Share your CPUZ Benchmarks!

[jaggerwild]

I know it isn't Intel so it is junk.

How is it junk, looks good to me. probably go way higher with a good water cooler.

 

[PSychoTron]

How is it junk, looks good to me. probably go way higher with a good water cooler.

Getting watercooling soon

 

[oldtech5670]

Nice Oldtech5670, Dual socket board? Like to know what board it is?

Hi!

An old s5520ur on a very old sr1600urhs chasis.

 

[CaptainVeyron]

@PSychoTron Post your cinebench scores, I am aware that for some reason the cpuz benchmark favours an fx8350 for some reason.

 

[R-T-B]

@PSychoTron Post your cinebench scores, I am aware that for some reason the cpuz benchmark favours an fx8350 for some reason.

Probably due to it not using modern x86_64 extensions as much, which AMD tend to suck at and multimedia benchmarks love... just a guess.

 

[PSychoTron]

@PSychoTron Post your cinebench scores, I am aware that for some reason the cpuz benchmark favours an fx8350 for some reason.

Intel compilerbench then I will run Sysmarks next.I think amd paid cpu z off.

 

[chuck216]

Intel compilerbench then I will run Sysmarks next.I think amd paid cpu z off.

No it's just that intel is just that much weaker in multithreaded tasks.

The problem is that Intel is making 4 cores do the work of 8 where AMD has 8 dedicated cores. Though the 6 core (12 thread) haswells and the Skylakes do get higher scores simply because of more threads.

 

[CaptainVeyron]

@chuck216 I think your picture says it all... (Also look at the difference between my 4 core and the 6 core 3930k only 100 and the difference between AMDs 8 cores is that they are weak and intel can get away with 4 stronger ones.)
And @PSychoTron run cinebench as a far as I know it is unbiased Also unfortuneately i was getting hanging in cinebench at 4.9ghz (Though I am on air) So I have turned it down to 4.8 and 1.285 CoreV The 889 score is on stock.

 

[chuck216]

@chuck216 I think your picture says it all... (Also look at the difference between my 4 core and the 6 core 3930k only 100 and the difference between AMDs 8 cores is that they are weak and intel can get away with 4 stronger ones.)
And @PSychoTron run cinebench as a far as I know it is unbiased Also unfortuneately i was getting hanging in cinebench at 4.9ghz (Though I am on air) So I have turned it down to 4.8 and 1.285 CoreV The 889 score is on stock.View attachment 72931

How about a cinebench result showing the multi-thread result also, we all know Intel is faster in single thread.

 

[CaptainVeyron]

@chuck216 you do realise that cinebench only does multi-thread

It shows your 8 threads rendering a piece each before moving onto the next one.

 

[chuck216]

@chuck216 you do realise that cinebench only does multi-thread

It shows your 8 threads rendering a piece each before moving onto the next one.

Actually it does single thread also.. actually meant to say show single thread also. didn't realize he posted the multithread at first until I opened my cinebench to run a test which I'm doing right after I post this.

 

[CaptainVeyron]

@chuck216 Are you using R15? If you have trouble launching just hold ctrl+shift at the same time as opening the program sometimes it has an error for me and this solves it.

 

[chuck216]

@chuck216 Are you using R15? If you have trouble launching just hold ctrl+shift at the same time as opening the program sometimes it has an error for me and this solves it.

Yep running R15 and here are my results @4.7 ghz:

 

[CaptainVeyron]

Why are you on single core? But why is your GPU so slow???

EDIT I can see your multi core is 687

 

[PSychoTron]

Yep running R15 and here are my results @4.7 ghz: Wonder why my 4.7 is higher then yours

 

[CaptainVeyron]

@PSychoTron and @chuck216 Those results seem more comparable than the CPU-Z benchmark. As you put it @PSychoTron

'I think AMD paid cpu z off'

 

[chuck216]

Guys... (or gals) click file. advanced benchmark in C15 and run it let's see the MP ratios.

As for why mine seems a bit slower might be because I was doing a software OC through Overdrive for a quick run I normally run at stock speeds 24/7.

BTW here's my C15 at stock 3.5 ghz. :

 

[PSychoTron]

@PSychoTron and @chuck216 Those results seem more comparable than the CPU-Z benchmark. As you put it @PSychoTron

But that's not the point of this thread is it?I see Cpu z benchmark's in the title not Intelbench in the title.

 

[cdawall]

No it's just that intel is just that much weaker in multithreaded tasks.

The problem is that Intel is making 4 cores do the work of 8 where AMD has 8 dedicated cores. Though the 6 core (12 thread) haswells and the Skylakes do get higher scores simply because of more threads.

Not as of the 6th generation. Scaling meets/exceeds AMD now. There are no 6 core skylakes BTW they are 4 core.

 

[chuck216]

Not as of the 6th generation. Scaling meets/exceeds AMD now. There are no 6 core skylakes BTW they are 4 core.

I meant 6 core haswells and 4 core skylakes with HT

 

[CaptainVeyron]

@chuck216 Here is my mp ratio lower than yours though that is to be expected, as I only have four physical cores. My score in my multiplier should be as near to 4 as possible and yours should be as near to 8 as possible as that would be perfect scaling. The first picture is with hyper-threading on and this actually means my cores combined into 8 separate threads are worse at scaling than your 8 physical cores. Expected. However the second picture shows my scores without hyper-threading and my four cores still beat your 8 cores so better single core performance expected. AND the multiplier on my cpu without hyper-threading is 3.65. So nearer to 4 than yours is to 8 so mine has better scaling on the cores too. If we multiply mine by two I have a multiplier of 7.3 compared to your 6.35 so if my processor was 8 core in theory it would have better scaling.

 

[PSychoTron]

@chuck216 Here is my mp ratio lower than yours though that is to be expected, as I only have four physical cores. My score in my multiplier should be as near to 4 as possible and yours should be as near to 8 as possible as that would be perfect scaling. The first picture is with hyper-threading on and this actually means my cores combined into 8 separate threads are worse than your 8 physical cores. Expected. However the second picture shows my scores without hyper-threading and my four cores still beat your 8 cores so better single core performance expected. AND the multiplier on my cpu without hyper-threading is 3.65. So nearer to 4 than yours is to 8 so mine has better scaling on the cores too. If we multiply mine by two I have a multiplier of 7.3 compared to your 6.35 so if my processor was 8 core in theory it would have better scaling.
View attachment 72935
View attachment 72936

That Cpu z benchmark result sure did get your goat.Better go run it in safe mode now.

 

[cdawall]

I meant 6 core haswells and 4 core skylakes with HT

Skylake has 8 threads same as amd and it scales As good if not better than the fx chips. I'm sorry unless amd whips something out of their ass with zen skylake officials beats and in all things.

 

[PSychoTron]

Dam the i7 6700k is $10 cheaper then the i7 5820k wow.Can image the what the price of the new 2011 cpu's will be.

 

[chuck216]

Skylake has 8 threads same as amd and it scales As good if not better than the fx chips. I'm sorry unless amd whips something out of their ass with zen skylake officials beats and in all things.

You're right but at anywhere from twice to five times the price of current FX 8 core chips the skylakes had better outperform them running the same amount of threads.

In fact the whole difference in performance is a performance per dollar thing. Both 2 core i3's with HT and 4 core i5's w/o HT run quite a bit faster than FXs at around the same pricepoint as the FX's on a clock for clock basis. However
the FX's pull away when multutasking simply because of more cores, this is true of both 6 core AMD's and 8 cores.

Now the 4 core i7's with HT do get close to matching the FX 8 cores clock for clock when running all threads but, and this is a big but they have a much higher pricepoint.

But then again AMD is it's own worst enemy here in a way because my $140 FX-8320 can easily be Overclocked to 4.7 Ghz stable on an 8 year old discontinued top down air cooler and match a $230 FX-9590 at it's stock speeds.