Looks like new CPU score is overcorrelated to the cache size. I have similar to Jip's CPU by performance (https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-9750H-vs-Intel-Core-i7-7700/m766364vs3887 ) but CPU scoring utulity is thinking that my CPU slower two times. I have checked around 1-15 online replays today (Dual gaps usually ) and never replay slow down to 0, sometimes to +1 . But I am kicked from lobby regularly with verdict bad CPU.

Hm in this case the solution is really simple. We are minus one after each game with no delay and add after game with delay .
Example : we have 5 players : A , B, C, D, E . A has a slow comp pruduces -1 or -2. All gamers have default CPU score rate 100 .
First game : A B C . (game speed -1) = rates A 101 B 101 C 101
Second one : B C D (game speed 0 ) = rates b 100 C 100 D 99
3 : C D E (game min speed 0 ) = rates C 99 D 98 E 99
4. D E A (game speed -1 becouse we have A) = D 99 E 100 A 102
After some time (50 games for player) A will have CPU score around 150 .
Also we need a some saving system : Player with -1 can not pass 200 , with -2 = 300

After last changes my cpuscore is changed from 291 to 261 . Thank you for this.
Possible I'm wrong but let imagine. Few guys are starting to play using different CPUs and system. If someone has a problem with cooling then the CPU of this player slows down a game at the middle. Of course, we can not detect this issue during the short 10-15 sec test.
I can rewrite a original script for the showing times of each operations (13 or less (as I remember asm , + and - use a same time, and all compare operation are too)). If results from 20-30 guys are present it is possible to write a good forecast. (if we have forgoten a powersave function ). I'm looking a boring guy becouse I'm QA

I'm sorry . I have no executed the test after memory upgrade. Time of the replay is 16.42
Looks like prroblem is here:

       --This instruction set should cover most LUA operators
        j = i + i   --Addition
        k = i * i   --Multiplication
        l = k / j   --Division
        m = j - i   --Subtraction
        j = i ^ 4   --Power
        l = -i      --Negation
        m = {'1234567890', 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ', true} --Create Table
        TableInsert(m, '1234567890')     --Insert Table Value
        k = i < j   --Less Than
        k = i == j  --Equality
        k = i <= j  --Less Than or Equal to
        k = not k
        n[tostring(i)] = m

We have assumption that SupremeCommander has tha same count of the all operation. I'm suspecting that TableInsert is more rare operation then math operations. I've executed code from https://pastebin.com/GUTBXF7a (this is part of cpuscore) and would like to say that My PC spent most of the time on
n[tostring(i)] = m (50% executing time) and
TableInsert(m, '1234567890') --Insert Table Value ( around 40% of the time)
Can we add some weight value and dont worry so much on the memory speed for CPUScore ?

hello,
I 've bought new DDR4 RAM (3200). This is max value supported by my motherboard.
Of course CPU support 2400 only . Executing ZLO test I have got a little better value , but it is look more as fluctuation not real changes . 18min 5 sec
But the installing new memory droped my CPU score again. The score is 292 now. (was 270 using RAM 2133) and 141 before last changes.

Sorry for delay. I'm doing this for fun when I'm free. Of course, a detecting winning conditions is a good goal.

I have tested a python binding and it is OK. What kind of the data analyze do you want ?
Winning fraction? most killed fraction ? popular (unpopular) units ?

@giebmasse said in Outsourcing new CPU scores for lobbies:

About a performance test replay, I believe Marlo worked on a "standardized" replay that could be used for this, does anyone know if it got finished?

Agree. The replay test is a best. Also I have disable hypertheading and my CPU score is better for few points. Totally disapointed .

agree. I can not see Single core CPU at the market. At least 2 CPU + hypertheding and we have no problem with other parts. Only one process is a bottleneck. Ive noticed few times that some guys have better CPU score but are aking -1 -2 when I can support +2

I'm proposing to do next ;

1. Inform about CPU and your current CPU score.
2. Run replay with max possible speed.
   I hope you have 6 or 8 cores CPU.
   I also replay the same game and we can compare the running time.
   If CPU score is working correctly then CPUscore * running time in sec should be near to equal for everyone.

@giebmasse said in Outsourcing new CPU scores for lobbies:

@meatontable said in Outsourcing new CPU scores for lobbies:

I'm not happy that definitely slow CPU from 2013 year bits more better CPU from 2017 due to the count of cores....

I don't think you have the right picture of how the CPU test in-game is working. The test that is ran in-game is single threaded, don't know why you are thinking about core counts in this way. A slow older gen 6-core AMD CPU will show up as a slow CPU with the test as it should, it does not gain anything from having a larger core count when compared to e.g. a faster 2-4 core Intel CPU from the same era. You can't compare the CPU score ran manually in a newer lua version to the one used in-game.

Also in case it wasn't clear, lower is better in the FAF CPU test.

I have take a function from https://github.com/FAForever/fa/blob/741febf45a165e257db972fc2104484a51dd799d/lua/ui/lobby/lobby.lua#L5228
I do nothing with this function except the adding time check before and after checking CPU score. Original FAF score function is related to the CPU's count but game is a single core application.