CPU Mark benchmark

Guest2 · 9 Jun 2012 at 11:55

What CPU mark rating do you get?

With an i5@4ghz I get 6789. Would be interesting to see what new Ivy CPUs are scoring

Performance test 7 evaluation is here
http://www.passmark.com/download/pt_download.htm

CPU list and high end CPU scores

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

HankScorpio · 9 Jun 2012 at 16:16

7935.5 @ 4.4Ghz

Stanners · 9 Jun 2012 at 16:23

9147 points

IB 3570k @ 4.2

Attu90 · 9 Jun 2012 at 16:41

9166 points

Ivy Bridge 3570k @ 4.2

Nuclear Fusion · 9 Jun 2012 at 17:11

9206.7 points

3570k @ 4.2

Seems like 4.2 GHz is a popular overclock

Nuclear Fusion · 9 Jun 2012 at 17:13

HankScorpio said:
7935.5 @ 4.4Ghz

Hmm, were you running lots of tasks whilst running the benchmark? Because that score seems far too low for a 3570k at 4.4 GHz.

Attu90 · 9 Jun 2012 at 17:19

It would be nice to see what some of the high overclocked 2500k's were getting for comparison.

Nuclear Fusion · 9 Jun 2012 at 17:22

If anyone has Cinebench R11.5, that might also help just for extra comparison.
I get a score of 6.93 on a 3570k @ 4.2.

Vimes · 9 Jun 2012 at 17:22

3570k @ 4.4Ghz

9673 points

Saundie · 9 Jun 2012 at 17:32

The i5-2540m in my laptop scored 4061.3 points, which seems pretty good considering that it has half the number of threads and only a 2.6GHz base clock speed.

Nuclear Fusion · 9 Jun 2012 at 17:35

Saundie said:
The i5-2540m in my laptop scored 4061.3 points, which seems pretty good considering that it has half the number of threads and only a 2.6GHz base clock speed.

I'll have to try out the i5-460m in my old laptop for comparison. What does your 3960X get by the way?

Confused Stu · 9 Jun 2012 at 17:36

My 2600k @ 4.7 scored 7825 for the CPU overall.

The really odd thing is that both CPuz and CoreTemp showed the CPU was under almost no load during the whole test and only flicked from 1.6GHz to 4.7GHz for a split second during the "Finding prime numbers" bit. Does this test actually put the CPU under any pressure or have modern CPUs simply got so much grunt that they can handle this benchmark with one hand tied behind their backs?

Nuclear Fusion · 9 Jun 2012 at 17:42

Confused Stu said:
My 2600k @ 4.7 scored 7825 for the CPU overall.

The really odd thing is that both CPuz and CoreTemp showed the CPU was under almost no load during the whole test and only flicked from 1.6GHz to 4.7GHz for a split second during the "Finding prime numbers" bit. Does this test actually put the CPU under any pressure or have modern CPUs simply got so much grunt that they can handle this benchmark with one hand tied behind their backs?

That is odd, if this benchmark can take advantage of 8 threads, you should be getting a higher score than me. I find Cinebench to be more reliable, it can utilise up to 32 threads I believe.

Confused Stu · 9 Jun 2012 at 17:50

Nuclear Fusion said:
That is odd, if this benchmark can take advantage of 8 threads, you should be getting a higher score than me. I find Cinebench to be more reliable, it can utilise up to 32 threads I believe.

Agreed something odd is going on as Task Manager shows all 8 threads being used (but only 100% for a small portion of a section, then back to under 10%). I think I'm just going to file this benchmark with Windows Experience Index in the "unreliable" bin!

Just ran CPU on Cinebench 11.5 and got 9.13, which is pretty consistent with the benchmark for a stock 2600k (8.97).

BodgeITandRun · 9 Jun 2012 at 17:58

i7 990x @4.1ghz (underclocked a little due to recent hot weather)

Score of 12429.7

SeraphX · 9 Jun 2012 at 18:39

9136.5
i5 2500K @ 4.5Ghz

Nuclear Fusion · 9 Jun 2012 at 18:53

Confused Stu said:
Agreed something odd is going on as Task Manager shows all 8 threads being used (but only 100% for a small portion of a section, then back to under 10%). I think I'm just going to file this benchmark with Windows Experience Index in the "unreliable" bin!

Just ran CPU on Cinebench 11.5 and got 9.13, which is pretty consistent with the benchmark for a stock 2600k (8.97).

I'm guessing that score was at 4.6 GHz? Because a stock 2600k would get a score of around 7.
I would certainly leave it in the unreliable bin as you say, on the Passmark site, it says a GTX 470 is faster than a 590 and a 6990. http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Saundie · 9 Jun 2012 at 18:58

Nuclear Fusion said:
What does your 3960X get by the way?

At stock it gets 13490.7. The Memory Mark result is quite interesting; the laptop (a Dell Latitude E6520) scored 2567.5, the 3960x desktop scored 7182.9.

Stock Cinebench score on the 3960x is 9.83, just to give you a rough comparison.

Nuclear Fusion · 9 Jun 2012 at 19:17

Saundie said:
At stock it gets 13490.7. The Memory Mark result is quite interesting; the laptop (a Dell Latitude E6520) scored 2567.5, the 3960x desktop scored 7182.9.

Stock Cinebench score on the 3960x is 9.83, just to give you a rough comparison.

Thanks, I always prefer to get numbers from people on here since they tend to be more reliable than most other places (you get people saying they're benching scores of 9+ on a 2500k etc.)
Hmm, my memory score was only 2723.1, which doesn't sound right at all, it's barely more than your laptop (not saying your laptop is bad, but I would have thought it would be getting more than that). 3D graphics score was 3217.4 and disk mark was 808.5. This benchmark doesn't sound very reliable at all.

gurusan · 9 Jun 2012 at 19:34

8295.8 from i5 2500k @ 4.73GHz

Seems like a pretty **** and inconsistent benchmark tbh