ZL1 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 whats the point then ? seriously, that shouldnt be allowed and about half the submission should be pulled may as well run superpi then or use hyperpi as a replacement for superpi, what made hyperpi interesting was the speed at which the cpu can calculate multiple threads of pi, but not one ..... one can be done by superpi please reconsider the rules, they are not correct TIA, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENiEBEN Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 The issue was raised internally, standby for an official statement. --- In mod neoficial trebuie rulat cu toate threadurile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZL1 Posted February 23, 2013 Author Share Posted February 23, 2013 The issue was raised internally, standby for an official statement. --- In mod neoficial trebuie rulat cu toate threadurile Thank you, will be looking forward to the decision, I am sure it has to coincide with mine it just makes sense, the whole point of this bench was to multi-thread bench --- pai si logic eu nici nu vreau sa rulez altfel, nu vad sensu deja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraRaptor Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 any news on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 If you ask me, either we remove the benchmark, or we block subs with less threads than the cpu is capable of. It's clearly the purpose of the benchmark to run the same number of threads that the CPU is capable of. I don't feel sorry for the folks who have chosen to run just one thread, it's CLEAR that this benchmark is just superpi32m if one thread is selected - and that it's not supposed to be run that way. Rules are rules, but mistakes happen, and why those who read the # of processor sentence in the rules didn't scratch their heads a bit is quite strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraRaptor Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Okay, thanks. I also think that value of Hyperpi is higher stability requirements due to multithreaded run and bigger memory consuption. Using less cores makes the benchmark senseless. But the benchmark itself is very nice - I normally use it to confirm RAM stability for benchmarks. So it is better to make a clear statement in the rules that thread # should be equal to the capabilities of CPU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobnova Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Needs a wrapper IMO. As is it seems like an addition to the moderator workload that doesn't really give much value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 We could have a workaround: make the score calculation slightly different, instead of avg. time, we can use avg time divided by threads run. So, a 10 thread chip with an avg. time of 1000 seconds will have a "score" of 100. Then these singlethread results will be worthless This is just my idea, nothing that has been discussed internally. +1 for a wrapper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENiEBEN Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Wrapper to a wrapper? Wrapperception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.