Cinebench R15 Extreme Edition: Unofficial mod

[HeX]

CineBench15 has been around for years, created in an era where 4 core processors were the new norm. However, Maxon never updated it to cope with many-core processors. The 16-core and even 32-core processors these days can finish up the benchmark in merely seconds. That means that any Turbo can run 100% all the time as the benchmark finishes (too) fast. That's not entirely realistic as processors clock down after a number of seconds of full stress. With that idea in mind Guru3D's HWGeek started modding Cinebench. It's a simple trick, the Cinebench render resolution has been increased by fourfold, giving the benchmark a much longer and larger workload, this results into a more reliable score with the 64-threaded beasts we have available these days.

Note: This is an unofficial modded version of Cinebench 15 (it has a few some changed configuration files), this revision of software is not supported or distributed by Maxon.

Download link from Guru3D

Google sheet with user scores here

If you wish to have your results added make a post with a screenshot of your scores and details of the system used.

 

[humbug]

Quick curiosity run...

335 CB that's a big difference from about 1300 CB on the standard one

 

[pastymuncher]

Wow, this is a huge drop from 1243 multithreaded and 217 single core.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

966

 

[Danny75]

@ 4.2GHz

 

[Pooh]

Much goodness from my company laptop.

 

[koooowweeee]

@humbug can you make that screen shot a bit bigger. It's only taking over 2 other posts lol

Edit: it's ok now. Not sure if you did a ninja edit or it was my phone

 

[MaXxBoulton]

well my system crashed 3 times haha, not a very stable overclock after all even though it was aida64 stable for 1 hour and i use it daily for gaming.

I managed to get 316....

 

[pete910]

Spoiler: Result

 

[Kei]

713 down from 2669

 

[kitfit1]

CPU is at 4.25Ghz all core PBO.

 

[MaXxBoulton]

713 down from 2669

Very nice

 

[HeX]

508 - Ryzen 2700X @ 4.2 all core

 

[sandys]

494 1900x @4.2

 

[moorhen2]

Here's one from me.

 

[Tee Hee Johnson]

Yikes, 396 from my 8700k @ 5.1Ghz

 

[Danny75]

Yikes, 396 from my 8700k @ 5.1Ghz

What about the single core run? Would be nice if everyone could show their single core result along with the multicore so we can see another example of how core strength compares between CPUs now. But be warned it can be like watching paint dry. I went to make a cup of tea and the 4770K was still at it when I came back.

 

[kitfit1]

What about the single core run? Would be nice if everyone could show their single core result along with the multicore so we can see another example of how core strength compares between CPUs now. But be warned it can be like watching paint dry. I went to make a cup of tea and the 4770K was still at it when I came back.

Here ya go Danny.

Multithreaded 4.25Ghz all core with PBO
Single thread 4.35Ghz with PBO
Ram @ 3533Mhz Cas14

 

[Danny75]

Here ya go Danny.

Multithreaded 4.25Ghz all core with PBO
Single thread 4.35Ghz with PBO
Ram @ 3533Mhz Cas14

Cheers, kitfit1.

You pipped my single result by 2 at fairly close clockspeed and squeezed 2 more points out of the multi compared to your previous. That's quite the RAM speed you've managed to get there as well.

 

[kitfit1]

Cheers, kitfit1.

You pipped my single result by 2 at fairly close clockspeed and squeezed 2 more points out of the multi compared to your previous. That's quite the RAM speed you've managed to get there as well.

With the score between runs being that close Danny, a margin of error has to be taken into account. The thing that has struck me though is moorhen2's multi score of 599. Considering the cpu had to be run at 5.2Ghz to get that score, the score itself is very unimpressive. I'm 100% shure that if my 2700x could run the same bench at 5.2Ghz it would leave the 9900K in the dust.