Share your CPUZ Benchmarks!

[nomdeplume]

Hardly done anything but drivers and updating BIOS so far. Will try it in the next day or two.

 

[nomdeplume]

An effort was made. No options as described existed so I did my best with what was available to expected results. Basically I chose Performance mode and maxed out anything I was allowed to that looked relevant.

Note I updated the BIOS two versions newer than it shipped with before this came up.

 

[jboydgolfer]

Did you really think I was putting you down for this?

No i didnt get that impression , i was just explaining my reason for pushing the chip to run gta5, i did think you might have meant OC'ing the pentium was a pita, but wasnt sure. GTA5 was the one game i was playing at the time, and the pentium was my cpu at the time

 

[Tomgang]

It has been some time since i last post some results. So here are some from the latest cpu-z version (V1.85.0). So here are the old I7 980X.

stock cpu. Well its 7 years now since this cpu came out, so its not on the top of the food chain any more when it comes to performance.

At 4.37 GHz i run it at for every day use, it begins to look decent i think.

The cpu can do more, but voltage is getting high here. Thats the problem with old CPU´s, to get them up to clocks modern Intels cpu can run at pretty easy needs a high voltage on these old chips.

 

[BraveSoul]

using i7-2600K as reference because current setup is an upgrade from|i5-2500K@4.5ghz 16gbDDR3| that was choking to death in video editing

 

[dylricho]

No i didnt get that impression , i was just explaining my reason for pushing the chip to run gta5, i did think you might have meant OC'ing the pentium was a pita, but wasnt sure. GTA5 was the one game i was playing at the time, and the pentium was my cpu at the time

No, overclocking that is just like any other unlocked chip. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, to be honest.

-----

@nomdeplume; @Tomgang; @BraveSoul

Added.

 

[jboydgolfer]

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, to be honest.

I didnt come to a conclusion, i just thought you might be referring to the subject i was speaking about, because you wrote in response to me speaking about overclocking my Pentium, naturally, it would be reasonable for me to think you would be speaking about me overclocking my pentium, or atleast wouldnt be out of line for me to see it as possibility

Text communication isnt like spoken language, it is left for the reader to interpret the meaning often ,( like when you thought i was under the impression you were putting me down for running my 3258 in GTA5) which could lead me to wonder how you came to that conclusion, but i didnt , im aware of the open interpretation nature of text communication.

Either way, its not worth anymore time. Just a misunderstanding

 

[MrGenius]

3770K is still a single thread BEAST!!!

1.84 (Beat a 7700K @ 5GHz in ST!)

1.85 best ST score.

1.85 best MT score.

 

[MrGenius]

Got 'er done @ 5.1!!!

3770K @ 5.1GHz

1.84

1.85

 

[jboydgolfer]

Is there any difference between 1.84 and 1.85 in regards to bench results? The only reason I ask is im curious if my score in 1.84 will still be the same in 1.85


Edit
NeveRemind ,I can see from the results above that the difference is negligible

 

[MrGenius]

Is there any difference between 1.84 and 1.85 in regards to bench results? The only reason I ask is im curious if my score in 1.84 will still be the same in 1.85

1.85 consistently scores slightly lower than 1.84 for me. Not much lower. But not nothing either.

I'm just trying to get my name on both lists.

 

[droopyRO]

i7 930 with Rampage II Extreme and 2x4GB DDR3
.

 

[dylricho]

Is there any difference between 1.84 and 1.85 in regards to bench results? The only reason I ask is im curious if my score in 1.84 will still be the same in 1.85

Edit
NeveRemind ,I can see from the results above that the difference is negligible

Nope, the benchmark remains identical from version 1.79 through 1.85. Any fluctuation you're seeing is just down to natural variation.

1.85 consistently scores slightly lower than 1.84 for me. Not much lower. But not nothing either.

I'm just trying to get my name on both lists.

And now you're on them. Ivy Bridge is still a great chip.

 

[jboydgolfer]

Nope

That's what I thought, 600+ ST ftw

 

[Komshija]

Old but gold T9900 from my laptop. CPU-Z versions 1.85 and 1.84 had problems recognizing and benchmarking this CPU. Version 1.82 and older CPU-Z versions have no such problems.

Intel Core 2 Duo T9900 @ 3,196 GHz.

 

[dylricho]

Old but gold T9900 from my laptop. CPU-Z versions 1.85 and 1.84 had problems recognizing and benchmarking this CPU. Version 1.82 and older CPU-Z versions have no such problems.

Intel Core 2 Duo T9900 @ 3,196 GHz.
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachments/t9900-bench-jpg.102551/

Interesting. I'll get my T9300 laptop out and see if I have the same issue. 1.84 did work for me though.

I've added your result to the 1.82 graphs.

 

[er557]

meltdown/spectre mitigations enabled, memory integrity enabled in device protection

and then a clean account without memory integrity

 

[dylricho]

Old but gold T9900 from my laptop. CPU-Z versions 1.85 and 1.84 had problems recognizing and benchmarking this CPU. Version 1.82 and older CPU-Z versions have no such problems.

Intel Core 2 Duo T9900 @ 3,196 GHz.
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachments/t9900-bench-jpg.102551/

Interesting. I'll get my T9300 laptop out and see if I have the same issue. 1.84 did work for me though.

Tried it, and noticed nothing problematic, so it must be your system.

meltdown/spectre mitigations enabled, memory integrity enabled in device protection

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachments/06262018-195944-jpg.103142/


and then a clean account without memory integrity

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachments/06262018-210754-jpg.103151/

Added.

 

[Komshija]

Tried it, and noticed nothing problematic, so it must be your system.

Unlikely. Both 1.84 and 1.85 displayed some error immediately after loading. They loaded, but few things like multiplier, bus speed, clock were not displayed... Maybe these new versions cannot recognize my unicorn 3,2 GHz T9900.

Anyways, both 1.84 and 1.85 displayed significantly lower scores for my two PC's than 1.81 and 1.82. As a matter of fact, even the 1.82 repediately displayed some 20-30 points less in multi-core and some 2 points less in single-core than 1.81 considering stock i7 6700K. I tried the same tests with third PC (parents', i5 3470) and it was exactly the same percentage drop.

For instance, my i7 6700K (stock) in CPU-Z 1.81.1 scored average 501-503 for SC and 2535-2560 for MC; in 1.82.2 it was around 497-501 SC and 2510-2525 MC; in 1.85 around 490-495 SC and 2450-2470 MC. Interesting thing is that reference values for all CPU's remained the same, while benchmark for the actual CPU was downgraded from CPU-Z 1.81 to 1.85.
On the other hand, T9900 scored 268-274 SC and 531-538 MC in CPU-Z 1.82.1, while in CPU-Z 1.85 it scored around 264-269 SC and 470-480 MC, which is ridiculous.
I used exactly the same conditions for all tests in three different PC's.

 

[dylricho]

Unlikely. Both 1.84 and 1.85 displayed some error immediately after loading. They loaded, but few things like multiplier, bus speed, clock were not displayed... Maybe these new versions cannot recognize my unicorn 3,2 GHz T9900.

Anyways, both 1.84 and 1.85 displayed significantly lower scores for my two PC's than 1.81 and 1.82. As a matter of fact, even the 1.82 repediately displayed some 20-30 points less in multi-core and some 2 points less in single-core than 1.81 considering stock i7 6700K. I tried the same tests with third PC (parents', i5 3470) and it was exactly the same percentage drop.

For instance, my i7 6700K (stock) in CPU-Z 1.81.1 scored average 501-503 for SC and 2535-2560 for MC; in 1.82.2 it was around 497-501 SC and 2510-2525 MC; in 1.85 around 490-495 SC and 2450-2470 MC. Interesting thing is that reference values for all CPU's remained the same, while benchmark for the actual CPU was downgraded from CPU-Z 1.81 to 1.85.
On the other hand, T9900 scored 268-274 SC and 531-538 MC in CPU-Z 1.82.1, while in CPU-Z 1.85 it scored around 264-269 SC and 470-480 MC, which is ridiculous.
I used exactly the same conditions for all tests in three different PC's.

Your T9900 should be 23% faster than my T9300 in multi-thread, and 24% faster in single-thread.

With a 3.20 GHz overclock, it should be 28% faster.
If your T9900 has been set to run at its IDA frequency constantly, it should be 33% faster.

I didn't run 1.82 (17.01.64).
In 1.83 (17.01.64): 218/434.
In 1.84 (17.01.64): 221/440.
In 1.85 (17.01.64): 201/387.

264 / 201 = +31.343%
269 / 201 = +33.831%

470 / 387 = +21.447%
480 / 387 = +24.031%

Incidentally when I ran it yesterday, I did think the results were a little low. Now that I've compared them, they are genuinely lower (~9.5% drop), but the benchmark version has not changed. Also, I haven't had any errors with any of them. Everything displays normally for my machine.

 

[Face2Face]

Lenovo T470s - Core i5 7300U - Seems really low.

 

[droopyRO]

Not mine, but i got to play a bit with a i7-4790.

 

[natr0n]

 

[dylricho]

Sorry guys. All up to date now.

 

[MrGenius]

3770K @ 5.4GHz bitches!!!

1.84

1.85