• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** The Official OCUK Cinebench R20 benchmark Thread ***

You've just pushed my Single Thread score of 486 into the 50+ spoiler bin ^^^^^^ :p

When i get AGESA 10004 i'll do another run.

Updated :)
 
harry5522 said:
I think one of the more impressive things about that statement is how well the 2600k holds up in comparison on the per core. I mean okay it's not exactly close but it's not as far behind as one may expect for a chip approaching 8 years old.
Click to expand...

Its only like a 50% IPC difference :D

Seriously tho it was an impressive chip when it came out, and yes it holds up well.
 
harry5522 said:
Couldn't be fussed figuring it out again myself so used a calculator.

OM2ZmFe.png



Also technically would you actually add those percentages together? Surely having a 7% increase in core clock doesn't equate to adding 7% onto your ipc.
Click to expand...

Surly that's wrong given that your example calculation is a percentage difference value, not a base line to increase to get to an end value.

So if Value A is a score of 348 and the measure in that is 100% what added value in percentage terms would it take to a score of 506?

Take 348 as a value of 100% and add your example of 37% to it (IE make the value 137%), you get a score of 478, 37% of 348 = 129 add to the 348 value and you get 478.

Now take 348 and add 45%, you get about 505, 45% of 348 = 157 add to 348 = 505.

Then the difference in clock speed, which is 7%.
 
TNA said:
Don't think the bios has much to do with the overclock to be honest, that is more how the stock settings behave from what I understood but I could be wrong.

Weird thing is I barely see my cpu hit 4.2GHz on stock. I see 4.15GHz more. Could be because not enough load when I have looked.

But in any case I get better performance and lower power usage and temps when at 4.2GHz all core at 1.15v. Could be that the amount of voltage is not enough to be considered 100% Rock solid stable, but so far it has been fine for me. As soon as I get a blue screen or something weird I can always up the voltage a little. Even 1.2v at 4.2GHz would be better than my stock settings in every way.
Click to expand...


They are segmented, defiantly artificially limited to their box cited Ghz at stock.

The thing is, and this is probably where you got lucky, if they run out of 'bottom of the barrel' 3600 Binned dies because of high demand for that SKU they have to take from the higher quality pile, i be wouldn't surprised if your chip was from the 3800X or even the illusive 3900X pile.

And you can't have a 3600 out boosting a 3700X at stock.

This is the reward you might get for waiting until later in the production run, i bought mine very early, it doesn't even get 2 seconds into Cinebench at 4.2Ghz all core even at 1.425v without hardlocking, its defiantly bottom of the barrel.
 
Last edited:
@tommoT.Striker i run PBO 24/7, i get around 4.1Ghz in games, 4Ghz in heavy workloads but that is down to good temps, i have a half decent cooler on it, if you can keep temps under 60c it seems to boost quite well in heavy workloads.

Lack of Overclocking could also be my Motherboard i guess, £90 board 3 years ago, early Ryzen boards were never much good, especially in this price range. having said that's its always been rock solid if you just leave it alone.

https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/AB350 Pro4/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom