Hardlimit test bank

[cobito]

@kynes Well that was expected. I will investigate it.

By the way, I will end up deleting that result.

[kynes]

@cobito Damn, I can't use it as a signature anymore

[cobito]

The problem seems to be due to a failure in the synchronization of the execution of the processes. It appears mainly on slower PCs. For the moment I have patched the issue by limiting the maximum number of threads to at most twice the detected threads. In order to continue sharing results, you need to download the new version.

[Xevipiu]

My best friends are inside the Hwbot Staff, I can pass them the application so they can take a look

[cobito]

@Xevipiu That would be great. The more of us that participate, the more useful it will be for everyone when it comes to making comparisons.

[Xevipiu]

What I miss is a process LOG interface, so the wait wouldn't be so boring

[cobito]

@Xevipiu Tomo nota.

I have rewritten the frequency meter from scratch. If someone with OC would be so kind as to test it, I would appreciate it.

[Fassou]

@cobito Better, but it shows the serial clock, rather than the active

[cobito]

There is a new version of the program that, this time yes, should detect the actual frequency of the processor.

[Fassou]

@cobito It's clear that my processor is a rebel

That said, it takes about ten seconds to close the program, thinking :thinking:

[Sylver]

@Fassou Well blessed are you. It took me about a minute or more

[cobito]

The frequency meter has a small error that will be corrected. Regarding the boot time, yes, it needs to be improved. For now, it should take around 10 seconds.

[Xevipiu]

In processors that are not 100% natics to AVX2, their execution would have to be capped, since it sounds like a hedge the score

[cobito]

@Xevipiu What do you mean by processors that are not 100% native to AVX2?

[Xevipiu]

@cobito said in Hardlimit test bench:

@Xevipiu What do you mean by processors that are not 100% native to AVX2?

There are processors that do not use the instructions 100%, but when they do, they give result inaccuracies.
But leaving this aside, using AVX vs AVX2, the results are abysmal.

You would have to cap them according to the instructions of each processor to go well, don't you think?

[cobito]

@Xevipiu I still don't understand. What do you mean by there are processors that don't use instructions at 100%? The benchmark is designed to do 4 tests: two of the SIMD type (where having AVX for example will improve the results), one of memory (where more cache and/or faster memory will give you better results) and a generic test whose result has little dependence on the instruction set.

If you want to compare two processors under equal conditions, you just have to pass the benchmark in the same mode for both. If you don't have a result in the same mode, you can look at test#4 to get an idea.

The operations that are executed in all modes are exactly the same. If in a processor in FPU mode it gives you 1000 points in test#1 and changing to AVX2 mode it gives you 15000 points it simply means that for the vector calculation of integers, AVX2 multiplies by 15 in performance. That is the reality. Another matter is that then you are not going to run multimedia software or games and you don't care about vector instructions. In that case, once again, you either have test#4 or the complete benchmark in a lower mode.

One of the objectives of HLBM is precisely to evaluate how much the recent sets improve performance and also how optimized the older sets are in current CPUs.

As I understand it, what you are asking is that I weigh the results of higher modes so that the final result is similar to the execution in a lower mode? In that case it wouldn't make sense to have the possibility of evaluating the performance of recent sets.

[Xevipiu]

For whom I go, if it is in the sense of evaluating the differences between instructions, what was said makes sense

[cobito]

@Xevipiu Let's see, the benchmark is very versatile and serves for many things. Among other things, it serves to evaluate:
· Instruction sets (with different modes)
· Implementations of Hyperthreading and SMT: in the results you can see the score per execution thread in the multithread test. If the micro has HT or SMT, the closer this result is to the monothread result, the better HT or SMT the micro has. If that result is closer to 50% of the monothread result, the worse HT/SMT it has.
· Amount and speed of cache memory (test#3).
· Comparison of processors to do a specific task: using the same mode on both micros or comparing test#4.
· Comparison of processors in general: using the highest possible mode.

That is to say, it is not a benchmark only to evaluate a micro with a generic and bland bench. You have much more information and with it you can know how well or badly a model goes for a multitude of tasks.

Now, it is true that in the ranking there are results that are disproportionate with respect to micros that are not so much slower, just because some support AVX2 and others do not. And in the real world, the difference between both models is not so abysmal. That is why it is also good that tests are passed in lower modes (even if the result is not for the top) because it is the best way to make more reliable comparisons.

When there are more results, a new top will appear only for mode 0. There the sieve will take out a few that are now in the first positions. But in order to be able to get that kind of statistics (and others) it is still necessary that more results are sent.

[Xevipiu]

I left you the result of a crappy MAD, the truth is that it disappoints me for what they are, I hope that the next generation will measure up

[cobito]

@Xevipiu The first Ryzen! Well, in multi-threading it seems to have eaten krampak's xeon. Although compared to the 7700K in single-threading, it pulls 10% less performance per MHz. There it really has stuck.