Intel wants reviewers to benchmark using windows media player instead of cinebench for low end mobile

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

You'd be amazed how bad some IT departments are at identifying/getting the correct/reasonable hardware.

 

Whether it be the fault of the IT department being incompetent or whoever places the order not listening to the IT department's recommendation.

I need a 8700 and 32GB ram to use word and excel, *approved*

[The King of the Undead]

lets benchmark intel cpu's with zombieload and spectre! it is the only relistic one!

[pas008]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

You're talking about the security concerns correct? Those are all fixable. Intel disabling HT on i5's etc is product segmentation so create cheaper products.

ok and product stack

thought there was maybe some new light on something i missed

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Easy

C/T

8/16

6/12

4/8

4/4

Easy now, not so much when they only had 4 core products, bit easier with 6. Of course when they only had 4 core products they could have had less unlocked products and down clocked i5's more and done it that way.

[Sauron]

17 minutes ago, pas008 said:

you have reliable article/link on them having to remove/disable ht on many products

I think he means they have been releasing high end cpus without HT

[Arika]

Reviewers should be using mutile different kinds of programs when benchmarking a CPU, if they only use cinebench, then they are a bad reviewer. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I think he means they have been releasing high end cpus without HT

yep, but not just high end, it is about all Intel can do at the moment to provide something that resembles an alternative to the 3600.

 

 

[The King of the Undead]

1 minute ago, Arika S said:

Reviewers should be using mutile different kinds of programs when benchmarking a CPU, if they only use cinebench, then they are a bad reviewer. 

totally agree! so lets use spectre./s

[Sauron]

Just now, mr moose said:

yep, but not just high end, it is about all Intel can do at the moment to provide something that resembles an alternative to the 3600.

yeah but mid end chips have been without HT for years

[rcmaehl]

Anyone know how to enable the benchmark on Notepad?

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

yeah but mid end chips have been without HT for years

my 3550 was 4 core 4 thread, but with so many product lines in the low end market it was never really necessary. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

I mean... I don't disagree with testing what actually matters for potential buyers, but I don't see these suggestions favoring Intel: the results would be "everything works great, get the cheapest possible"  

[LAwLz]

Seems like a pretty misleading title for this thread, no?

Intel want more focus on real world performance in applications general users actually run, rather than synthetic benchmarks.

I totally understand their point. How well a processor performs at Photoshop, WinRAR, web browsing and the likes is far more relevant to buyers than how well it performs at some synthetic benchmark like Cinebench.

 

But I think both holds value. Real world tests like the ones Intel wants more focus on directly translates to how well it actually performs for customers in those programs. I mostly use my computer for web browsing, so how a processor performs for web browsing is more important than how it performs in some synthetic benchmark which doesn't test real world workloads.

But at the same time, synthetic tests gives a much better picture of general performance, if done properly. Just because a processor performs well at let's say WinRAR doesn't mean it will perform well at Photoshop. However, if a processor performs well in lots of synthetic tests then you can be fairly safe to assume that it will perform well in real world workloads too.

[bcredeur97]

Is it just me or is cinebench actually one of the most fair tests out there?? You’re just rendering a picture...

[mr moose]

25 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

Is it just me or is cinebench actually one of the most fair tests out there?? You’re just rendering a picture...

I've always thought it was, but the question is how many end users actually do any rendering? so it's accuracy is not actually in question, but it's relevancy to the end user is.

 

I think the article itself failed in explaining why different tests have different results for CPU's,  They were right in that the tests aren't designed to favor one chip over another, but their lack of focus on the fact that different processors will perform differently naturally was concerning.  The most obvious reason one brand does better over another is because of the difference of the CPU design and not the way the test was set up. But for some reason people automatically want to assume an intentional bias which leads them to ignore important things like the tests actual relevance to the end user. 

 

I think they chose chrome because that is the most used web browser, is that relevant to me who uses FF or someone else who uses safari?  not really, but it does better reflect a larger portion of end users actual usage.

[williamcll]

But what if AMD beats intel in office application benchmarks?

[XenosTech]

3 hours ago, 79wjd said:

You'd be amazed how bad some IT departments are at identifying/getting the correct/reasonable hardware.

 

Whether it be the fault of the IT department being incompetent or whoever places the order not listening to the IT department's recommendation.

Me telling the manager at my first job not to order any modern day system with less than 8gb of RAM and showed him how much of the 16gb of RAM my system used with the same applications the client had running on their systems. He looks at me and saying because I have double the RAM I recommended that it was a rubbish comparison and still bought the 4gb system. You know the client still complained about the same memory issue they were running into

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

I need a 8700 and 32GB ram to use word and excel, *approved*

To be fair, way back in the day, spell check was kind of a benchmark of sorts. There was actually an external spell check device actually.

 

Excel with that ray trace spreadsheet would make for an intriguing benchmark. That spreadsheet used a good chunk of RAM when I ran it on a work pc here.

 

[cj09beira]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I'm not sure i understand the hate here,  If we look at the development difference between Intel and AMD over the last decade,  AMD have been very multi core and multi thread process heavy in their development aiming for the power user.  Intel have been directly improving single thread with more focus on HT than more cores.  It is obvious Intel have been aiming at providing for the majority of consumers and thus don't appreciate that those efforts are not reflected in most bench marking. 

 

I think had the CPU been on the other foot and benchmarks were ignoring the areas where AMD excels and they wanted a more broad review process it would be a very fair request.  

 

But lets be honest, this only applies to production workloads and general office work, there is no other way to accurately benchmark a CPU in gaming situations and Intel are already on top there.

its fair to say they are more multi core than intel, but that seems to be more of a intel is milking consumers thing than different paths to performance improvements

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Seems like a pretty misleading title for this thread, no?

Intel want more focus on real world performance in applications general users actually run, rather than synthetic benchmarks.

I totally understand their point. How well a processor performs at Photoshop, WinRAR, web browsing and the likes is far more relevant to buyers than how well it performs at some synthetic benchmark like Cinebench.

 

But I think both holds value. Real world tests like the ones Intel wants more focus on directly translates to how well it actually performs for customers in those programs. I mostly use my computer for web browsing, so how a processor performs for web browsing is more important than how it performs in some synthetic benchmark which doesn't test real world workloads.

But at the same time, synthetic tests gives a much better picture of general performance, if done properly. Just because a processor performs well at let's say WinRAR doesn't mean it will perform well at Photoshop. However, if a processor performs well in lots of synthetic tests then you can be fairly safe to assume that it will perform well in real world workloads too.

there is also the fact that software is more often than not behind hardware, so synthetics are sometimes the only way to see what its able to do, and its useful as something other devs should strive for (looking at you adobe)

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I've always thought it was, but the question is how many end users actually do any rendering? so it's accuracy is not actually in question, but it's relevancy to the end user is.

 

I think the article itself failed in explaining why different tests have different results for CPU's,  They were right in that the tests aren't designed to favor one chip over another, but their lack of focus on the fact that different processors will perform differently naturally was concerning.  The most obvious reason one brand does better over another is because of the difference of the CPU design and not the way the test was set up. But for some reason people automatically want to assume an intentional bias which leads them to ignore important things like the tests actual relevance to the end user. 

 

I think they chose chrome because that is the most used web browser, is that relevant to me who uses FF or someone else who uses safari?  not really, but it does better reflect a larger portion of end users actual usage.

wasn't this in the same presentation about the new caskade lake cpus though, who needs a 16+ core cpu and only uses it for light workloads

[Blademaster91]

34 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I've always thought it was, but the question is how many end users actually do any rendering? so it's accuracy is not actually in question, but it's relevancy to the end user is.

 

I think the article itself failed in explaining why different tests have different results for CPU's,  They were right in that the tests aren't designed to favor one chip over another, but their lack of focus on the fact that different processors will perform differently naturally was concerning.  The most obvious reason one brand does better over another is because of the difference of the CPU design and not the way the test was set up. But for some reason people automatically want to assume an intentional bias which leads them to ignore important things like the tests actual relevance to the end user. 

 

I think they chose chrome because that is the most used web browser, is that relevant to me who uses FF or someone else who uses safari?  not really, but it does better reflect a larger portion of end users actual usage.

Yeah I agree with you there, IMO Cinebench is one of the more realistic CPU rendering tests, but I spend most of the time on my desktop at home using a browser. If I needed a CPU for rendering I would want to see both synthetic and real tests, I don't use Chrome either but at least that gives me more of an idea how a system would perform in actual daily tasks.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Excel with that ray trace spreadsheet would make for an intriguing benchmark. That spreadsheet used a good chunk of RAM when I ran it on a work pc here.

I made a spreadsheet for inventory tracking of uniforms etc for a school client, did A LOT of lookups/scans and comparisons etc. Each time it reprocessed a change in data 100% CPU for a couple of minutes. Saved heaps of admin time but it's the most demanding excel document I've made lol.

[ARikozuM]

I've been arguing this for a long time. While it doesn't seem like a lot of work for few results, it does add an extra layer of difference in results for real-world uses, much like using games for tests. 

[Drak3]

Intel should do one better. Push Microsoft to bring back the User Experience Index from past Windows releases.

[Zodiark1593]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I made a spreadsheet for inventory tracking of uniforms etc for a school client, did A LOT of lookups/scans and comparisons etc. Each time it reprocessed a change in data 100% CPU for a couple of minutes. Saved heaps of admin time but it's the most demanding excel document I've made lol.

Worth of cpu time <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< worth of employee time.

 

I'm rather curious as to how well mobile devices can hold up to heavier Excel workloads. Would an identical spreadsheet across different platforms represent something close to an Apples to Apples comparison?

[Andreas Lilja]

5 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

They should bench minesweeper instead of crysis.

RTX minesweeper when?