU with low consumption is a dream... But the u series are not, not even close, high-performance CPUs.

They are marketing leftovers.

That processor, according to cpuz, is 30% of my 4790k.... I don't see the logic

Sixth-generation CPU.... And low clock speed... What's the logic?... Absurd logic, perhaps...

[kynes]

@cobito said in Hardlimit test bench:

I hadn't read the edition. The truth is that I find it a bit strange that there are frequency changes with more than 4 threads. The accounts add up more or less although if it's true that when it pulls HT it lowers the frequencies, it's possible that without HT the micro performs better. Maybe if you pass the test bench with only 4 threads we'll find out.

The result of the test with 4 threads was approximately 5-7% lower than with 8 threads. I no longer have access to the laptop, so I can't validate a result, but the difference was ridiculous.

[Namiga]

Hello @cobito.

I'm using an old laptop to run the benchmark, and this is what I get...

There's no way to see what's missing

Best regards