Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

infinitytec

Member
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Funny
    infinitytec reacted to Egg-Roll in LTT Official Folding Month 2020!!!   
    They mean November 15nd aka the day that never exists on Earth, aka you are stuck in the event forever.
     
    Enjoy your stay in purgatory
  2. Like
    infinitytec got a reaction from piratemonkey in LTT Official Folding Month 2020!!!   
    Let's do this!
  3. Agree
    infinitytec reacted to GDRRiley in If Chrome became a $5/month subscription, would you pay for it?   
    I've moved off of chrome for at least a year now. Firefox is so nice
  4. Like
    infinitytec got a reaction from Gegger in LTT Official Folding Month 2020!!!   
    Let's do this!
  5. Agree
    infinitytec reacted to AMDeeznuts in United States. Tell me the pride of your state.   
    Ive lived in kansas for almost my whole life, (moved to CA for a few years, just...dont go there.) After being there from 17-20 years of age I really appreciate our cost of living out here. And the general quality of people is much more kind and down to earth. Idk if id say its awesome. Theres nothing super amazing about it, but theres nothing bad either. If someone needed a place where jobs are somewhat available, non-expensive cost of living, and definitely likes the idea of small town living, for sure come here. If you dont like constant weather changes, lots of small towns and countryside, maybe dont come here. Interesting tidbit, its honestly not as flat as everyone makes it out to be. Its pretty flat in some areas, but not as much as people make it seem. Dunno whos interested, but I needed something to do while on the throne.
  6. Like
    infinitytec got a reaction from GOTSpectrum in LTT Official Folding Month 2020!!!   
    Let's do this!
  7. Like
    infinitytec reacted to GOTSpectrum in LTT Folding Team's Emergency Response to Covid-19   
    But if I see a good deal on a 2070 or my tax rebate ends up being more than I thought it will be a 2070 replacing that 980 for sure!
     
    Just to rub some more salt into that wound 
  8. Like
    infinitytec reacted to GOTSpectrum in LTT Folding Team's Emergency Response to Covid-19   
    That 980 will be getting replaced with another 2060 or 2070 at some point this year if all goes well
  9. Like
    infinitytec got a reaction from GOTSpectrum in LTT Folding Team's Emergency Response to Covid-19   
    That's pretty nice! Gives me an idea of what I need for next time
  10. Like
    infinitytec got a reaction from x17andrew71x in LTT Folding Team's Emergency Response to Covid-19   
    Over the last 13 days I got 350 WUs.
  11. Like
    infinitytec got a reaction from GOTSpectrum in LTT Folding Team's Emergency Response to Covid-19   
    Not too bad for my first time folding!
     
    (I did start a few days earlier but this was my first event)
  12. Like
    infinitytec got a reaction from Koppa315 in LTT Folding Team's Emergency Response to Covid-19   
    Not too bad for my first time folding!
     
    (I did start a few days earlier but this was my first event)
  13. Agree
    infinitytec reacted to GOTSpectrum in LTT Folding Team's Emergency Response to Covid-19   
    Rapid blog post, shorter than usual due to my PC issues!
  14. Agree
    infinitytec reacted to Shigeru in LTT Folding Team's Emergency Response to Covid-19   
    I suppose what they come and go? One of my machines picked up a unit half and hour ago or something like that.
     
    But again, as was post in twitter...

  15. Funny
    infinitytec reacted to thorhammerz in UserBenchmark Adjusts Algorthym to Favor Single-Thread Performance, Causing Strange Results   
    Don't worry, they will... when someone's willing to foot the R&D bill (as well as retraining involved) for game engines and developers to fully utilize those 12-16 cores (24-32 threads).
     
    Perhaps they'll fund-raise with more surprise mechanics? ?
  16. Informative
    infinitytec got a reaction from Ben17 in UserBenchmark Adjusts Algorthym to Favor Single-Thread Performance, Causing Strange Results   
    UserBenchmark.com has adjusted the algorithm for how the overall performance of a CPU is calculated.
     
    Previously, single-core performance made up 30% of the result, quad-core made up 60%, and the final 10% was reserved for "multicore" performance. This was calculated so that an Intel Core i7-7700K would equal approximately 100% score.
     
    The new scoring places the i9-9900K at the 100% mark, but also changes the makeup of the balancing of the scores. Single-core scoring now accounts for 40% of the result, and quad-core score takes a hit down to providing 57% of the score. Finally, the multicore score (specified to be 64 threads) only makes up 2% of the final score.
     
    UserBenchmark claims that this is to better reflect the importance of single-threaded performance in gaming. However, more workloads have been embracing more threads. The balance change makes the results for effective CPU speed seem off, namely when it comes to AMD CPUs and even Intel CPUs that have more threads, but may lag behind on single-threaded performance.
     
    For example, comparing the Ryzen 9 3900X to the Core i3-9350KF yields a mere margin of 3% in favor of the Ryzen 9. This is comparing a twelve-core 24-thread chip to a four-core chip.

     
    However, comparing the "Real World Speed" tells a different story. The lowest improvement the tests show the Ryzen 9 having is 2%, but the largest gain is a whopping 85%.

     
    And now some before-and-after with the Ryzen 5 3600:
     
    (before)

     
    (after)

     
    The Average Bench drops 15.6%. Granted, some of this drop could be because of the change of reference CPU. But the effective speed, average user bench, and peak overclock bench all take major hits.
     
    Intel has a similar decrease, though not to as much of a degree, on the i7-8700K:
    (before)

     
    (after)

     
     
    And about the i9-9900K being at 100%, I believe it fair to say that it has more than 9% effective speed than an i3-9350KF.

     
    The change in results has caused some uproar, especially among those who are fans of AMD, as this change seems to punish CPUs with higher core counts, which AMD is excelling at.
     
     
     
     
    UPDATE 7/26/2019: UserBenchmark has addressed concerns... by brushing them off at best.
    The UserBenchmark FAQ page on the effective CPU speed has been updated. (Archived version here)
     
    They specifically address the AMD community's displeasure with the change:
    So they noticed an issue and "fixed" it?

    This seems to say otherwise.
     
    But it doesn't stop there:
    Good job, UserBenchmark. You admitted what we have known for a long time: you are only good for estimations. But, more importantly, you are admitting your tests have flaws. Why should we not be upset when your recommendations are saying we can all go get i3s and compare them to Ryzen 9s? People are not going to be concerned with a slight test inconsistency. People are going to be concerned when tests are poorly balanced across all products.
     
     
    And one last bit on their "improved" FAQ page:
    Granted, something similar was on the last version. I think that the concerns the community has are reasonable. People who don't know better may waste money based on this site. And, to top it off, a nice video of how some people put too much fat on sheep before slaughtering them.
     

  17. Like
    infinitytec got a reaction from leadeater in UserBenchmark Adjusts Algorthym to Favor Single-Thread Performance, Causing Strange Results   
    lol
     
    I don't know what I did. Thanks for pointing that out!
  18. Funny
    infinitytec got a reaction from TechyBen in UserBenchmark Adjusts Algorthym to Favor Single-Thread Performance, Causing Strange Results   
    UserBenchmark.com has adjusted the algorithm for how the overall performance of a CPU is calculated.
     
    Previously, single-core performance made up 30% of the result, quad-core made up 60%, and the final 10% was reserved for "multicore" performance. This was calculated so that an Intel Core i7-7700K would equal approximately 100% score.
     
    The new scoring places the i9-9900K at the 100% mark, but also changes the makeup of the balancing of the scores. Single-core scoring now accounts for 40% of the result, and quad-core score takes a hit down to providing 57% of the score. Finally, the multicore score (specified to be 64 threads) only makes up 2% of the final score.
     
    UserBenchmark claims that this is to better reflect the importance of single-threaded performance in gaming. However, more workloads have been embracing more threads. The balance change makes the results for effective CPU speed seem off, namely when it comes to AMD CPUs and even Intel CPUs that have more threads, but may lag behind on single-threaded performance.
     
    For example, comparing the Ryzen 9 3900X to the Core i3-9350KF yields a mere margin of 3% in favor of the Ryzen 9. This is comparing a twelve-core 24-thread chip to a four-core chip.

     
    However, comparing the "Real World Speed" tells a different story. The lowest improvement the tests show the Ryzen 9 having is 2%, but the largest gain is a whopping 85%.

     
    And now some before-and-after with the Ryzen 5 3600:
     
    (before)

     
    (after)

     
    The Average Bench drops 15.6%. Granted, some of this drop could be because of the change of reference CPU. But the effective speed, average user bench, and peak overclock bench all take major hits.
     
    Intel has a similar decrease, though not to as much of a degree, on the i7-8700K:
    (before)

     
    (after)

     
     
    And about the i9-9900K being at 100%, I believe it fair to say that it has more than 9% effective speed than an i3-9350KF.

     
    The change in results has caused some uproar, especially among those who are fans of AMD, as this change seems to punish CPUs with higher core counts, which AMD is excelling at.
     
     
     
     
    UPDATE 7/26/2019: UserBenchmark has addressed concerns... by brushing them off at best.
    The UserBenchmark FAQ page on the effective CPU speed has been updated. (Archived version here)
     
    They specifically address the AMD community's displeasure with the change:
    So they noticed an issue and "fixed" it?

    This seems to say otherwise.
     
    But it doesn't stop there:
    Good job, UserBenchmark. You admitted what we have known for a long time: you are only good for estimations. But, more importantly, you are admitting your tests have flaws. Why should we not be upset when your recommendations are saying we can all go get i3s and compare them to Ryzen 9s? People are not going to be concerned with a slight test inconsistency. People are going to be concerned when tests are poorly balanced across all products.
     
     
    And one last bit on their "improved" FAQ page:
    Granted, something similar was on the last version. I think that the concerns the community has are reasonable. People who don't know better may waste money based on this site. And, to top it off, a nice video of how some people put too much fat on sheep before slaughtering them.
     

  19. Like
    infinitytec got a reaction from Bananasplit_00 in UserBenchmark Adjusts Algorthym to Favor Single-Thread Performance, Causing Strange Results   
    lol
     
    I don't know what I did. Thanks for pointing that out!
  20. Agree
    infinitytec reacted to leadeater in UserBenchmark Adjusts Algorthym to Favor Single-Thread Performance, Causing Strange Results   
    Neither of these is actually single thread which is a huge flaw when looking at a test that gives a result for a single thread workload and then is used to say that this type of CPU is better for lightly threaded workloads. Almost no CPU in stock configuration can attain single thread performance because any more than one active thread, aka literally almost always, means you aren't getting it.
     
    It does you no good when looking at a CPU with single core boost to say 5Ghz when it's 2-4 core boost is only 4.6Ghz as an example. These mythical single thread applications don't really exist and the ones that do are because there is no performance requirement.
     
    Unless you are running out of stock with MCE or fixed multipliers the single thread benchmark is pretty useless, people doing this don't need these types of sites that rank CPUs.
     
    Further to the above point the CPU industry is changing which will make single thread test irrelevant. With the move to dynamic boost across all cores to non-fixed values based on multiple metrics and boundaries every single core will be operating as fast as it can for the point in time load being run. This means which ever application you are running, what ever background tasks are doing, you are getting the best performance, the best clocks possible.
     
    Single thread benchmarking is well on it's way to obsolescence which goes to show just how un-useful and inkeeping with the times userbenchmark is.
  21. Funny
  22. Funny
  23. Funny
    infinitytec reacted to FezBoy in UserBenchmark Adjusts Algorthym to Favor Single-Thread Performance, Causing Strange Results   
    So its weighted for minecraft server cpus?
  24. Like
    infinitytec reacted to Orthusaku in UserBenchmark Adjusts Algorthym to Favor Single-Thread Performance, Causing Strange Results   
    I will be honest, even their current formula seems to be a bit out of wack. Since if you take the raw scores from the cpu page and apply what they claim their formula is you get different results. However looking at the numbers and seeing everything while playing around with different weights it becomes clear that with the more recent releases of higher core count CPUs, it has shown a flaw in how userbenchmark ranks an scores the CPUs as well as the test they use which only check for singe core, quad core, and 64 core. Hopefully this change in their weighting is only temporary while they are building a new CPU test suite to better show more nuance between varying core counts without lumping everything above 4 into multi core.
     
    I have created a spreadsheet that shows that and so that my claims can be validated by the community, I did leave a custom option so people can play around with their own ideas of better balanced weights as well as some ideas I had for various work loads, use cases, and finding middle ground between their old algorthym and their new one.
     
    Here is the link to the public editable google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13xZ8yLktz_cQZVkd7dRAxtKRAzlGIqR1hU29CLl7re0/edit?usp=sharing
     
    edit: Public viewable(just to keep a static copy) only: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CjRsaBx5Z5BThjlF-jipkqRj9vshCkYoIHDHZWyPgXk/edit?usp=sharing
  25. Agree
    infinitytec reacted to Beskamir in UserBenchmark Adjusts Algorthym to Favor Single-Thread Performance, Causing Strange Results   
    More like new programmers need to be taught how to use multithreading well. I wish my degree taught me how to make a thread safe event system in C++ but alas that looks like something I'll need to figure out on my own or steal someone else's event system.
×