- Jul 13, 2016
- 2,709 (0.97/day)
|ASRock X670E Taichi
|Noctua NH-D15 Chromax
|32GB DDR5 6000 CL30
|MSI RTX 4090 Trio
|Acer Predator XB3 27" 240 Hz
|Thermaltake Core X9
|Topping DX5, DCA Aeon II
|Seasonic Prime Titanium 850w
3 runs of cinebench (both single and multi core) to heat load
averge the 6 numbers put it in a table one for single one for multithreaded
gaming performance is irrelavent at anything over 1440p
Using a single application to measure single and multi-threaded CPU performance would not be representative of a CPU's performance. It would only be representative of that CPU's performance in Cinebench. TPU already has the numbers available for a variety of applications, I don't see why they wouldn't use them to calculate a more comprehensive CPU performance number.
How about a "potential" index for all 3197 CPU's cores x threads x frequency with adjustments for instructions higher than SSE 4.1 and "3D" cache?
It can be added - the CPU can achieve said potential when all its cores and features are properly used.
A quick idea for avoiding re-testing 3k CPU's.
I don't think subjective metrics are a good idea. Userbenchmark uses them and not only are their rankings inaccurate, they have to frequently change them which kills any sort of usefulness. Using objective data from benchmarks doesn't have this same issue as the user is free to interpret the data according to their own use case. All a potential index would amount to is an assumption based on who is making the metric, not the true potential. That's impossible to know unless you can see into the future.