Hardlimit test bank

[cobito]

@Xevipiu Ok, the source of the failure should be the same as that of krampak. The more modern the processor, the more screwed it is. I have a solution in mind that I hope will work.

By the way @krampak, I've seen the result of the 7500 and that of the 6500 and notice the mmt ratio of the 7500: in tests 1 and 2 it gives around 0.8. That's very low for not having Hyperthreading. In contrast, the 6500 comes out above 0.9 in all cases (except test 3) which are normal values (for not having HT). Just like in yesterday's Xeon, in that 7500 you have something consuming CPU when the benchmark is running; that's why it gave a worse result than the 6500.

Basically the mmt ratio should give above 0.9 (close to 1) in micros without HT and above 0.5 in micros with HT. If it comes out less, something is interfering.

[krampak]

@cobito said in Hardlimit test bench:

@Xevipiu Ok, the source of the failure must be the same as that of krampak. The more modern the processor, the more fucked it is. I have a solution in mind that I hope will work.

By the way @krampak, I've seen the result of the 7500 and that of the 6500 and look at the mmt ratio of the 7500: in tests 1 and 2 it's around 0.8. That's very low for not having Hyperthreading. In contrast, the 6500 comes out above 0.9 in all cases (except test 3) which are normal values (for not having HT). Just like in yesterday's Xeon, in that 7500 you have something consuming CPU when the test bench is running; that's why it gave a worse result than the 6500.

Basically the mmt ratio should be above 0.9 (close to 1) in micros without HT and above 0.5 in micros with HT. If it comes out less, something is interfering.

Now it has come out at 0.96 (except test 3 which gives very little), even so there is very little difference with the 6500 despite taking out 200Mhz and a generation. I'm talking about Modo0, I can't compare the other because I've passed ModoVI to the 7500 (after seeing that Xevipiu passed in VI, now I understand so much difference. If I can, I'll go passing VI to the old ones).

[Xevipiu]

@Cobito The MAD can fail due to its multiplier that scales from x0.25 to x0.25, for example: 100.4 x 40.25 = failure yesterday its real frequency reading.

Also, when the application starts, it doesn't read the real one, but the startup one

I hope it helps you

[Fassou]

@cobito Data from the last test on hlbm.exe 1.0.5

https://bm.hardlimit.com/result.php?bm=49474e66f4e94dce583921ba03045b73153

Summary:

3200Mhz nominal of the model Vs 3199Mhz in app
3600Mhz by CPU-Z Vs 3611Mhz in HLBM Central

Much more approximate :thumbsup_tone1:

[cobito]

There is a new version that I hope will fix the frequency measurement errors. I think it is calibrated a bit low (maybe it gives you a measured frequency slightly below the real one). I don't have PCs on hand to be able to do all the tests I need, so over time I will correct it.

[cobito]

Bueno, after testing the latest version with various platforms and generations, the frequency reading should work correctly in any scenario (with an error <3%). If there is nothing very serious before next week, there will be no more changes this summer.

[cobito]

Performance statistics have been added to the datasheets for each model. You can see an example here.

[Xevipiu]

Much better now.
Is there a way to output the LOG of all processes while they are running?

[cobito]

@Xevipiu In the first post of this thread you can see that it is at the top of the list of things to do. I have my reservations about giving details during the execution but sooner or later there will be at least some information about the progress. The when is what I don't know.

[Namiga]

Hello very much @cobito and other users...

I just passed the latest version on my I7... and I see very strange things...

I'll pass you a screenshot.
The one on the left is with the Antivirus activated (BitDefender), the ones on the right, consecutive and antivirus deactivated...

Very variable results...

What can this be due to?

Best regards

[cobito]

@Namiga It looks like there's something besides the antivirus that's sucking up processor power. You can try opening task manager > show processes from all users and sort the list by "CPU" usage. When you're running the multi-threaded test, there will be 8 hlbm-core processes each consuming 12-13%. The rest of the processes should consume 0. If during execution you see that some other process is taking time away from some hlbm-core, there you have the culprit.

[Namiga]

@cobito said in Hardlimit Test Bank:

@Namiga It looks like there's something besides the antivirus that's eating up the processor. You can try opening task manager > show processes from all users and sort the list by "CPU" usage. When the multi-thread test is running, there will be 8 hlbm-core processes each consuming 12-13%. The rest of the processes should consume 0. If during execution you see that another process is taking time away from any hlbm-core, then you've found the culprit.

Well, as always :), you were right...
I just ran it again and it gives me better values than before... I had to close some widgets, Dropbox and Drive... and there's a task from the Intel Management system... that I can't close and that can eat up to 10% of the CPU...
But even so, the multi-thread Test 3 doesn't come out well precisely.... 6671

but improving...

Thanks

P.D.: By the way... Does the central give good results?? I say this because in Monothread the maximum is 47709 from Xevipiu and my i7 gives 42419 and I don't appear in the Top 10... but if an E8400 does

[cobito]

@Namiga The thing about background processes interfering is something I've thought about. One possibility would have been to run the processes with a high priority. The problem is that this would block the PC during the execution of the benchmark. As what is normally wanted is to obtain the best possible result, I have faith that it will be the user who takes action about it. In the end, with the result validated, it is easy to realize if everything went well during execution (eg mmt ratio less than 0.5 (except in test#3) in micros with HT indicates problems).

The memory test (test#3) is normal to give even worse results in multithreading due to the fact of sharing cache and that the bandwidth of the memory does not increase proportionally to the number of threads. To improve it, you only have to tinker with the RAM.

I see the central results as correct. You are in position 10 of the single-threaded test but I think you are aiming for the Top10 in Mode 0. Below you have the absolute Top tens.

[Xevipiu]

How is the topic going?

[cobito]

@Xevipiu after the summer break, I will resume it in a couple of weeks.

[cobito]

A new version is now available for download that displays information during the execution of the test suite. There may be some visual errors with many threads. Aesthetics are not a priority at the moment, so those kinds of things will be fixed later.

[cobito]

Now models similar to the one shown in the datasheet for each CPU appear. Both multi-core and single-core comparisons are shown in all available modes. 3 micros appear above and another 3 below.

Example

[cobito]

A processor comparator has been included. When you enter two models, a table will appear comparing the specifications, performance, and some statistics. If the models entered are too ambiguous, a list will appear in which to choose which exact model you want to compare.

This time, it is not necessary to have results to compare two processors. If there are no results, the specifications will be shown. The list of available models is very wide; between Intel and AMD there are about 2700 models available, although not all are (this was a chore that I did about a year ago for a project that I had in mind very different from the test bench, but in the end this has come out that I think is more interesting).

Example

[Magog]

I was doing some tests... is it normal that the Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.83GHz from hAyO has a better result in Mode0 Mono than a Xeon X5660 at almost 4 GHz?

Best regards.

[cobito]

@Magog Has a worse performance in mode 0 but in sse3 it surpasses it and both work at a similar frequency. The two results seem reliable and the differences especially in test 2 are important. It seems that your Xeon is quite slower than the q9550 when running unoptimized software (mainly in floating point).