# [MAXON] CINEBENCH R15



## brasco

Source

Direct download link

Quote:


> CINEBENCH is based on MAXON's award-winning 3D software, CINEMA 4D, which is used in production studios worldwide for the creation of 3D effects in blockbusters such as Iron Man 3, Oblivion, Life of Pi or Prometheus. Contrary to artificial benchmarks that only perform abstract tests on specific functions, CINEBENCH measures system performance based on actual production processes in CINEMA 4D. The test consists of two modules, that evaluate CPU and graphics card performance separately.


Get benching









edit: added direct download link for convenience.


----------



## Outcasst

A new scoring method hmmm


----------



## brasco

Main update is ability to test 256 threads


----------



## Alatar

Do lilke.

Just read the news so I just DL'd it and here's my first run on some random bios settings I was running:



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## brasco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> Do lilke.
> 
> Just read the news so I just DL'd it and here's my first run on some random bios settings I was running:


Good job here's my first run:


Spoiler: Cinebench R15


----------



## sumitlian

If its still AMD crippled, then


----------



## CalinTM

818 cb on a 3770k 4.5Ghz
runned 3 times in a row.


----------



## zooterboy

Sad face.


----------



## Deadboy90

Wow I really want to try benching with this. But... Man I'm still in bed and my computer is like, 5 steps away. Oh well.


----------



## Gnomepatrol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zooterboy*
> 
> 
> 
> Sad face.


Why? Did your 920 all the sudden become terrible, because they changed their benchmark?


----------



## zooterboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gnomepatrol*
> 
> Why? Did your 920 all the sudden become terrible, because they changed their benchmark?


No, because it's barely faster than a new i7 mobile chip...


----------



## BinaryDemon

The OpenGL portion of the test seems pretty useless. It's cool seeing how close I came to the stock i7-3770. I'm also wondering how the AMD cpu's will handle this version.


----------



## kzinti1

Very nice revision.


----------



## brasco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> The OpenGL portion of the test seems pretty useless.


It's always been very much affected by the single core speed, looks like it . That part is more for Cinema 4D users, but the CPU side of things is pretty reliable.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

8350 score coming soon


----------



## Alatar

Clocked the chip a bit higher this time:


----------



## AcEsSalvation

I'm at stock, no reason to OC right now. Besides, max stable I've been able to test is 4.3GHz. Anyway, score seems a little low...


Spoiler: Score






EDIT: I didn't close any of my usual background applications, so 116 tasks as well


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> I'm at stock, no reason to OC right now. Besides, max stable I've been able to test is 4.3GHz. Anyway, score seems a little low...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Score


That seems just about right to me. Just a tad under a stock 3770K...


----------



## pwnzilla61

I don't have time to post [email protected] I got 766. Going to bed so it was just a quick run, I'll tune my overclock for benching tomorrow as it's setup for gaming atm with pics.


----------



## TheBlademaster01

For some reason, it didn't balance load correctly. I'll try fiddling with NUMA...



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Kuivamaa

Does this use AVX for intel? Is it still stuck at SSE2 for AMD?


----------



## Remij

4.7ghz on my 3930k


----------



## Remij

My lord, TheBlademaster01.. I'm jealous


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> That seems just about right to me. Just a tad under a stock 3770K...


Oh wow, it's just that everyone was posting above 1k... but now I see how high you had your chip, very nice!


----------



## TheBlademaster01

Does the application freeze for anyone else as well? In R11.5 I used to see the typical render process, now the screen freezes when starting and becomes responsive again after finishing the test with the score of course


----------



## Buzzin92

Stock while folding on GPU and listening to some music on YT.

I need to do a re-install of windows so I'll post another after I've done that.


----------



## djriful

Just moderate OC...



Spoiler: Benchmark Results


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Blade, what numbers are you getting? I cant see the images


----------



## TheBlademaster01

1675 in this version 19.24 in R11.5


----------



## jacksonv




----------



## Renairy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djriful*
> 
> Just moderate OC...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Benchmark Results


Lol how are people supposed to compare when all you give is "just moderate OC"








Please post your OC, as i have a 3930k also and would like to see how mine stacks up against the rest of the worlds









BTW my 3930K gets *1162cb* @ 4.5Ghz


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwnzilla61*
> 
> I don't have time to post [email protected] I got 766. Going to bed so it was just a quick run, I'll tune my overclock for benching tomorrow as it's setup for gaming atm with pics.


Looks like nothing changed with regards to the compiler doing no favors for AMD cpus then.


----------



## rubicsphere




----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBlademaster01*
> 
> 1675 in this version 19.24 in R11.5


On your 2665 right? Not bad.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Here's what I got:


----------



## Demonkev666

My phenom II x6 is slow in all cpu parts

even on OC of 4.0ghz

84 for single not turbo.
495 stock at 3.2ghz No turbo.
69 fps for OpenGL

4.0ghz OC, no Nb over clock

603 for cpu
104 for single thread
77.12 for FPS in OpenGL

I've only got a lowly 2gb 5870 though :-/

looks betting in OpenGL


----------



## TheBlademaster01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> On your 2665 right? Not bad.


Yeah, I know it's supposed to be approx 2x as fast as my old 2600K @5.1 or stock 3960X (3.3GHz). It seems that this benchmark didn't scale so well tbh. A 5.1 2600K should score what, 900-1k in this one?


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> I'm at stock, no reason to OC right now. Besides, max stable I've been able to test is 4.3GHz. Anyway, score seems a little low...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Score
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: I didn't close any of my usual background applications, so 116 tasks as well


Considering your chip is meant to compete with mine, and I have a decent IPC and 500Mhz advantage I'd say you're doing pretty well.










I didn't close any programs or anything so I probably could get a higher score if I tried.


----------



## Durquavian

Well worth the dl to see.


----------



## fommof

I'll just leave these here for reference purposes (2600K at 3.4/4.7/4.8/5Ghz, ram at 1600Mhz 9-9-9-24).



Spoiler: 2600K at 3.4/4.7/4.8/5Ghz results



*CPU-wise:*









*GPU-wise:*


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Does this use AVX for intel? Is it still stuck at SSE2 for AMD?


Does anyone know? Stop ignoring the most important question in this thread.


----------



## Demonkev666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Does this use AVX for intel? Is it still stuck at SSE2 for AMD?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> Does anyone know? Stop ignoring the most important question in this thread.


probably the scores are horrible low for amd.

it shows intel 60% faster still for single thread.

how it's openGL doesn't show that.


----------



## TheBlademaster01

Opterons do just fine though...


----------



## djriful

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Renairy*
> 
> Lol how are people supposed to compare when all you give is "just moderate OC"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please post your OC, as i have a 3930k also and would like to see how mine stacks up against the rest of the worlds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW my 3930K gets *1162cb* @ 4.5Ghz


4.7Ghz - RAM at 1866Mhz 8-9-9-9


----------



## rdr09

thuban at 4.3GHz. will oc higher come cooler weather.


----------



## Asmodean

3770k @ 4.4 - Score: 814.

Seems about average, I suppose?


----------



## feniks

thanks for heads up! it is my favorite CPU stability tester


----------



## sdlvx

Already starting digging into it with a disassembler.

Unlike Cinebench r11.5, it doesn't seem to want libguide40.dll. libguide40.dll is an Intel library for handling OpenMP. OpenMP is a set of standards, if you will, that helps people write multi-threaded code/ Meaning that CB11.5 basically had an Intel library in complete control of handling how threading was handled, let alone the fact that it was compiled with ICC which is known to be harmful for AMD performance.

I am still digging around. I have school in a few hours and it's my comp sci course and I don't want to miss it.

I plan on doing some research as to how fair or unfair this benchmark is. So please, keep benchmarks coming in so I can at least see if there is some sort of outliers or anything going on. I would expect 8350 to trade blows with 4770k depending on clock speed with a "Windows fair" type of fairness in compilation.

Regarding what I've seen it looks about right, 4.4ghz 4770k is high end of what you can expect out of 4770k overclock and I have a 5ghz 8350 which is the high end of what you could expect out of 8350.


That was just a quick run at AVX stable settings I can safely use in Gentoo to compile and run a complete OS with AVX/SSE4/BMI/FMA/etc instructions on my main user account with programs running. I will get serious a little later when I get back from school.

The good news is this does seem more fair to AMD CPUs than CB11.5 was. I have it loaded in a debugger right now and it doesn't seem to want any Intel performance libraries.

However a quick look at hex editor shows that it may still be crippling AMD CPUs. 

Common trait of ICC is to have GeniuneIntel and AuthenticAMD strings in the program somewhere. It needs this stored so it can load the strings into memory and compare the CPU name it looked up to the string saved in the PE exe.

I will probably write an article about this later







Please post more AMD benchmarks so I can see if it's being unfair or not. I am pressed for time and am already a little late getting to school. But I am ready to deliver









EDIT: I did run this with NRAC blocking disabled and "fix errata" checked in *the stilt*'s _Bulldozer Conditioner_ so I'm not sure if that affected anything.

For reference, in CB11.5, stock 4770k is about 17% faster than stock FX 8350.

At good overclocks for 4770k and good overclocks for FX 8350, there is about a 4% difference between 4770k and FX 8350.

I am leaning towards CB15 being more fair to AMD but I am concerned about GenuineIntel and AuthenticAMD strings in the exe. However just because they are there doesn't mean it is unfair, it only means that it _has the potential to be unfair_.

Crap, I'm gonna be late to school. Hope you guys appreciate this post.


----------



## Alatar

Since when is 4.4ghz a high end 4770K OC... In order for that to be your max OC you need an absolutely terrible chip.


----------



## Vaub

Thank for the new, always liked Cinebench as a good comparison for cpus









Here are the result for my 4770k @ 4,6 (1866Mhz 10-10-10-27) and R7950 @ 1,1Ghz core / 1575Mhz memory

Quote:


> I'll just leave these here for reference purposes (2600K at 3.4/4.7/4.8/5Ghz, ram at 1600Mhz 9-9-9-24).


Didn't thought there would be that big of a difference from Sandy to Haswell.


----------



## mrkk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Does this use AVX for intel? Is it still stuck at SSE2 for AMD?


It does not use AVX, AVX2, FMA on Intel (tested on Haswell). Also SSE3 is the new minimum requirement for Cinebench R15.


----------



## fommof

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vaub*
> 
> Didn't thought there would be that big of a difference from Sandy to Haswell.


Naaaah, pretty much what i expected. According to the stored R15's scores my 2600K at 4.7Ghz (823) matches a 4770K at 4.4Ghz (822) which translates to 6.8% higher frequency for the 2600K to match the 4770K.

Our fellow forumite Asmodean posted 814 score for his 3770k @ 4.4 which i can guess it matches (more or less) the 2600K running at 4.6Ghz, which again that would translate to 4.55% higher frequency for the 2600K to match the 3770K.

I think it makes sense, at least in this bench.


----------



## Redwoodz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> Since when is 4.4ghz a high end 4770K OC... In order for that to be your max OC you need an absolutely terrible chip.


That is absolutely correct for 24/7 clocks on air/water. Haswell has a very wide range and runs extremely hot.


----------



## MadGoat

My 24/7 clock as of right now...


----------



## dafour

592 with 2500K at 4.4Ghz


----------



## Vaub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fommof*
> 
> I think it makes sense, at least in this bench.


I don't know why, but I had the idea stuck in my head that the Sandy/Ivy/Haswell were mostly all the same


----------



## Micko

2500K @ 4.6 - 626 cb


----------



## sdlvx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> Since when is 4.4ghz a high end 4770K OC... In order for that to be your max OC you need an absolutely terrible chip.


Ah, I expected you to address my thought out post of hard evidence and conjecture with some sort of FUDy thing.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/01/intel_haswell_i74770k_ipc_overclocking_review/6

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjXDCk5eCp1gdEdENjlDYWl6ZnV4OVlNc0lMU1V3c1E#gid=0

4.4ghz is the high end of what you can expect regarding what Asus found through their research. Only 30% of them made it to 4.6ghz, and Asus didn't even specify how stable they were. If 30% of Asus's chips can't make it past 4.5ghz, then I'd consider the fact that 4.5ghz is only 2% high clock rate than 4.4ghz the high end. I'm not sure what you're getting at

As for our OCN spreadsheet, we have folks on custom loops that delidded that can only go to 4.7ghz.

Not sure what you're getting your numbers at. OCN spreadsheet has a few people better than 5ghz and lots of folks getting higher clocks at the same voltages that haswell is running at

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvsxWM_f24kDdEQ4eGhrdzV2aU94QVBZV2R6LXdIY3c&gid=0

I think you need to admit that AMD Piledriver is much more likely to hit higher clocks than Haswell and that those Haswell chips running 1.4v+ on vcore aren't going to last as long as AMD chips at 1.5v+ on vcore due to Haswell being 22nm bulk (in before MUH 3D TRIGATE!!!) and AMD being on 32nm SOI.

The sooner you realize Intel fab process is designed for low power mobile devices for low power and lower clock speed and SOI is what can take IBM stock chips to 5ghz, and AMD chips to stock 5ghz, the better off you are before you make a fool of yourself further.

But please stop trying to derail this thread. I'm going to pick apart CB15 whether you like it or not and I'm going to make my findings known. So please show me some 8350 benchmarks and some stock Intel benchmarks so I can see how cb15 is and see if the deltas between CB15 and CB11.5 stay the same or change. If they change, it's quite obvious that CB11.5 was definitely crippling AMD (which we kind of already know), but it will at least show some signs of CB15 being a little more fair.

Perhaps MAXON has picked up on the fact that if they cripple AMD rigs in their renderer, that no one is going to bother buying their products if they have an AMD. I know that since CB11.5 was unfair to AMD, I have made a strong point to recommend against buying MAXON products because of unfair business practices to my modelling friends and have been pointing them towards Blender or Autodesk software instead with fairer render engines.

However I'm just glad to see R11.5 out of here. The renderer was horribly outdated, the results looked horrible in comparison to modern renderers, and no one in their right mind who is doing professional work would be using R11.5 of MAXON render engine to present people professional work.


----------



## TheBlademaster01

Weren't you supposed to go to class?


----------



## arvidab

Ah, a new version. Will try a few of my rigs.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBlademaster01*
> 
> Opterons do just fine though...


You tell me how I'll get this running in Linux, and I'll show you some 48core Magny scores...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBlademaster01*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> On your 2665 right? Not bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know it's supposed to be approx 2x as fast as my old 2600K @5.1 or stock 3960X (3.3GHz). It seems that this benchmark didn't scale so well tbh. *A 5.1 2600K should score what, 900-1k in this one?*
Click to expand...

Why don't you tell us?


----------



## TheBlademaster01

I tried to run in Suse but it had compatibility issues. Try Wine though.


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> snip


You paired 4.4 on haswell and 5.0 on Vishera as the "high end OCs". Thats what I had a problem with. 4.5 vs. 4.8 sounds more like it for average higher end OCs. Where there are worse chips out there but also much better chips.

Honestly just looking at the OCN haswell chart should tell you something... out of the ~70 listing only around ~20 are x44 or lower. If out of all Visheras on OCN only ~17% did 5ghz or worse and the better ones were much higher than that then you would not be saying that 5.0 was the high end OC for visheras. Similarly you should not say that 4.4 is the expected high end OC for Haswell when obviously even on OCN the very clear majority can do more than that.

As for investigating cinebench. Good, I don't know where you got the idea that I don't like people figuring out how different software works...


----------



## psyq3212

Here are my results: 3098 cb

2 x Xeon E5 2697 v2, running with 104 MHz BCLK (so 2808 MHz nominal, 3120 MHz all-core turbo)


----------



## TheBlademaster01




----------



## josephimports

4770K / 44x / 1.2v / XMP 2400
886 cb


----------



## MadGoat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> You paired 4.4 on haswell and 5.0 on Vishera as the "high end OCs". Thats what I had a problem with. 4.5 vs. 4.8 sounds more like it for average higher end OCs. Where there are worse chips out there but also much better chips.
> 
> Honestly just looking at the OCN haswell chart should tell you something... out of the ~70 listing only around ~20 are x44 or lower. If out of all Visheras on OCN only ~17% did 5ghz or worse and the better ones were much higher than that then you would not be saying that 5.0 was the high end OC for visheras. Similarly you should not say that 4.4 is the expected high end OC for Haswell when obviously even on OCN the very clear majority can do more than that.
> 
> As for investigating cinebench. Good, I don't know where you got the idea that I don't like people figuring out how different software works...


I would have to agree here,

4.8 is the "normal" OC for a vishera chip. 5ghz is a top percentile. So if 4.4ghz is haswell, then 4.8 is vishera... yes they both can go higher...

So far the results look good! my 8350 765cb @ 4.750 seems spot of compared to a 886cb 4770 @ 4.4.


----------



## Redwoodz

Thuban 4.1GHz

109 single
630 multi


----------



## djriful

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djriful*
> 
> Just moderate OC...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Benchmark Results


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Renairy*
> 
> Lol how are people supposed to compare when all you give is "just moderate OC"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please post your OC, as i have a 3930k also and would like to see how mine stacks up against the rest of the worlds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW my 3930K gets *1162cb* @ 4.5Ghz


4.7Ghz 3930k 1.360-1.366v. (Currently waiting for parts for the real watercool)


----------



## Sprkd1

I got 976 cb on my 3930K that turbos to 3.8 GHz when all cores are used. Isn't this low? The reference 3930K in the benchmark gets quite a bit higher.


----------



## brasco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> However I'm just glad to see R11.5 out of here. The renderer was horribly outdated, the results looked horrible in comparison to modern renderers, and no one in their right mind who is doing professional work would be using R11.5 of MAXON render engine to present people professional work.


Whilst the engine has been updated, it's actually the same scene slightly rearranged







There's _nothing_ in the R15 CPU scene that couldn't be done in the old R11.5 engine.
Most professionals use Vray, Maxwell or MentalRay and soon I imagine a lot of Octane and Arnold users. That's not to say the new Advanced Render isn't up to scratch, it has improved a lot, Cinebench doesn't do anything to show it off.


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sprkd1*
> 
> I got 976 cb on my 3930K that turbos to 3.8 GHz when all cores are used. Isn't this low? The reference 3930K in the benchmark gets quite a bit higher.


It's definitely not a stock 3930K that's listed in the example scores. Has to be overclocked for scores like that.


----------



## djriful

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sprkd1*
> 
> I got 976 cb on my 3930K that turbos to 3.8 GHz when all cores are used. Isn't this low? The reference 3930K in the benchmark gets quite a bit higher.


Turn off any background programs and AV when you bench.


----------



## Sprkd1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> It's definitely not a stock 3930K that's listed in the example scores. Has to be overclocked for scores like that.


Ah, ok thanks.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djriful*
> 
> Turn off any background programs and AV when you bench.


I only run like 46 processes on a fresh boot. The only AV I have is the one built-into Windows 8 Pro.

I get 11.05 in CINEBENCH 11.5.


----------



## djriful

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sprkd1*
> 
> Ah, ok thanks.
> I only run like 46 processes on a fresh boot. The only AV I have is the one built-into Windows 8 Pro.
> 
> I get 11.05 in CINEBENCH 11.5.


RAM timing? Mine are at 1866Mhz 8-9-9-9


----------



## Particle

363 on a Core i7-2720QM


----------



## Sprkd1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djriful*
> 
> RAM timing? Mine are at 1866Mhz 8-9-9-9


1600 MHz 9-9-9-24-2T. Basically, the standard stuff.


----------



## djriful

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sprkd1*
> 
> 1600 MHz 9-9-9-24-2T. Basically, the standard stuff.


Tweak it!!!


----------



## Sprkd1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djriful*
> 
> Tweak it!!!


Prefer stock for stability. I don't really worry about small performance improvements at the cost of stability and life.


----------



## Trogdor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sprkd1*
> 
> Prefer stock for stability. I don't really worry about small performance improvements at the cost of stability and life.


That's not a very good argument.

Ran R15, *3930K @ 4.5GHZ - CPU score: 1147, OpenGL score with 3930K and GTX670 2GB: 105.23*
EDIT: Didn't close any programs.


----------



## darkstar585

2600k is showing its age...already had to bump the vcore to 1.380v and drop the clocks to 4.5 for stability









Considering I already have to leave my rig on 24/7 to render solidworks models within Keyshot, those dual cpu xeon scores are looking mighty tempting!


----------



## arvidab

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBlademaster01*
> 
> I tried to run in Suse but it had compatibility issues. Try Wine though.


Didn't work.









Worked through a VM though. 11.5 worked with Wine, and I got the same result in VM as through Wine, so I guess the R15 score I got is representative.


Spoiler: World record



No one will be able to beat this.








128 cb
Athlon II 3.1GHz


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

darkstar585

If it's the same psu and mobo since your 2600k's older overclocks, they could be also the culprit.


----------



## doomlord52

I guess I could try this on one of my work's Xeon rigs... should be interesting to see how those bench.
(Will post results in 2 hours)

Or, I could instead bench my i3 laptop, while on battery. I'm sure you guys would be much more interested in that than just some Xeon.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doomlord52*
> 
> I guess I could try this on one of my work's Xeon rigs... should be interesting to see how those bench.
> (*Will post results in 2 hours*)


That's how long your Xeons take to render this bench you suppose?


----------



## darkstar585

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> darkstar585
> 
> If it's the same psu and mobo since your 2600k's older overclocks, they could be also the culprit.


Yeah the PSU is but I tested it about a month ago when I "borrowed" a oscilloscope from work and it is well within specifications. The Motherboard is fairly old now though so maybe that's the issue with the old girl.


----------



## Catscratch

Ouch. 4ghz 2500k @ -0.015 Offset voltage, 1866 8-9-8-25-2t Gskill RAMs.
547 Multi - 93 Opengl



Is 93 fps opengl ok for 6850 @ 850/1050 ? Kinda fishy. Opengl part is probably not a consistent test.


----------



## doomlord52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> That's how long your Xeons take to render this bench you suppose?


Hah, hope not. Gotta finish a few _slightly_ more important things before benching.


----------



## Germanian

532 points with amd phenom x6 1055t @ 3.5ghz with 1.35v and north bridge at 2800 if not mistaken


----------



## *ka24e*

Got 666 on my first run using the sig rig. Didn't close everything, and my ram is running at bone stock speeds (1600 @ 11-11-11-28 1T) which I'm sure didn't help.









Going to overclock the ram and re-test.


----------



## Yor_

Getting this...



Looking good?

4770K is at 4.2 GHz right now (24/7 OC)


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yor_*
> 
> Getting this...
> 
> 
> 
> Looking good?
> 
> 4770K is at 4.2 GHz right now (24/7 OC)


Considering the score below yours in the screenshot is a 4770k @4.4GHz with 822 points, I'd say you're doing ok.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

@ 4.33 GHz scored 676 cb, 102.35 fps in OpenGL...


----------



## drb124




----------



## uncholowapo

Someone tell me if that is a good score for my 2500k.


----------



## flyin15sec

FX8320 @ 4.2 663
[email protected] 779


----------



## Demonkev666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Demonkev666*
> 
> My phenom II x6 is slow in all cpu parts
> 
> even on OC of 4.0ghz
> 
> 84 for single not turbo.
> 495 stock at 3.2ghz No turbo.
> 69 fps for OpenGL
> 
> 4.0ghz OC, no Nb over clock
> 
> 603 for cpu
> 104 for single thread
> 77.12 for FPS in OpenGL
> 
> I've only got a lowly 2gb 5870 though :-/
> 
> looks betting in OpenGL


hhhmmm wonder why I got 90 fps in openGL with my NB an Hyper transport overclocked and memory.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Surprised I got 133.32FPS in OpenGL with my GTX 480 @955MHz.


----------



## CalinTM

It's ok for a 3770k 4.5Ghz to get 810 points ?


----------



## trojan92

Not on my PC right now, so can anyone test a overclocked 3570K? I just wanna see how it compares to Sandy/Haswell


----------



## arvidab

Ok, now for a real submission.

8.61 fps (worse than Intel HD4000)
2107 points

2xE5-2670 ES, 104MHz BCLK, 3120MHz all-core-turbo.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arvidab*
> 
> Ok, now for a real submission.
> 
> 8.61 fps (worse than Intel HD4000)
> 2107 points
> 
> 2xE5-2670 ES, 104MHz BCLK, 3120MHz all-core-turbo.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


1.7v?

Either that's a false reading or you're trying to rapidly kill a perfectly good pair of xeons.


----------



## djriful

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arvidab*
> 
> Didn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worked through a VM though. 11.5 worked with Wine, and I got the same result in VM as through Wine, so I guess the R15 score I got is representative.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: World record
> 
> 
> 
> No one will be able to beat this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 128 cb
> Athlon II 3.1GHz


Dont make me power up my Pentium II 266Mhz.


----------



## wot

*676* 4670K 4.5Ghz 1.28v 2133Mhz ram


----------



## VikingGe

Quote:


> Common trait of ICC is to have GeniuneIntel and AuthenticAMD strings in the program somewhere. It needs this stored so it can load the strings into memory and compare the CPU name it looked up to the string saved in the PE exe.


Not necessarily a sign though. For instance, I have to use vendor-specific code to find out about the architecture, which allows me to select an aggressively optimized code path.

I mean, AVX support isn't everything, especially on Bulldozer with its two 128 bit pipelines where it probably won't even have a noticable effect. Proper instruction scheduling taking execution latencies (which are horrible on Bulldozer - 6 cycles for a simple ADDPS) and pipeline layout (e.g. FADD/FMUL/FSTORE on the K10) into account is just as important. Doing that, you can easily get an old Phenom II to execute more than two SSE instructions per clock cycle unless the code is bottlenecked by memory, which is again something that makes the situation worse for AMD - K10 is absolutely horrible when it comes to memory performance, Bulldozer is better but still bad. On AMD hardware you pretty much want all data to be located in the L1/L2 cache and, of course, the registers.

So yeah, AMD's architectures can deliver great performance, they just need some care. I don't think that Intel compilers care very much, of course they will optimize their code mostly for their own architectures, but then they don't need to "cripple" AMD in order to make their CPUs perform poorly.

543 cb for my Thuban at 3.5 GHz by the way, 108 in single threaded test (4.1 GHz).

Edit:
Quote:


> Worked through a VM though. 11.5 worked with Wine, and I got the same result in VM as through Wine, so I guess the R15 score I got is representative.


Another Linux user plagued by the fact that a damn benchmark doesn't even work with Wine anymore? You're welcome


----------



## arvidab

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arvidab*
> 
> Ok, now for a real submission.
> 
> 8.61 fps (worse than Intel HD4000)
> 2107 points
> 
> 2xE5-2670 ES, 104MHz BCLK, 3120MHz all-core-turbo.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7v?
> 
> Either that's a false reading or you're trying to rapidly kill a perfectly good pair of xeons.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, it's totally false. In HWinfo it reads 1.11V and 1.15V as the maximum value for respective CPU. I believe that value much more.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djriful*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arvidab*
> 
> Didn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worked through a VM though. 11.5 worked with Wine, and I got the same result in VM as through Wine, so I guess the R15 score I got is representative.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: World record
> 
> 
> 
> No one will be able to beat this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 128 cb
> 
> Athlon II 3.1GHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont make me power up my Pentium II 266Mhz.
Click to expand...

DO IT!


----------



## TheBlademaster01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> 1.7v?
> 
> Either that's a false reading or you're trying to rapidly kill a perfectly good pair of xeons.


Don't worry, arvid knows what he's doing lol









The only CPUs he overvolts to the point of frying his board and PSU are his 4 MC Opterons


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darkstar585*
> 
> 2600k is showing its age...already had to bump the vcore to 1.380v and drop the clocks to 4.5 for stability
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering I already have to leave my rig on 24/7 to render solidworks models within Keyshot, those dual cpu xeon scores are looking mighty tempting!


not just your cpu. even the gpu is kinda low. i7 at 4.5 7950 stock running at X8.


----------



## arvidab

My 3770K score seems kinda low:

4.8GHz
1600 CL11

825 points


----------



## psyq3212

@sdlvx.

It is still possible to correctly handle AMD even when using ICC if you manually override the CPU dispatcher, such as pre-made one by Agner Fog:

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
http://www.agner.org/optimize/#manual_cpp

I do not know if Cinebench developers are overriding the CPU dispatcher, but you can ask them if it is the case. GenuineIntel string might still be there due to other library routines that might check for it, as there are also several other places that do check (such as Intel IPP library, etc.) - most of them can be overriden manually.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arvidab*
> 
> My 3770K score seems kinda low:
> 
> 4.8GHz
> 1600 CL11
> 
> 825 points


seems a little low because my [email protected] scored 864 could be my memory [email protected] but my pc didnt have a fresh reboot and i been folding all day.


----------



## doomlord52

Could only get a hold of a Xeon E5-1620 (4C/8T @ 3.6) and got 637cb. Meh. Need to try and get a hand on some of the X5xxx chips.... (there's dual-chip system somewhere).


----------



## mtbiker033

-results from my 2nd rig (12Pack) i7-970 @ 4.2ghz, the openGL test failed somehow on my 7870, only ran it once:


----------



## lilchronic

my first run @ 5ghz 3570k


----------



## sumitlian

It seems CB15 is doing better with AMD than CB11.5.
Here is what I get,



i7 4770k, 4.40 GHz = 822
FX 8350, 4.80 GHz = 766

So if my calculation is right then, 4770k is only 17.1% faster per clock in CB Multithreading.


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> If its still AMD crippled, then


It most likely is giving SSE 2 to AMD processors no matter what and giving AVX or SSE 4, 4.2 instructions to Intel. (or rather machines reporting the 3 strings that spell out GenuineIntel rather than AuthenticAMD)


----------



## deathlikeeric

832cb on i7 2600k @ 4.8ghz


----------



## Kuivamaa

It seems that 15 gives somewhat similar scores to 11.5 with values multiplied by 100, no?


----------



## TheBlademaster01

Not for my chips


----------



## arvidab

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> It seems that 15 gives somewhat similar scores to 11.5 with values multiplied by 100, no?


Well;

2670's: 2107 vs 23.46
3770K: 871 vs 9.76


----------



## arvidab

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arvidab*
> 
> My 3770K score seems kinda low:
> 
> 4.8GHz
> 1600 CL11
> 
> 825 points
> 
> 
> 
> seems a little low because my [email protected] scored 864 could be my memory [email protected] but my pc didnt have a fresh reboot and i been folding all day.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
Click to expand...

Got it up to 871 simply by running it a few more times.
Up to 884 with 4.8/2400MHz mem. 910 with 5GHz and 2133.


----------



## lilchronic

one more run








3570k @5.1ghz


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> It most likely is giving SSE 2 to AMD processors no matter what and giving AVX or SSE 4, 4.2 instructions to Intel. (or rather machines reporting the 3 strings that spell out GenuineIntel rather than AuthenticAMD)


I had never thought I would ever see a fair CB benchmark, but I was wrong lol, this is doing great for AMD CPU now.
And I can guarantee its not using AVX even with Intel processors. Lets assume If it were AVX enabled with fair AMD competition, Intel can dispatch one AVX instr per cycle, AMD does it in two cycles. This means theoretically i7 4770k would have been doing 100% (excluding overhead) faster per clock than FX. Even if you take the worst case scenario with 50% overhead, 4770k would have been performing at least 50% faster than FX. But its not in reality, its only 17.1% faster than 8350, per clock.

CB11.5 had been compiled with ICC 11.1 (SSE4.2 for Intel and SSE2 For AMD), though it supported AVX, but there were no CPU at that time which supported AVX. (though I am not sure), I believe CB15 is using upto SSE4.2 only for both Intel and AMD.


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> So if my calculation is right then, 4770k is only 17.1% faster per clock in CB Multithreading.


I scored 929 at 4.59ghz and that score is ~21% higher than yours. And your CPU was clocked ~4.5% higher.

I don't think the clock for clock difference is 17%...


----------



## TheBlademaster01

No, it really isn't. An FX-8350 is more comparable with 3570K and 4670K. In multitasking. That would put it at 22-26% below a 3770K clock for clock (usual HT difference vs i5)


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> I scored 929 at 4.59ghz and that score is ~21% higher than yours. And your CPU was clocked ~4.5% higher.
> 
> I don't think the clock for clock difference is 17%...










I just calculated it according to what they showed in CB15 by default.
Well what memory frequency were you running at that time ?


----------



## arvidab

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> So if my calculation is right then, 4770k is only 17.1% faster per clock in CB Multithreading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 929 at 4.59ghz and that score is ~21% higher than yours. And your CPU was clocked ~4.5% higher.
> 
> I don't think the clock for clock difference is 17%...
Click to expand...

So my 920 score seems low still.

3770K/5GHz, 2400MHz mem:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







It's a pretty plain install and few processes are running. Or is Haswell just that much better?


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just calculated it according to what they showed in CB15 by default.
> Well what memory frequency were you running at that time ?


2000 CL9 most likely. With x35 uncore.


----------



## DooRules

1242cb with 3960 at 4.8


----------



## mrkk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> It most likely is giving SSE 2 to AMD processors no matter what and giving AVX or SSE 4, 4.2 instructions to Intel. (or rather machines reporting the 3 strings that spell out GenuineIntel rather than AuthenticAMD)


Stop this nonsense. Both are using the same SSE version. Otherwise we would see huge differences. Cinebench R15 doesn't run with SSE2 CPUs, also there is absolutely no performance difference on Haswell with disabled AVX, AVX2, FMA in Windows, means R15 doesn't use it.


----------



## Durquavian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkk*
> 
> Stop this nonsense. Both are using the same SSE version. Otherwise we would see huge differences. Cinebench R15 doesn't run with SSE2 CPUs, also there is absolutely no performance difference on Haswell with disabled AVX, AVX2, FMA in Windows, means R15 doesn't use it.


Sorry but gonna need the proof. Saying it doesn't make it so.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBlademaster01*
> 
> No, it really isn't. An FX-8350 is more comparable with 3570K and 4670K. In multitasking. That would put it at 22-26% below a 3770K clock for clock (usual HT difference vs i5)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> 2000 CL9 most likely. With x35 uncore.


See the post #16, Alatar got 1065 with 5318 MHz with i7 4770k. (memory speed = unknown )
I got 766 with 4800 MHz FX 8350. (memory speed = you can see in post #114 )

i7, 5318 / 1065 = 4.99342723
FX, 4800 / 766 = 6.26631853

6.26631853 / 4.99342723 = 1.254913357

So according to that post #16, i7 4770k is 25.5 % faster than 8350 per clock. But its still not 100% fair comparison because my 8350 was with 1866 MHz Memory speed, while Alatar was probably running >2000 MHz, so I will consider 4770 to be around max 22% faster per clock. 3770k should probably be no more than 21% clock for clock in multithreading.

@TheBlademaster01, It really isn't. You can clearly see that 3570k at post #121 is 20% slower per clock than 8350 in multithreading.

Edit: Some mistakes have been fixed in calculation.


----------



## Harobi

645 with a i5 2500K @ 4.8GHz and 2133MHz RAM 10-11-10-28 timings


----------



## djriful

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> See the post #16, Alatar got 1065 with 5318 MHz with i7 4770k. (memory speed = unknown )
> I got 766 with 4800 MHz FX 8350. (memory speed = you can see in post #114 )
> 
> i7, 5318 / 1065 = 4.99342723
> FX, 4800 / 766 = 6.26631853
> 
> 6.26631853 - 4.99342723 = 1.2728913
> 
> So according to that post #16, i7 4770k is 27.3 % faster than 8350 per clock. But its not 100% fair comparison because my 8350 was with 1866 MHz Memory speed, while Alatar was probably running >2000 MHz, so I will consider 4770 to be around max 25% faster per clock. 3770k should probably be no more than 23% clock for clock in multithreading.
> 
> @TheBlademaster01, It really isn't. You can clearly see that 3570k at post #121 is 20% slower per clock than 8350 in multithreading.


You can't compare the Ghz from AMD vs Intel. Ghz doesn't mean anything but it to indicate how hard the bencher person push it at.

When I say mine is 4.7Ghz is only 80% of the overclock potential before limit. At 100% maybe at 4.9ghz 5Ghz most.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> . You can clearly see that 3570k at post #121 is 20% slower per clock than 8350 in multithreading.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djriful*
> 
> You can't compare the Ghz from AMD vs Intel. Ghz doesn't mean anything but it to indicate how hard the bencher person push it at.
> 
> When I say mine is 4.7Ghz is only 80% of the overclock potential before limit. At 100% maybe at 4.9ghz 5Ghz most.


I understand what you are saying. But Cinebench gives almost identical results at (generally no more than 5% difference) at a certain core/memory frequency. And Alatar is a hardcore overclocker, I consider his results to be more optimized than a general overclocker. That is why I was comparing with him. And you're right if you look into every user's results and compare it.

and lol, if there is no Intel vs AMD GHz, then there will be nothing to compare. This is the only thing we and every review site test.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*










Please don't weep ! I didn't mean that.










I've something for you, You're i5 is >20% faster in almost every game. Its >50% faster in PCSX2 (PlayStation 2 Emulator ).

Are we ok now ?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't weep ! I didn't mean that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've something for you, You're i5 is >20% faster in almost every game. Its >50% faster in PCSX2 (PlayStation 2 Emulator ).
> 
> Are we ok now ?


lol yeah im ok now









............another benchmark i like for comparing results








http://www.overclock.net/t/1420413/black-hole-v4-2-final-let-us-see-your-scores/0_20


----------



## gsa700

Here's my stock i7 in my Hack:


----------



## th3illusiveman

~595 for my i5 @ 4.4Ghz and ~150 for my i5 @ 1.6-2.0 (ultrabook).


----------



## Cyro999

46/40 wasn't quite doing it so i kicked uncore to 44 in software to go from consistent 948 to consistent 952

MP ratio a bit high, HT benefits more now or something?


----------



## ikem

1615 on my rig.


----------



## kzone75

*45* single threaded.


----------



## lilchronic




----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*


What's going on there- X4 B55 running 3c/3t? Unlocked X2? Mis-identified X3?


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

*Protip:* If you're OCD about background processes, you can always run Cinebench in Windows safe mode.

So I just read the whole thread and have three things to say.

1. Maxon should totally be using 7z archives instead of ZIP; with ultra 7z compression Cinebench R15 compresses all the way down to only 65MB - by comparison the ZIP it comes in is 104MB.

2. Nobody noticed that the render window has been made larger? It no longer fits completely on my screen @ 1152x864

3. I am disappoint. *THIS* is the world record!

*Athlon 64 x2 4800+ C2 Brisbane @ stock, 667MHz DDR2, multi-threaded*
(done in Windows safe mode to minimize anything that could be considered cheating)


----------



## Im Batman

766cb - 2600k @ 4.5GHz / 1.352v

Considering I only use my rig for gaming, would I generally see any FPS increase with a 4770k or perhaps a 4930k?

Have the money for an upgrade and i'm itching to do a new build but no point spending money if it's only 1-5 frames for most games.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> What's going on there- X4 B55 running 3c/3t? Unlocked X2? Mis-identified X3?


mobo wont let me unlock 4th core or i just dont no how

oh wait it's this chip AMD Athlon II X3 455 Rana 3.3GHz Socket AM3 95W Triple-Core Desktop Processor


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Just downloaded and ran:



3960X @ 5GHz
Patriot Viper Xtreme 2133MHz 10-12-11-31


----------



## Loopooo

Not too bad I guess.


----------



## lilchronic

what does MP ratio mean ?


----------



## Cyro999

It's the ratio between single core and multi test, if you have a quad core without hyperthreading for example you score pretty much exactly 4x as much on multithreaded as on single, so it'd say like 150 single, 600 multi, 4x mp ratio


----------



## Red1776




----------



## mateuszgpucomp

Hi.
This is my first post on forum








Thats my cinebench r15 cpu scores


----------



## TheBlademaster01

Where did you get those from







?

Also what board? That's a long shot from the 100MHz bClk


----------



## mateuszgpucomp

Configuration:
Asus Z9PE-D8 WS
2x Xeon e5-2696 V2
32 GB DDR3 ECC
Firmware BIOS 5103
yes, this is OC , bclock 111 MHz ( oc stable- after 10 h linX 11.00.0.004)
more test http://www.gpucomputer.pl/testy/test-b/

CPUZ


----------



## TheBlademaster01

Wow, highest I've seen on this board is 104MHz. I take it those chips are QS (C0/C1)?

Have you ever ran SNB-EP on this board? Also what Firmware are you running, v5103?

You definitely should visit the Z9 thread, welcome man







.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1261060/asus-z9pe-d8-owners-thread/


----------



## Adrenaline




----------



## jprovido

my i5 3570k @ 4.5ghz scores at 628. I miss my h100i


----------



## infernal rodent

No Sli



With Sli



Either I did something wrong,or Cinebench doesn't like Sli...


----------



## devilmcry

My 4770k @ 4400MHz , cache @ 4200MHz

900 pts


----------



## Luciferxy

mine @stock











same cpu score with RAM 1333 or 1600.
OpenGL is 78.85/86.09 for RAM 1333/1600


----------



## Red1776

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Red1776*


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infernal rodent*
> 
> No Sli
> 
> 
> 
> With Sli
> 
> 
> 
> Either I did something wrong,or Cinebench doesn't like Sli...


CB only makes use of a single GPU and always has, so no worries.


----------



## Redwoodz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> thuban at 4.3GHz. will oc higher come cooler weather.


----------



## Jahocowi

Pretty average.


----------



## Demonkev666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Red1776*
> 
> CB only makes use of a single GPU and always has, so no worries.


I'd disable and run again to make sure.


----------



## pcfoo

Always liked the Cinebench idea (multiplatform, both single and multi-threaded results etc), but since the results fair so badly with AMD CPUs over what is happening in real life, I would expect R15 to offer more optimizations that actually do AMD architecture some justice where its due.

i.e. in Mental Ray and VRay, actual production renderers, a stock 8350 despite sucking a bit in single theaded, in multi it surpasses a i7-3770K in speed and stomps all over i5s...
Cinebench doesn't even come close to that "reality". FX architecture appears to be more than 20% slower in Cinebench that what it is in Vray. C4D is a great product by Maxon, true, but their rendering engine (what is evaluated with Cinebench) is far from the industry standard in many ways.

All I'm trying to say, aside from benchmarking, FX-83xx is a great budget chip for rendering nodes, and Cinebench R11.5 or R15 alike fails to illustrate that, despite being "written" to do exactly that (evaluate CG workstations/rendering capabilities).









Oh, and the OpenGL test is trully useless.


----------



## grunion

4770k/45/43/2200
4330/103/35/1866


----------



## darkstar585

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> not just your cpu. even the gpu is kinda low. i7 at 4.5 7950 stock running at X8.


Yeah cant explain why.







Played around with it a little today, upped the PLL voltage a notch and slightly tightened the ram timings which improved it a hair over my original scores.

Still cannot break the 4.5Ghz barrier any more without adding ridiculous core voltage (1.4v+) and positive Vdroop (LLC level 9) settings...Wish I had never dropped it down for summer now


----------



## infernal rodent

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Demonkev666*
> 
> I'd disable and run again to make sure.


Ran it with AFR1 and AFR2,about 1 fps difference between the 2,single gpu was faster than either.


----------



## Blameless

1113 (MP) with a 4.3GHz 3930k and CL8 DDR3-1600.

149 single thread.

119.38 fps OGL with a 7950 at 1053 core, 1575 memory.


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

I just *destroyed* my previous "world record".


----------



## kzone75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> I just *destroyed* my previous "world record".


Well done! I can't beat that.


----------



## *ka24e*

Let me get the old K6-2 out. I'll be back next month with the results.


----------



## Tom Thumb

Don't mind my sad little HD7770!







3930k @ 4.6


----------



## Deadboy90

Picked up a 750 score with my [email protected] and NB at stock. I actually have been running Cinebench 15 over and over again as a form of stress test, p95 and the like cause throttling on my mobo when my socket temps hit 60c for some reason. Hasn't happened with Cinebench yet!


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djriful*
> 
> Dont make me power up my Pentium II 266Mhz.


Do you really want me to get my Pentium MMX 166Mhz out?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBlademaster01*
> 
> No, it really isn't. An FX-8350 is more comparable with 3570K and 4670K. In multitasking. That would put it at 22-26% below a 3770K clock for clock (usual HT difference vs i5)


It's faster than the 3570k, one in this thread scored higher than mine despite mine having a 500Mhz clock speed advantage.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> So according to that post #16, i7 4770k is 25.5 % faster than 8350 per clock. But its still not 100% fair comparison because my 8350 was with 1866 MHz Memory speed, while Alatar was probably running >2000 MHz, so I will consider 4770 to be around max 22% faster per clock. 3770k should probably be no more than 21% clock for clock in multithreading.


Set your FX-8350 to 4.5Ghz, I got 595 with my i5 at 4.5Ghz with 1866Mhz RAM. I didn't close Chrome, etc so I'd wager I'd be in the low 600s if I had bothered to properly do all of that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> I just *destroyed* my previous "world record".


If you want to see a lower score I'll dig out my Atom 330. It's just so much effort for such a crap chip.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Set your FX-8350 to 4.5Ghz, I got 595 with my i5 at 4.5Ghz with 1866Mhz RAM. I didn't close Chrome, etc so I'd wager I'd be in the low 600s if I had bothered to properly do all of that.











well I closed Firefox, etc.
So its 20% faster per clock. (I know and understand very well that its only in multithreading







)

They say hyper thread extract about 10% more IPC from each core. It means 40% more mutithreading performance with i7 over i5. Subtract that 20% (8350) from 40% (i7 over i5), and we get 20% performance increase per clock with 3770k, this is about exactly what I calculated.


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> I didn't close Chrome, etc so I'd wager I'd be in the low 600s if I had bothered to properly do all of that.


Just run Cinebench in Windows safe mode and call it a day.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by **ka24e**
> 
> Let me get the old K6-2 out. I'll be back next month with the results.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Do you really want me to get my Pentium MMX 166Mhz out?


You guys realize that R15 requires SSE3, right? And since there's no 32bit build, it also requires x86_64 support. There aren't very many CPUs at all that are slower at stock than a T1400 that have both SSE3 and 64bit.


----------



## tweezlednutball

8350 @ 4.7 GHz (multi only) with 1866 memory scoring 757.


----------



## HMBR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> Just run Cinebench in Windows safe mode and call it a day.
> 
> You guys realize that R15 requires SSE3, right? And since there's no 32bit build, it also requires x86_64 support. There aren't very many CPUs at all that are slower at stock than a T1400 that have both SSE3 and 64bit.


there are quite a few, my Sempron 2800+ (s754, E6, with SSE3 and x64 support) is a lot slower
also some Prescott Pentium 4s have SSE3+x64 support, not to mention the slower Atoms (like the 230)


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well I closed Firefox, etc.
> So its 20% faster per clock. (I know and understand very well that its only in multithreading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> They say hyper thread extract about 10% more IPC from each core. It means 40% more mutithreading performance with i7 over i5. Subtract that 20% (8350) from 40% (i7 over i5), and we get 20% performance increase per clock with 3770k, this is about exactly what I calculated.


Sounds about right, given that the FX-83*0 generally beats the i5 and sometimes matches the i7 in multi-threaded scenarios. I think that the biased compiler thing might be gone.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> Just run Cinebench in Windows safe mode and call it a day.
> 
> You guys realize that R15 requires SSE3, right? And since there's no 32bit build, it also requires x86_64 support. There aren't very many CPUs at all that are slower at stock than a T1400 that have both SSE3 and 64bit.


Need to let a few things finish running first. (Just ripped a tonne of music DVDs which I'm now compressing)

The Pentium was a joke, I doubt that the motherboard works well enough for it to run at full load for long enough to complete the test even if it could. The Atom 330 could run it fine though. I could even get Atom 230 levels of performance by disabling one core with that which I'd say is about as slow as you could go without underclocking considering the Atom has about P4 levels of IPC and is at 1.6Ghz.

If anyone wants to see just how slow an Atom 330/230 is at this, I'll quickly throw it together with Win 7 x64 and test both...Just don't expect it to be done very quickly at all.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Sounds about right, given that the FX-83*0 generally beats the i5 and sometimes matches the i7 in multi-threaded scenarios. I think that the biased compiler thing might be gone.


not "might be", it has gone







!
We also have a new version of AIDA64 (3.0) which is bias free now. No more low score in memory bandwidth with AMD CPUs.

Note: All older versions of AIDA64 had been accused for testing small size of memory blocks with Authentic AMD while big memory blocks for Genuine Intel. Though I still get lower scores with new AIDA64 when compared to Intel but they are far better than older versions. And this time you can confidently say its because of inefficiencies of AMD architecture


----------



## TheBlademaster01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Sounds about right, given that the FX-83*0 generally beats the i5 and sometimes matches the i7 in multi-threaded scenarios. I think that the biased compiler thing might be gone.
> Need to let a few things finish running first. (Just ripped a tonne of music DVDs which I'm now compressing)
> 
> The Pentium was a joke, I doubt that the motherboard works well enough for it to run at full load for long enough to complete the test even if it could. The Atom 330 could run it fine though. I could even get Atom 230 levels of performance by disabling one core with that which I'd say is about as slow as you could go without underclocking considering the Atom has about P4 levels of IPC and is at 1.6Ghz.
> 
> If anyone wants to see just how slow an Atom 330/230 is at this, I'll quickly throw it together with Win 7 x64 and test both...Just don't expect it to be done very quickly at all.


I didn't say that the 3570K was faster. The 8350 is still closer to the 3570K than a 3770K. We have them in Team competition folding as well. Aside from the power draw, a 8350 edges out a 3570K.


----------



## Artikbot

Thuban at 3.92GHz reporting in!



Good to see this little old chip still holding its ground


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBlademaster01*
> 
> I didn't say that the 3570K was faster. The 8350 is still closer to the 3570K than a 3770K. We have them in Team competition folding as well. Aside from the power draw, a 8350 edges out a 3570K.


Huh? What does that have to do with my post?


----------



## TheSocialHermit

My poor i7-920 is CRAWLING compared to a lot of your chips







Hopefully the new i7-3770K will move along much faster.



RAM is Corsair Vengence 24GB @ 1600MHz 9-9-9-24 timings. The 7950 OpenGL score is a little sketchy to me though.


----------



## Evil Penguin

My laptop's CPU isn't too bad.


----------



## HMBR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Evil Penguin*
> 
> My laptop's CPU isn't too bad.


faster than the fastest 1155 CPU.

just shows you how the "2.4GHz" is hardly indicative of how it performance, firstly because of higher IPC, but most importantly, turbo is quite aggressive on these CPUs


----------



## Evil Penguin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HMBR*
> 
> faster than the fastest 1155 CPU.
> 
> just shows you how the "2.4GHz" is hardly indicative of how it performance, firstly because of higher IPC, but most importantly, turbo is quite aggressive on these CPUs


I made it so that it turbos up to 3.4 GHz on all cores.


----------



## Seronx

The bias is still there scalar for AMD and vector for Intel. Applications near Maxon capabilities done with correct compiler flags have the FX 8-core series faster than most i7 980X, i7 3930Ks, etc.

I'll be waiting for an Open64 or a PGI binary for AMD.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheSocialHermit*
> 
> My poor i7-920 is CRAWLING compared to a lot of your chips
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully the new i7-3770K will move along much faster.
> 
> 
> 
> RAM is Corsair Vengence 24GB @ 1600MHz 9-9-9-24 timings. The 7950 OpenGL score is a little sketchy to me though.


Your i7 920 is probably still perfectly fine everywhere else.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seronx*
> 
> The bias is still there scalar for AMD and vector for Intel. Applications near Maxon capabilities done with correct compiler flags have the FX 8-core series faster than most i7 980X, i7 3930Ks, etc.
> 
> I'll be waiting for an Open64 or a PGI binary for AMD.


That's still too high, the FX-8 core competes with the 4 core i7s assuming absolutely no bias...That includes running a highly optimized version for AMD. (ie. Linux, compiled specifically for the AMD CPU vs normal Windows binary for Intel)


----------



## TheSocialHermit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Your i7 920 is probably still perfectly fine everywhere else.


It runs amazingly in almost every game and can do some decent clocks if I really try but with the amount of encoding I do for my YouTube channel, I'm really starting to feel the age of the tech. For an i7-920 D0, it performs amazingly compared to others but I'm excited to see what the performance jump is with the i7-3770K.


----------



## TheBlademaster01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> It's faster than the 3570k, one in this thread scored higher than mine despite mine having a 500Mhz clock speed advantage.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Huh? What does that have to do with my post?


See above

for some reason it quouted the wrong one.


----------



## Deadboy90

What's going on with that i7 3720qm and i7 3840qm? One is clocked 200mhz slower but puts up 20% higher score?


----------



## TheSocialHermit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deadboy90*
> 
> What's going on with that i7 3720qm and i7 3840qm? One is clocked 200mhz slower but puts up 20% higher score?


I found that to be a bit odd as well. Anyone got some insight on them?


----------



## Particle

We need some decent AMD numbers in this thread. heh


----------



## Deadboy90

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> We need some decent AMD numbers in this thread. heh


Server chips are cheating


----------



## Deadboy90

I think im the new "World Record" holder!


a 37 on multi thread!


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deadboy90*
> 
> I think im the new "World Record" holder!
> 
> a 37 on multi thread!


For a Wolfdale Core 2 Duo @ 1.3GHz?  That seems much slower than it should be...

Consider that my Conroe-based T1400 Celeron got a multi-threaded score of 55 @ 1.73GHz. If you take 55, divide by 1.73, and then multiply by 1.3, you get a score of 41, which is faster at the same clockrate than the Core 2 Duo in question. So something ain't right there...

Can you run the benchmark again, but this time in Windows safe mode and also do the single core bench as well?


----------



## feniks

core 2 duo E8400 stock 3.0GHz, 141 points.


----------



## Deadboy90

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> For a Wolfdale Core 2 Duo @ 1.3GHz?  That seems much slower than it should be...
> 
> Consider that my Conroe-based T1400 Celeron got a multi-threaded score of 55 @ 1.73GHz. If you take 55, divide by 1.73, and then multiply by 1.3, you get a score of 41, which is faster at the same clockrate than the Core 2 Duo in question. So something ain't right there...
> 
> Can you run the benchmark again, but this time in Windows safe mode and also do the single core bench as well?


sure ill also oc it to 1.73 as well and run it. Might take a while, took me a half hour to run it the first time.


----------



## Deadboy90

lol i found out what it was, my laptop was on power saver and the cpu was running at only 800mhz. Here it is at 1.3 ghz:


----------



## sumitlian

FX-8350 at 1.4 GHz single thread, CPU-NB at 1400 MHz, 4 GB DDR3 667 MHz @ Single Channel


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deadboy90*
> 
> lol i found out what it was, my laptop was on power saver and the cpu was running at only 800mhz.


That's cheating, your title of "world champion" is revoked.









*EDIT:* Even with a 33% clockspeed advantage my T1400 Celeron retains the crown in both single and multi-threaded. That's... sad.









*EDIT 2:* Oh I read the results wrong, the 37 isn't single-threaded but your old power-saver multi-threaded score. You can find single threaded via "Advanced benchmark" in the 'File' menu.

*EDIT 3:*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> FX-8350 at 1.4 GHz single thread, CPU-NB at 1400 MHz, 4 GB DDR3 667 MHz @ Single Channel


That's also cheating, you gotta run at stock clocks at least.









But if you REALLY want, my Brisbane @ 1GHz should kill that.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> But if you REALLY want, my Brisbane @ 1GHz should kill that.


800Mhz Atom 230.


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> 800Mhz Atom 230.


I totally could match that if the netbook that my sister currently has at Penn State supported 64bit. (Atom N270)

However, in terms of "cheaty" scores, wouldn't an Athlon II @ 100MHz via K10stat be the champion in that regard? I borrowed a Phenom II in the past for a bit and running it at 100MHz was insane - it needed at least 200MHz just to even be usable.


----------



## Marc79

Just comparing a 4770k and Q9550 both at stock clocks.

[email protected] - 792



[email protected] - 308


----------



## jsc1973

Scored 703 with the 8350 clocked at 4.51 GHz. Going to have to try this later on with the system at 4.85 and everything optimized for this kind of work.


----------



## uncholowapo

The difference between 4.6Ghz and 4.8Ghz on my 2500k is... nice?


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *uncholowapo*
> 
> The difference between 4.6Ghz and 4.8Ghz on my 2500k is... nice?


Just looking at your traybar, it looks like you got a ton of processes running. You could probably gain 20+ points if you shut a few of them down.


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Just looking at your traybar, it looks like you got a ton of processes running. You could probably gain 20+ points if you shut a few of them down.


Again, Cinebench works in Windows safe mode, and so does Paint so that you can save screenshots.


----------



## HMBR

1FPS!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marc79*
> 
> Just comparing a 4770k and Q9550 both at stock clocks.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected] - 792
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected] - 308


What I find intersting about this is that the little 3317U in my Ultrabook is darn near as fast as that C2Q!


----------



## edalbkrad

someone with an FX-9590 please bench this!


----------



## HMBR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *edalbkrad*
> 
> someone with an FX-9590 please bench this!


all you need is an 8320/8350 at 4.7GHz to have the exact same performance (for MT at least)


----------



## tictoc

I just posted a CINEBENCH R15 benchmarking thread, so we have a place to keep all these numbers without them getting buried in the news section. Top CINEBENCH R15 CPU Scores


----------



## Particle

I wouldn't worry about closing down other applications or running in safemode when running Cinebench. Instead, set the process's priority to realtime and it will run with absolute highest priority over everything else except absolute core system functionality--even to the exclusion of the user mode video driver. Just note that once you start the benchmark, you'll stop getting video until the test has finished. It doesn't mean your system has locked up, but I wouldn't want to run it on a system that isn't absolutely stable as you won't be able to tell the difference if it does crash.


----------



## ntuason

957cb @ 4.2ghz 980x.


----------



## uncholowapo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> I wouldn't worry about closing down other applications or running in safemode when running Cinebench. Instead, set the process's priority to realtime and it will run with absolute highest priority over everything else except absolute core system functionality--even to the exclusion of the user mode video driver. Just note that once you start the benchmark, you'll stop getting video until the test has finished. It doesn't mean your system has locked up, but I wouldn't want to run it on a system that isn't absolutely stable as you won't be able to tell the difference if it does crash.


See I'd do that if I was the hard core benchmarker I've always wanted to be. But I'm not. If its a gain of 20 points then I'm ok with not having them.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *uncholowapo*
> 
> See I'd do that if I was the hard core benchmarker I've always wanted to be. But I'm not. If its a gain of 20 points then I'm ok with not having them.


Your 2500k @4.8 score is 625.. If you take that by 1/4 (which should be right about right for i5) you've got 156 single core. I'm hitting 185 maybe higher on haswell, with a 200mhz clock speed disadvantage, arch isn't that much better, no funny buisness just flick to realtime prio and hit go


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> I wouldn't worry about closing down other applications or running in safemode when running Cinebench. Instead, set the process's priority to realtime and it will run with absolute highest priority over everything else except absolute core system functionality--even to the exclusion of the user mode video driver. Just note that once you start the benchmark, you'll stop getting video until the test has finished. It doesn't mean your system has locked up, but I wouldn't want to run it on a system that isn't absolutely stable as you won't be able to tell the difference if it does crash.


Even you set to realtime you still have other programs in the scheduling queue that should still be consuming a few cycles because they still are in the main memory and everything which is in the main memory also consume CPU's cache. To get the maximum practical scores, safe mode is the best idea. (If your apps can run on safe mode)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsc1973*
> 
> Scored 703 with the 8350 clocked at 4.51 GHz. Going to have to try this later on with the system at 4.85 and everything optimized for this kind of work.


I get 718 in 4.500 GHz without in safe mode (CPU-NB 2600 and Memory at 1866 CL 10). You can get more than that if you run 2133 or 2400 memory.


----------



## Kalistoval

Heh my dell studio 1458


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Even you set to realtime you still have other programs in the scheduling queue that should still be consuming a few cycles because they still are in the main memory and everything which is in the main memory also consume CPU's cache. To get the maximum practical scores, safe mode is the best idea. (If your apps can run on safe mode)


That isn't how realtime priority works. Anything up to high still shares time with other processes prioritized lower than themselves. A process set to realtime runs to the exclusion of all others. Most interrupts aren't even serviced. Your other applications, whatever they may be, are still resident in memory but they may as well not be open as the scheduler doesn't execute their code until there is free CPU time available again. Code in system memory has nothing to do with CPU cache utilization. Your CPU will cache whatever is being fetched and has been fetched, evicting those blocks that aren't called as new ones are added.


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Why not both? (or Zoidberg) Safe mode AND realtime priority?


----------



## arvidab

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> Why not both? (or Zoidberg) Safe mode AND realtime priority?


CPU-Z doesn't work properly in safe mode. And neither does tpc (OC, which I need).


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arvidab*
> 
> CPU-Z doesn't work properly in safe mode.


CPU-Z works well enough in safe mode, it just doesn't report the bus and RAM speeds:


----------



## neurotix




----------



## Mr.Eiht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arvidab*
> 
> CPU-Z doesn't work properly in safe mode.
> 
> 
> 
> CPU-Z works well enough in safe mode, it just doesn't report the bus and RAM speeds:
Click to expand...

That photo viewer cracked me up...
Meh dont like 15. I got 8XX points. Way to close to a Hassy i7 .
But I was way to lazy to close all background programs.


----------



## darkstar585

Just cracked the 800 mark with my sandy bridge. I could probably hit around 850 if I did it in safe mode.



Much better than my previous scores


Spoiler: Attempt 2









Spoiler: First Attempt







Just got to work on get the voltage down and making it stable again.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> I totally could match that if the netbook that my sister currently has at Penn State supported 64bit. (Atom N270)
> 
> However, in terms of "cheaty" scores, wouldn't an Athlon II @ 100MHz via K10stat be the champion in that regard? I borrowed a Phenom II in the past for a bit and running it at 100MHz was insane - it needed at least 200MHz just to even be usable.


The Atom has the IPC of a Pentium 4 without the clock speeds to match, it's probably the slowest CPU that can run this. (ie. Has SSE3 and 64bit)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HMBR*
> 
> all you need is an 8320/8350 at 4.7GHz to have the exact same performance (for MT at least)


Friend wtih his FX-8320 at 4.78Ghz got 747 points, didn't get a screenshot but I saw the benchmark.


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr.Eiht*
> 
> That photo viewer cracked me up...


It's the only program I knew of that would throw up an error that specifically stated that you were in safe mode, so I used it to demonstrate that safe mode was being used.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> The Atom has the IPC of a Pentium 4 without the clock speeds to match, it's probably the slowest CPU that can run this. (ie. Has SSE3 and 64bit)


At least compared to Northwood, the Atom had very slightly better IPC. I should know, I had a 2GHz Northwood system still running up until about 2 years ago.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Can't wait to try out my new 4930K!


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> At least compared to Northwood, the Atom had very slightly better IPC. I should know, I had a 2GHz Northwood system still running up until about 2 years ago.


It's so close to not really make much of a difference.


----------



## Jason7890

Heres mine.


----------



## wallawallaman

Blast from the past!

A Presler EE 3.73 ghz @ 4.3

presler2.PNG 798k .PNG file


At least the Turions and Atoms aren't using 5000 watts...

(this is my retro and tf2 rig, it has a 2900xt, hence no openGL scores)

AND

An AMD A10-5800k with CAS10 2133. GPUZ screenie included.

A10.PNG 623k .PNG file


----------



## bios_R_us

Just to add some data to the thread:

FX 8350 stock speeds:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



CPU

OpenGL




FX 8350 @4.5 GHz


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







FX 8350 @5 GHz


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







I'll leave it up to the guys with better cooling / chips and overall setups to post higher clocks or faster memory scores.

Cheers!


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> Again, Cinebench works in Windows safe mode, and so does Paint so that you can save screenshots.


My best of three safe mode numbers aren't any better than if I simply close any windows I have open and run Cinebench a few times normally.


----------



## jellis142

Stock 3930k: 890. I love this chip, will definitely get a board more stable to overclock


----------



## Brutuz

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!















Gained 30 or so points from closing programs, also did the OpenGL test.
Why is "Import Images" checked by default again? I hate the photo viewer on Huddler and would rather not use it.


----------



## sniperpowa

heres my score.


----------



## bios_R_us

More stock settings for reference:

Intel Xeon E5 1650 + GTX 670


----------



## Opcode

Stock A10-6800k + HD 5870.


----------



## JunkoXan

my 2700k (Stock) and 7770 (Vapor-X 1100mhz core/1300 memory)


----------



## wolfeking

Here is a GTX480 (bone stock except for fan profile) and 2600k (4600MHz) wuth 2133MHz DDR3.


Edit, CPU load is at 100% because of a single run of IBT to get the CPU speed to read right. On Idle it is generally 1600MHz.


----------



## Overkill

AMD 1045T -- 3.9GHz -- 3000NB & 2x4gb ddr3 @ 1200mhz 6-7-6-17-23 1T unganged



Was using Realtime priority for a 50~ point increase. Cant be bothered to try safemode with Realtime at the moment. Also the 480 is at 810mhz for those of you interested in the OpenGL FPS


----------



## wolfeking

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Overkill*
> 
> . Also the 480 is at 810mhz for those of you interested in the OpenGL FPS


If you try overclocking the CPU farther you will likely get better results from your 480. At stock settings (700/1848) it is getting 110FPS compared to an OCed 48- getting 71FPS.


----------



## Overkill

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wolfeking*
> 
> If you try overclocking the CPU farther you will likely get better results from your 480. At stock settings (700/1848) it is getting 110FPS compared to an OCed 48- getting 71FPS.


It does great in games despite what this benchmark is indicating. My ram is maxed out for fsb on the lowest divider at these timings and I only have 0.5 multiplier left on the cpu (13.5 max) which would do 4Ghz. And to go that last bit would require a lot more voltage boosts than previous increases. The board can do more fsb but its really worth it at the moment considering the large IMC/Ram oc I have going on unless I get better ram (for more mhz) or a more beastly cooling system. Currently on a thermaltake 120mm CLC


----------



## rusky1

Sig rig at 4.5ghz. I should be able to break 900 pretty easily, makes me want to delid.


----------



## Agoniizing

My 3770k at 4.8GHz


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rusky1*
> 
> Sig rig at 4.5ghz. I should be able to break 900 pretty easily, *makes me want to delid*.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


DO IT!


----------



## wolfeking

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Overkill*
> 
> reply


I actually have a hard time believing that it does just as good in games as you say, seeing as CB does not even max out the GPU (gets at most 85% usage as measured by Afterburner). Try something like Crysis or maybe ETS2 (best guesses I have out of my game library for maxing a GPU) and I would be willing to guarantee you that there is a bottleneck in your system if we compare same clocks on the same chip (the 480 that is) with the same games to prove it (will come out slightly different due to HT and RAM speed anyway)


----------



## neurotix

http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2436020_neurotix_cinebench_r15_fx_8350_823_cb


----------



## Sprkd1

Why am I only getting about 91 fps in the OpenGL test with one GTX TITAN? Isn't this low?


----------



## Buzzin92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sprkd1*
> 
> Why am I only getting about 91 fps in the OpenGL test with one GTX TITAN? Isn't this low?


Only?? ONLY??

/fun

No, it's not low. For instance, I get around 76fps on my GTX 780.


----------



## Sprkd1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buzzin92*
> 
> Only?? ONLY??
> 
> /fun
> 
> No, it's not low. For instance, I get around 76fps on my GTX 780.


How come the Radeon guys are getting much higher fps in this OpenGL test? For example, someone with a stock/factory-overclocked HD 7950 got 102 fps.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sprkd1*
> 
> How come the Radeon guys are getting much higher fps in this OpenGL test? For example, someone with a stock/factory-overclocked HD 7950 got 102 fps.


I get 136 FPS with an overclocked GTX 480. I find it odd that it scores so high for such an old card.


----------



## Buzzin92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sprkd1*
> 
> How come the Radeon guys are getting much higher fps in this OpenGL test? For example, someone with a stock/factory-overclocked HD 7950 got 102 fps.


It's the only thing the Radeons are good for, OpenCL


----------



## wolfeking

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buzzin92*
> 
> No, it's not low. For instance, I get around 76fps on my GTX 780.


Honestly, I think you and he have a severe problem. I get 110FPS with a bone stock GTX480, which is extremely slower than the 780 or the Titan.

Proof I ain't talking out my arse.


----------



## Buzzin92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wolfeking*
> 
> Honestly, I think you and he have a severe problem. I get 110FPS with a bone stock GTX480, which is extremely slower than the 780 or the Titan.
> 
> Proof I ain't talking out my arse.


The shaders on Fermi are much, much larger than Kepler, Even my GTX 560 Ti can pull some moves against my GTX 780 in intense compute applications, it's just the way the cores were designed.

With Fermi, the core clock and the shader clocks are different, your shader clocks will be twice the speed of your core clock, no matter what. On Kepler, the shader clocks and the core clocks are exactly the same, that, and the shaders being smaller has a massive impact on performance with certain applications.


----------



## Opcode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buzzin92*
> 
> Only?? ONLY??
> 
> /fun
> 
> No, it's not low. For instance, I get around 76fps on my GTX 780.


Which is kinda low when you compare it to say my setup. With as much more powerful the GTX 780 is, you would think it would show higher numbers.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Opcode*
> 
> Stock A10-6800k + HD 5870.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I don't really pay any attention to the OpenGL benches on Cinebench just because they are so inconsistent. Impossible to discern any useful info from them...


----------



## hmanlow

run it like 3-4 times.. got the highest score....









OpenGL >>>>>>> 86.51 fps
Ref. Match >>>>>> 98%
CPU >>>>>>>>>> 325 cb
CPU (single core) >>> 97 cb
MP Ratio >>>>>>>> 3.36 x


----------



## flyin15sec

Just ran this on my workstation

E5-2687W @ 3.1ghz 8C/16T = 1140


----------



## Themisseble

Here is something...
I did few benchmarks with FX 6300 4,5Ghz

Fx 6300 4,0Ghz 100cb - single core
FX 6300 4,5Ghz 106cb -single core

AMM? explanation please...

Score FX 6300 4,5Ghz - i turned off all programs everything
1C/2T = 160 cb
2C/4T = 360 cb - again with second module on get much much better score
3C/6T = 540 cb

So first module gets 160cb second add 200cb and third add 180cb - three different module scores

Ass far as is know FX8350 gets at 4,5Ghz like 730cb...

1module - 160 cb - 80 per core
2module - 200 cb - 100 per core
3module - 180 cb - 90 per cor
4module - 190 cb - 95 per core
Where is the point?
Why so different scores? I think that program cripple AMD CPU

Perfromance per module down-up-down-up??!!

I mean it should be like
1module - 160 cb
2module - 315 cb
3module - 470cb
4module - 625 cb

Or
1module - 200 cb
2module - 395 cb
3module - 590 cb
4module - 785 cb

If you lower core speed on FX for 1GHz .. it is really noticeable in games but there is just from 95 - 106cb WoW that is big difference! Should be at least 130 cb

I wonder what score would be if Cinebench would recognize my FX as a intel CPU

Soon as my fiend gets i7 we will do same benchmarks

And then i look at MMO like GW2 - it most about single core perfromance...
https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/support/tech/Super-Low-FPS-with-high-end-Gaming-Pc/first#post3167803
Is really everything about optimization?


----------



## STRATUSRT02

FX8350 4.7ghz ~767~ and 4.5ghz 24/7 ~725~



There's more results of these tests here. http://www.overclock.net/t/1431032/top-cinebench-r15-cpu-scores/20


----------



## Luciferxy

just reapplied thermal paste & got minor bump.



not bad for a locked processor eh


----------



## Apolladan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sprkd1*
> 
> Why am I only getting about 91 fps in the OpenGL test with one GTX TITAN? Isn't this low?


that's weird dude


----------



## ASSSETS

450 points for stock 1090T


----------



## Sprkd1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Apolladan*
> 
> that's weird dude


Just ran it again and got 103 fps. Ran it a second time and got 108 fps.


----------



## MadGoat




----------



## Meaker

My notebook


----------



## Kalistoval

edit re-overclocked cpu 4.8 stable I did bench 5 GHz Unstable


----------



## mossberg385t

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Remij*
> 
> 
> 
> 4.7ghz on my 3930k


mmmm I just got a 4930k, shooting for 4.5 for 24/7 use + rendering out of c4d


----------



## Cyrious

169 CPU
94 CPU Single thread

E5300 @ 4ghz. Cant use my Q9400 due to my board acting up.


----------



## USFORCES

Old 980x


----------



## Cyrious

Got tired of the E5300 being slow, so switched back to the quad core and was a little less ******ed on the overclocking. Got 3.8ghz stable as a result.


Apparently the scoring for me is going in such a way that for every 10mhz core clock i add, i get another point in the multi-thread test.


----------



## wallawallaman

Heres my old Dell T7400, with twin Xeon 5472 quad cores with a mild overclock. 16 Dimms of FBRAM for 48GB of RAM!

T7400.PNG 506k .PNG file


----------



## X79guy

3930k at 4.5ghz



3930k at 4.8ghz


----------



## mateuszgpucomp

2x Xeon E5-2696 v3 (18 core)


----------



## chris89

I thought I did quite well on a GTX 580 ... according to some other benchmarks the 970 is about 88fps...


----------



## chris89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sprkd1*
> 
> Why am I only getting about 91 fps in the OpenGL test with one GTX TITAN? Isn't this low?


That's pretty high and wow the 480's are doing that good? I have one on the shelf but the 580 must be faster...or not?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buzzin92*
> 
> Only?? ONLY??
> 
> /fun
> 
> No, it's not low. For instance, I get around 76fps on my GTX 780.


Yeah pretty consistent is that the 3gb model?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sprkd1*
> 
> How come the Radeon guys are getting much higher fps in this OpenGL test? For example, someone with a stock/factory-overclocked HD 7950 got 102 fps.


ATI's opengl driver is far more optimized than the nvidia's. Nvidia opengl from 347.88 yields extremely low utilization during the test. So you can push your card about 10-20% beyond "typical" stable clocks and test stable because of this. Still resulting in poor driver optimization for nvidia cards. Unless someone can implement the known to be high fps opengl driver version?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> I get 136 FPS with an overclocked GTX 480. I find it odd that it scores so high for such an old card.


How overclocked? and which driver?

Thanks
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wolfeking*
> 
> Honestly, I think you and he have a severe problem. I get 110FPS with a bone stock GTX480, which is extremely slower than the 780 or the Titan.
> 
> Proof I ain't talking out my arse.


Wow what driver do you guess use/ opengl driver version?

I figured the 580 is in every way a better 480... Since the 580 was the true potential unlocked 480 in terms of cuda cores 480 to 512.

The 580 has the faster ram and can clock higher. I have a 480 on the shelf, a couple actually maybe i'll try them out.


----------



## Assirra

Holy necro.


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Talk about resurrecting an old thread....

I get 104.83fps with my OC'ed GTX970
I also get only 530 cb with my 4.5ghz CPU 2500k.... ouch


----------



## tpi2007

There are threads in the appropriate section for this, like this one below, so please use them instead:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1431032/top-cinebench-r15-cpu-scores

Thanks.

Locked.


----------

