1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Cinebench R15 Extreme Edition: Unofficial mod

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by HeX, Feb 6, 2019.

  1. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 34,099

    Yeah, first gen Ryzen 6 core, £160 running at 3.85Ghz = 335 CB vs Pastymunchers 5Ghz 9600K scoring 325 CB.

    I can't match his single core but that's mainly from lack of clock speed. still tho its impressive to see a 2 year old AMD lower end CPU beat Intel's latest £270 i5 in MT.

    Can't wait to see what Ryzen 3600 can do.
     
  2. pastymuncher

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Jul 12, 2005

    Posts: 18,533

    Location: Aberlour, NE Scotland

    Like I have said many times before, multicore performance isn't very important to me because the games I play tend to be single threaded so pure grunt is more important to me. That is why I stuck with Intel and didn't switch to AMD. Not that it was much of a upgrade from my 4790k though. Anyway seeing is you have a extra 6 threads 10 points more than mine isn't very impressive. Disable your HT and post that result up. I will agree that for the price the performance and double the threads of mine is good.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  3. Tee Hee Johnson

    Mobster

    Joined: May 30, 2007

    Posts: 4,231

    Location: Glasgow, Scotland

    I'll do a proper run tonight with screengrab of single and multi core.
     
  4. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 34,099

    Disable HT? that's like me telling you to run your CPU at the same clock speed as mine, mine would humiliate yours. of course the point is its an equally ridiculous argument and i acknowledged your single threaded performance over mine.

    It is what it is and yes when its an older generation CPU costing at the time over £100 less than your newer CPU costs now.... yet still a more powerful CPU, it is damned impressive.

    Gaming, i find its a pretty solid match for the 1070, i'm not going to see higher performance with a 9600K, even with an RTX 2080 there is only a <10% difference between the 9600K and a 2600X, tho the 2600X is faster than my 1600 i'm not going to see any difference given the RTX 2080 is twice as fast an my 1070.

    You also have a 1070.

    Its all relative :)

     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  5. kitfit1

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 24, 2003

    Posts: 3,515

    Location: Stourport-On-Severn

    Got home from work and read your post pasty, my heating has been on all day so PBO only booted to 4.23Ghz instead of 4.25Ghz as it normally does. Turned SMT off, as you can see.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. moorhen2

    Gangster

    Joined: Jun 18, 2011

    Posts: 318

    Location: Isle of Wight

    That is a very bold statement to make. Like for like there is only 21 points difference in multi core when I run my 9900k at the same frequency as your 2700x, and a higher single core score. So saying your cpu at 5.2ghz would leave a 9900k in the dust is a bit strong to be honest.

    I don't think the OP wanted this to be a contest, just wanted comparisons I think.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  7. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 34,099

    9900K at 4.7Ghz, what is thought to be the new 3600X running at an unknown not final clock frequency. but thought to be around 4.3Ghz to 4.6Ghz all core boost.

    3600X engendering sample 2057 Cinebench points
    9900K 4.7Ghz all core boost 2040 Cinebench points

    https://youtu.be/Jc7lqFaTvPo?t=186

    Rumored Roadmap.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  8. kitfit1

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 24, 2003

    Posts: 3,515

    Location: Stourport-On-Severn

    @humbug, there really is no need to make this another AMDvIntel thread. As moorhen2 has said it's not a contest.

    The reason i said what i said moorhen2 is that i have run my 2700X under both phase change and LN2 in the not too distant past, i know for a fact that when it gets over 4.8Ghz it does indeed leave a 9900K in the dust. But off course it isn't under phase or LN2 at the moment.
     
  9. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 34,099

    Its a Cinebench thread, and like it or not the CPU market is a duopoly and if this thread was put here just to say "hay look at this piece of software" and nothing more then its in the wrong room, it should be in here. otherwise given that its in the CPU room its about CPU's, if people can't handle debates about that Duopoly cropping up in it then perhaps those people would do well not reading so as not to be offended by it.
     
  10. kitfit1

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 24, 2003

    Posts: 3,515

    Location: Stourport-On-Severn

    I don't dissagree with your sentiment. But why post stuff about CPU's that are not only not confirmed yet, but arn't even released yet ? It's pointless because NONE of us on here could post a benchmark of any sort from any CPU in that list.
     
  11. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 34,099

    Because in a debate about performance i think its relevant, its whats coming up and soon, nothing wrong with with looking forward.
     
  12. Pooh

    Hitman

    Joined: Oct 22, 2006

    Posts: 643

    [​IMG]
     
  13. kitfit1

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 24, 2003

    Posts: 3,515

    Location: Stourport-On-Severn


    WOW :eek:

    That's just 6 more than my 2700X single core and i was at 4.35Ghz.........................................that is well within any margin of error. Peeps really should keep posting single core results as well, thanks Pooh.
     
  14. Kei

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 24, 2008

    Posts: 2,549

    Location: South Wales

    46 single core score Threadripper 1920x @ 4.15GHz

    [​IMG]
     
  15. iakhtar

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 29, 2009

    Posts: 145

    [​IMG]

    8086k @5.2
    Ram 4000mhz
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2019
  16. Tee Hee Johnson

    Mobster

    Joined: May 30, 2007

    Posts: 4,231

    Location: Glasgow, Scotland

    My 8700K at 5.1Ghz, 3200Mhz RAM.

    Single core took a while lol

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Apone70

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2018

    Posts: 1,044

    418 down from 1644 with my 8700k at 5ghz
     
  18. Apone70

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2018

    Posts: 1,044

    single core 57 @5ghz

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Phil2008

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Dec 17, 2004

    Posts: 8,285

    Side by side results with a "4gb R9 290 gpu" and a "8086@4.9 cpu"

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Distracted

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 30, 2018

    Posts: 2,134

    The test is better in terms of the time it takes stressing the CPU to get a more accurate reading of its potential. But the results are too close together to draw meaningful comparisons imho.

    Right now 1 point represents far too much change and the score could be increased by an order of magnitude to deliver something of value in terms of results.
    Saying this is obviously easier than doing it, but this is just my opinion.