# Novabench competition



## storm-chaser

Have not seen this one come around for quite a while so we might as well give it a whirl.

1) Download Novabench here:
Novabench - Download

2) Run the tests and take a snip of your result as well as the CPU and memory tabs of CPUz, like this:










*You can compete individually for any one of the four measurements (CPU, RAM, GPU, DISK) as well as overall ranking, of course.*

3) Include a link to your online benchmark result so we can make better comparisons (if at all possible)

4) If you know exactly what your effective clock speed is, please post that with your result. Otherwise I will default to using the Novabench clock speed listed in your result.

Current Leaderboard 10/8


----------



## Cryptedvick

Regular run, all other apps opened


----------



## domdtxdissar

PBO testun


----------



## Wilco183

Average KS, Strix D4, AIO. Is that a 7 in front of the 645 upstairs?!!!


----------



## SoloCamo

GPU wasn't being fully utilized at all here. Also struggling to understand how a 3.6ghz Ivy bridge 12c/24t is scoring higher then a 4.6ghz 10c/20t 10th gen.


----------



## vabeachboy0

Just a quick run.


----------



## storm-chaser

Leaderboard is up! Let me know if you guys want me to add / modify the data sets here....by no means is this set in stone. 

Teams are color coded. AMD obviously red and Intel is blue.


----------



## stahlhart

Novabench - stahlhart06's Benchmark Result


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## storm-chaser

stahlhart said:


> View attachment 2574484
> 
> 
> Novabench - stahlhart06's Benchmark Result


Thank you @stahlhart and @domdtxdissar
For posting the link to your online benchmark result on the novabench site. Going forward, everyone please include this if at all possible because it will show us more statistics than just the scoring/results window. I will update the original post accordingly.


----------



## storm-chaser

SoloCamo said:


> GPU wasn't being fully utilized at all here. Also struggling to understand how a 3.6ghz Ivy bridge 12c/24t is scoring higher then a 4.6ghz 10c/20t 10th gen.


It is a little puzzling. Granted, I do have 16 cores total, and 32 threads but still way behind in technology. Can you run a quick CPUz benchmark and then I will do the same on my Ivy Bridge? That will let us know a little bit more about how these two processors compare.


----------



## SoloCamo

storm-chaser said:


> It is a little puzzling. Granted, I do have 16 cores total, and 32 threads but still way behind in technology. Can you run a quick CPUz benchmark and then I will do the same on my Ivy Bridge? That will let us know a little bit more about how these two processors compare.


Makes more sense if it's 16/32 vs 10/20. Intel ark tricked me apparently.


----------



## Wilco183

storm-chaser said:


> Leaderboard is up! Let me know if you guys want me to add / modify the data sets here....by no means is this set in stone.
> 
> Teams are color coded. AMD obviously red and Intel is blue.
> View attachment 2574485


I should ask you to change my @ 5.7 to @ 4.9 per novabench shot. I snipped that right afterwards along with ram...at idle lol. My OC is 5.2/4.0 and reflects in CB MT & CPU-Z...5.7x3 and 5.4x5 in CB ST . I tracked core speeds a few times while running this on hwinfo and they were hopping all over. Not really sure where 4.9- comes from.


----------



## storm-chaser

SoloCamo said:


> Makes more sense if it's 16/32 vs 10/20. Intel ark tricked me apparently.


And I should have mentioned earlier this is a backup z820 dual processor workstation. So it's not just a single ivy bridge 2673 v2 you are competing against, it's two. Also has the sought after 4.0GHz turbo (3.6GHz all core) so it's still a speedy little processor despite it's old age.


----------



## Wilco183

SoloCamo said:


> View attachment 2574473
> 
> 
> GPU wasn't being fully utilized at all here. Also struggling to understand how a 3.6ghz Ivy bridge 12c/24t is scoring higher then a 4.6ghz 10c/20t 10th gen.


Yeah, I didn't think a stock Tuf 3080 could smoke a 6900xt! Mine and the other 3080 should be closer together than this as well.


----------



## storm-chaser

Wilco183 said:


> I should ask you to change my @ 5.7 to @ 4.9 per novabench shot. I snipped that right afterwards along with ram...at idle lol. My OC is 5.2/4.0 and reflects in CB MT & CPU-Z...5.7x3 and 5.4x5 in CB ST . I tracked core speeds a few times while running this on hwinfo and they were hopping all over. Not really sure where 4.9- comes from.


----------



## JSHamlet234




----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## xioaxi

Downloaded the Linux version, needs a license to run, runs from cmd line (no gui) and doesn't accept submissions. Those guys must really hate Linux 

Okay, W10. Single 2696v3.










Novabench - Benchmark Result

Intel - Xeon E5 2696 v3 18C/36T, xioaxi, 3683, 2427, 294, 790, 172, Turbo all core hack


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## 8800GT

Wilco183 said:


> Yeah, I didn't think a stock Tuf 3080 could smoke a 6900xt! Mine and the other 3080 should be closer together than this as well.


Would be a novel concept for these benchmarks to use dx12 gpu tests. Must be impossible or something.


----------



## Spit051261

This bench is a waste of time.
Plenty of benches on bot to run.


----------



## J7SC

...quick run with daily settings; 7042


----------



## storm-chaser

I see the benchmark snobs are on full display... 

Anyway, thanks for the interest so far will update the leaderboard shortly.


----------



## storm-chaser

Updated 10/5


----------



## Slaughtahouse

I'll try to bench later today but why not use a google sheet and just drop a link in the OP. Share it with viewing rights only. That way you don't have to keep adding screenshots.


----------



## storm-chaser

Slaughtahouse said:


> I'll try to bench later today but why not use a google sheet and just drop a link in the OP. Share it with viewing rights only. That way you don't have to keep adding screenshots.


I like to see progress real time, but yeah I will update the original post with the current leaderboard as well. 
Normally, the reason I do this is because it offers a placeholder, so I know what submissions need to be added to keep everything current.


----------



## storm-chaser

xioaxi said:


> Downloaded the Linux version, needs a license to run, runs from cmd line (no gui) and doesn't accept submissions. Those guys must really hate Linux
> 
> Okay, W10. Single 2696v3.
> View attachment 2574498
> 
> 
> 
> Novabench - Benchmark Result
> 
> Intel - Xeon E5 2696 v3 18C/36T, xioaxi, 3683, 2427, 294, 790, 172, Turbo all core hack


I might have to bring my Z840 system out of retirement for this one. I have two of the same processors in it. See how it compares to your single CPU result. 
I had some liquid metal issues with the motherboard so I am forced to run it without hyperthreading but still, it should do ok.


----------



## storm-chaser

HP Z840 w/ hyperthreading disabled (36C/36T)

Not impressed with these results. All core turbo is only going to 2.8GHz










Novabench - Benchmark Result


----------



## storm-chaser

storm-chaser said:


> I see the benchmark snobs are on full display...
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the interest so far will update the leaderboard shortly.


@J7SC 

I meant the naysayers not you, just fyi.


----------



## SoloCamo

One update to mine, you've got the cpu listed at 4.7 (which I see cpuz shows) but during any benchmarks it locks to 4.6ghz all core. I've got the p/l limit unlocked on the non k chip so in windows it's usually around 4.7-5.2 depending on the load. No biggie, but just wanted to have it update so people have a point of reference.

Thanks for taking the time to do this, any new benchs are welcome in my book. Funny that people come here to say it's' a waste of time when in reality they are wasting their own time complaining.


----------



## J7SC

storm-chaser said:


> @J7SC
> 
> I meant the naysayers not you, just fyi.


legpulling-r-us


----------



## storm-chaser

*Added my Z840 system* - Looks like I'm going to do really well in this competition! Oh wait, it's opposite day lol













J7SC said:


> legpulling-r-us


LOL I can see why you might think that. But no, you are legit, it was directed to the post above yours.


----------



## Avacado

Office rig. 9900K @5.0GHz. Motherboard sucks so the RAM is worse than XMP. RTX 3070


----------



## storm-chaser

Wow AMD is currently dominating the leaderboard! We need to bring out the heavy artillery, my good Intel people!


----------



## J7SC

storm-chaser said:


> *Added my Z840 system* - Looks like I'm going to do really well in this competition! Oh wait, it's opposite day lol
> 
> 
> View attachment 2574600
> 
> 
> 
> LOL I can see why you might think that. But no, you are legit, it was directed to the post above yours.


I actually meant that the other way around - I was pulling your leg


----------



## stahlhart

storm-chaser said:


> Wow AMD is currently dominating the leaderboard! We need to bring out the heavy artillery, my good Intel people!


----------



## Slaughtahouse

*Score:* 4621
*5800X3D *(-25 CO)
*3060 Ti *(Undervolted, peak freq @ 1920 Core Clocks; 16 Gbps memory)
*32gb 3600 CL17 RAM *(XMP, Gear Down Disabled)












https://img.novabench.com/[email protected]/2618543.png






__





Novabench - Benchmark Result


4621 Novabench score with AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D 8-Core CPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti GPU




novabench.com





Bringing down the AMD average...


----------



## storm-chaser

J7SC said:


> I actually meant that the other way around - I was pulling your leg


Well shucks! lol. I see you are within striking distance of @domdtxdissar in CPU score. Any way you can coax more out of that chip?


----------



## storm-chaser

Slaughtahouse said:


> Bringing down the AMD average...


But in RAM performance you are in 2nd place... less than ten points more will put you in the lead!


----------



## Slaughtahouse

storm-chaser said:


> But in RAM performance you are in 2nd place... less than ten points more will put you in the lead!
> View attachment 2574611


Eat it, ram enthusiasts.

My first attempt I had my FPS cap on.
Second attempt I tried 3800/1900 IF but system started to lag.

If I can get 3800 stable, I may be able to steal first…


----------



## storm-chaser

stahlhart said:


>


Moar cores FTW! You can never have enough!


----------



## J7SC

storm-chaser said:


> Moar cores FTW! You can never have enough!
> 
> View attachment 2574626


FYI - AMD is bringing an Epyc with 96 cores / 192 threads...put that on a 240mm AIO 🥴 

*Update:* ...fiddled a bit with the daily settings for a score 7077. CPU speed was the same as before but Novabench MHz seems to swing a bit.

FYI, I also tried RAM at 3933 (greyed out below, not a sub); not much in it as Novabench seems to really like tight timings. With ambient here at 25C, I better wait until it gets colder for some true 'bench runs'. For some reason, OpenCL doesn't seem to work all that well on my setup, s.th. else to look at later.


----------



## xioaxi

storm-chaser said:


> HP Z840 w/ hyperthreading disabled (36C/36T)
> 
> Not impressed with these results. All core turbo is only going to 2.8GHz


That's what Intel gave us. Could have been much more but sadly not in their interest to do so.


----------



## storm-chaser

Not the most descriptive write up in the world, but least we can get a general idea of how Novabench measures your systems performance. Full documentation can be found here: Novabench - Documentation - Test Information


----------



## xioaxi

Another bench some might not like is Octanebench which is a render benchmark on GPU(s). Sadly it's nvidia/cuda only as to date but interesting that many cards can be used together at the same time and not required to be the same model although IIRC needs GTX 700 series or higher.


----------



## storm-chaser

Update


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> PBO testun
> View attachment 2574447


I did not realize just how incredible this score is. According to the novabench online database, this result would put you in 3rd place overall! *Out of every system they've tested!* Not too shabby....

Top four results from the database:


----------



## J7SC

storm-chaser said:


> I did not realize just how incredible this score is. According to the novabench online database, this result would put you in 3rd place overall! *Out of every system they've tested!* Not too shabby....
> 
> Top four results from the database:
> View attachment 2574636


...wait till the Threadripper 7K series comes out w/ DDR5 'multichannel'- Novabench seems to like lots of fast cores ☕


----------



## bmgjet

No real overclocking/tuning done yet since just got computer together with water block 20mins ago so just XMP on ram.
But good basemark that ill come back to after the weekend when iv done some overclocking.


----------



## storm-chaser

Amazing to see these newer generation powerhouse chips shredding it! It's no longer threadripping, it's shredding lol.

@bmgjet just added your sub. Looking forward to seeing what you can do with the OC. Still, 2nd place is not so bad for now (very impressive, actually), considering it's right off the couch.


----------



## bmgjet

Got a bit impatient so threw +200 PBO on it to see what difference it would make.




__





Novabench - bmgjet's Benchmark Result


7637 Novabench score with AMD Ryzen 9 7950X 16-Core CPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU




novabench.com





Dont have time to do any per core undervolting which is where Im probably going to see the biggest benefits since it just instant hits 95C on 3 cores while the rest are sitting at low and mid 80s.


----------



## storm-chaser

Battle of the dreadnaughts. Things are starting to heat up! (Including CPUs lol)


----------



## storm-chaser

Avacado said:


> Office rig. 9900K @5.0GHz. Motherboard sucks so the RAM is worse than XMP. RTX 3070
> 
> View attachment 2574601


I'm getting the idea that this benchmark is pretty consistent (in terms of CPU scoring, at least). Case in point both @Avacado and @Cryptedvick have 9900Ks that clock at 5.0GHz. And both have identical CPU scores at 1804 pts. But who knows, it could have been a fluke.


----------



## domdtxdissar

bmgjet said:


> Got a bit impatient so threw +200 PBO on it to see what difference it would make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Novabench - bmgjet's Benchmark Result
> 
> 
> 7637 Novabench score with AMD Ryzen 9 7950X 16-Core CPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> novabench.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont have time to do any per core undervolting which is where Im probably going to see the biggest benefits since it just instant hits 95C on 3 cores while the rest are sitting at low and mid 80s.
> 
> View attachment 2574644


You asked for it 
Crushing starts later today when i get home from work 🤣


----------



## Slaughtahouse

storm-chaser said:


> I'm getting the idea that this benchmark is pretty consistent (in terms of CPU scoring, at least). Case in point both @Avacado and @Cryptedvick have 9900Ks that clock at 5.0GHz. And both have identical CPU scores at 1804 pts. But who knows, it could have been a fluke.


GPU bench is flawed though. Its 720p, super low poly, no real DX11 features or anything demanding happening. It's highly dependent on CPU. Probably why my X3D chip with 3060 Ti is throwing punches against 3080 Tis and 6900XTs.


----------



## xioaxi

@storm-chaser seems nova doesn't span processor groups, did you see with task manager if all 72 threads were being loaded?


----------



## domdtxdissar

7910 points 









@storm-chaser: Just delete and replace my first entry on scoreboard, dont want to flood leaderboard with 7950x results..
Also, do you plan to ever update the leaderboard in y-cruncher thread ?


----------



## storm-chaser

xioaxi said:


> @storm-chaser seems nova doesn't span processor groups, did you see with task manager if all 72 threads were being loaded?


I assume you are talking about my dual processor 2696 v3 rig? I just re-ran the test to see about that. 
First, I will have you know, I am only working with only 36 cores and 36 threads (not 72 because I had to disable hyper threading). When I first set this rig up I had a problem with liquid metal that contaminated the upper most memory slot, directly under CPU #01. So for some strange reason, I was able to resolve the memory issue, but the system will hang on windows startup if I leave hyperthreading enabled. So I'm down to 36 cores and 36 threads, unfortunately. I am going soak the motherboard in rubbing alcohol and use compressed air to try to fix it, just havent been able to get around to it yet.

But yeah, it will peg all 36 cores for a minute.... (snipped right after the CPU run)


----------



## stahlhart

Backup midrange build to support the bottom of the list.

Novabench - stahlhart06's Benchmark Result


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> Also, do you plan to ever update the leaderboard in y-cruncher thread ?


I will see if I still have the excel spreadsheet. Don't expect anything overnight, but I'll have a look into it.


----------



## storm-chaser

Update


----------



## J7SC

I'm still trying to figure out what is going on with the GPU tests...the first is the 1280x720 DX11, so at that resolution is clearly CPU-impacted. Still I've seen as high as 1249 fps in test 1 w/ GPU clocks at 2310 MHz (no typo), but then hanging at test 2. Just a few bin steps lower and fps drop dramatically. Novabench GPU tests doesn't need high PL wattage after running it with HWInfo open. My w-cooled 3090 Strix is known to clock well above 2200 Mhz (effective) but s.th. isn't quite right. On another system, I see the test 1 graphic change as the sun moves across the scene but rarely with the 3090, even at stock settings, though the test indicator at the bottom does not get disrupted. May be it is the OLED, though I tried various settings (and GSync off, of course). 

Any tips ?


----------



## stahlhart

J7SC said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what is going on with the GPU tests...the first is the 1280x720 DX11, so at that resolution is clearly CPU-impacted. Still I've seen as high as 1249 fps in test 1 w/ GPU clocks at 2310 MHz (no typo), but then hanging at test 2. Just a few bin steps lower and fps drop dramatically. Novabench GPU tests doesn't need high PL wattage after running it with HWInfo open. My w-cooled 3090 Strix is known to clock well above 2200 Mhz (effective) but s.th. isn't quite right. On another system, I see the test 1 graphic change as the sun moves across the scene but rarely with the 3090, even at stock settings, though the test indicator at the bottom does not get disrupted. May be it is the OLED, though I tried various settings (and GSync off, of course).
> 
> Any tips ?


You're probably already doing all of these, but here I go into NVCP and set image emphasizing to performance, texture filtering to high performance and power management to maximum in 3D settings, and switch GSync off. For RTSS I switch off the OSD, and then from there just disable everything in the OS that doesn't need to be running. Not sure how much of a difference it makes.


----------



## SoloCamo

Laptops cool to be entered?

Going to run and post my AMD 4700U (8c8t apu with a 15w tdp) laptop if that's allowed. The IGPU in it is about 30% faster then a gt1030.

Also going to run my 4790k based living room pc used for lighter games as well.


----------



## storm-chaser

SoloCamo said:


> Laptops cool to be entered?
> 
> Going to run and post my AMD 4700U (8c8t apu with a 15w tdp) laptop if that's allowed. The IGPU in it is about 30% faster then a gt1030.
> 
> Also going to run my 4790k based living room pc used for lighter games as well.


Go for it!


----------



## J7SC

stahlhart said:


> You're probably already doing all of these, but here I go into NVCP and set image emphasizing to performance, texture filtering to high performance and power management to maximum in 3D settings, and switch GSync off. For RTSS I switch off the OSD, and then from there just disable everything in the OS that doesn't need to be running. Not sure how much of a difference it makes.


...Thanks & yeah, I doing most of those steps (except for max power management, though I also tried it for this). Per spoiler, the 3090 (right hand lower column in spoiler in an 8K Superposition run) is no slouch and the 1280x720 test doesn't use much PL. The 5950X CPU clocks as high as 5069 effective on a single thread and RAM performance is also good. In PortRoyal, the 3090 scores between 15.5k and 16k. So I got the GPU and CPU clocks, the RAM and subsystem performance but still, I think I'm missing something w/ Novabench when comparing to other 3090s, even when accounting for CPU differences. The fact that on the big OLED, I can't actually see the progression of the tests in terms of visuals even if the counter adjusts once or twice and all the tests complete and summarize with a score might be a hint....but what is it hinting at ?



Spoiler


----------



## Avacado

storm-chaser said:


> Wow AMD is currently dominating the leaderboard! We need to bring out the heavy artillery, my good Intel people!


Good enough to knock out the 5900x at least. I have no clue why my 3070Ti is beating a 3090.

12900KF 5.2/4.1GHz. 3070Ti (+185/+1800). 7000MHz RAM (1T made no difference)


----------



## storm-chaser

Looking pretty good @Avacado your SSD result puts you in 2nd place for that category.

Update


----------



## J7SC

Avacado said:


> Good enough to knock out the 5900x at least. I have no clue why my 3070Ti is beating a 3090.
> 
> 12900KF 5.2/4.1GHz. 3070Ti (+185/+1800). 7000MHz RAM (1T made no difference)
> 
> View attachment 2574724
> 
> View attachment 2574727
> 
> View attachment 2574728


...turns out 3070 Ti > 3090 (at 1280x720) according to Novabench's charts. Little did I know that for all the querying and wondering I did, my 3090 results are actually in the top 20% for that GPU at that resolution which I hadn't used in decades...I guess 3090s should stick to 4K...










Addendum: On a whim, I ran Novabench just now with bone-stock GPU settings (ie. no oc, no Pl increase, stock vBios) and I already exceeded my best GPU score posted above and now I can see the full scenes graphically unfold - ergo, at 1280x720, it is mostly CPU and RAM related for GPU score which at the end of the day isn't really that surprising...


----------



## vabeachboy0

Had to turn it up a bit.


----------



## Slaughtahouse

Second submission 
*Score:* 4763
*5800X3D *(-20 CO)
*3060 Ti *(Overclocked, peak freq @ 2160 Core Clocks; 16 Gbps memory)
*32gb 3600 CL17 RAM *(XMP, Gear Down Disabled, IF 1900)













__





Loading…






img.novabench.com








__





Novabench - Benchmark Result


4763 Novabench score with AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D 8-Core CPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti GPU




novabench.com






Spoiler: HWINFO














_3 _points away from taking #1 on the RAM... 

I should try relocating the install of this benchmark onto my SSD instead of my HDD...


----------



## J7SC

who is going to be the first to install Novabench on a RAM Drive ?


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## storm-chaser

J7SC said:


> who is going to be the first to install Novabench on a RAM Drive ?


Might as well put my 64GB 8 channel memory kit to good use. 

Working on it right now. Good idea!

EDIT: Used Primo Ramdisk to create a 40GB virtual drive (fully functional for a trial period). Installed Hyper-V and I'm currently downloading windows 11 dev.


----------



## xioaxi

storm-chaser said:


> I assume you are talking about my dual processor 2696 v3 rig?


Sorry, dementia kicking in. I totally forgot you previously said HT was disabled. I probably should find a corner to stand in and keep quiet.  Awesome screenshot BTW. I'm guessing you have 2 numa nodes, is that correct?


----------



## storm-chaser

xioaxi said:


> Sorry, dementia kicking in. I totally forgot you previously said HT was disabled. I probably should find a corner to stand in and keep quiet.  Awesome screenshot BTW. I'm guessing you have 2 numa nodes, is that correct?


Don't worry about that at all...
We value your insight and contributions to the comp 

Yes, you can look at the performance tab in task mgr and see both numa nodes:
(have no idea why it's defaulting the clock speed down to 1.9GHz, because it's clearly turboing well above that right now.)


----------



## bmgjet

And iv reached my limit. (Not daily stable) (Every thing not of use closed with task manager)

CPU
Voltage Optimized.
+200 PBO
Power Limits Disabled
6ghz single code
5.75ghz all core.
Quantum Magnitude water block,
Liquid Metal
AC assisted (16C air temp)
Stable: Probably Not

GPU (Probably still more here since its only at 85% usage during test)
+200 offset core
+1000 offset mem
1000W power limit
EKWB Vector with liquid metal.
Nvidia control panel set to performance, Gsync and FPS limits disabled.
Thread Optimization Disabled.
Hardware Management Enabled.

Ram.
F5-6000J3636F16GX2-TZ5K
Timing Tightened, 1.4V

HDD:
Samsung 980 Pro





__





Novabench - bmgjet's Benchmark Result


7981 Novabench score with AMD Ryzen 9 7950X 16-Core CPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU




novabench.com


----------



## J7SC

bmgjet said:


> And iv reached my limit. (Not daily stable) (Every thing not of use closed with task manager)
> 
> CPU
> Voltage Optimized.
> +200 PBO
> Power Limits Disabled
> 6ghz single code
> 5.75ghz all core.
> Quantum Magnitude water block,
> Liquid Metal
> AC assisted (16C air temp)
> Stable: Probably Not
> 
> GPU (Probably still more here since its only at 85% usage during test)
> +200 offset core
> +1000 offset mem
> 1000W power limit
> EKWB Vector with liquid metal.
> Nvidia control panel set to performance, Gsync and FPS limits disabled.
> Thread Optimization Disabled.
> Hardware Management Enabled.
> 
> Ram.
> F5-6000J3636F16GX2-TZ5K
> Timing Tightened, 1.4V
> 
> HDD:
> Samsung 980 Pro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Novabench - bmgjet's Benchmark Result
> 
> 
> 7981 Novabench score with AMD Ryzen 9 7950X 16-Core CPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> novabench.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2574762


Kudos to both you and @domdtxdissar for getting a newly released CPU / mobo this far this quickly ...overall score of 8,000 by 7950X might be breached reasonably soon !


----------



## xioaxi

@storm-chaser and anyone else interested. That's why your score is so low, nova only see's how many cpu's in the node and it gets worse, a least on my system. Try running novabench with affinity set to one thread and see what CPU score you get! You can check with taskmanager to see it's only running on one thread.


----------



## storm-chaser

J7SC said:


> who is going to be the first to install Novabench on a RAM Drive ?


That wasnt so bad! And it did improve my scores drastically.

BEFORE:









*After...* I guess I should be content with this, but what is the deal with poor read speed?


----------



## bmgjet

Is that allowed? Ram drive from the 3090 Vram would be crazy fast.
I figured domdtxdissar is using raid0 with 2XNVME drives to get the read speed he has vs the write speed its showing.
Was nearly tempted to reinstall windows with Raid0 of my 2X 2TBs but HDD score seems to add very little to overall score.
CPU and GPU seem to be the main contributors.


----------



## storm-chaser

bmgjet said:


> Is that allowed? Ram drive from the 3090 Vram would be crazy fast.


I will allow it, yes. That way, I might actually have a disk submission that's in the upper percentile instead of rock bottom like my two previous runs... lol. 😅


----------



## storm-chaser

bmgjet said:


> Is that allowed? Ram drive from the 3090 Vram would be crazy fast.


So as I said, I will allow this, but it's got to be exclusive. Solely for the purpose of the disk speed category and you can't use it to bring your system/overall average up.


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## bmgjet

Yeah good idea to keep it separate.
Altho with out a validation link whats to stop some one photo shopping 9999999999999999999 when doing individual tests.
I guess the disk score not lining up but does any one what what the math for that disk score is vs the read/write mbs.
Or maybe make them do all the runs to get validation link but only look at the disk score. That case ill just set up a 20GB VM with a couple cores.
Ill give GitHub - prsyahmi/GpuRamDrive: RamDrive that is backed by GPU Memory a go soon once iv finished stability testing to find what my daily settings are going to be.


----------



## storm-chaser

bmgjet said:


> Yeah good idea to keep it separate.
> Altho with out a validation link whats to stop some one photo shopping 9999999999999999999 when doing individual tests.
> I guess the disk score not lining up but does any one what what the math for that disk score is vs the read/write mbs.
> Or maybe make them do all the runs to get validation link but only look at the disk score. That case ill just set up a 20GB VM with a couple cores.
> Ill give GitHub - prsyahmi/GpuRamDrive: RamDrive that is backed by GPU Memory a go soon once iv finished stability testing to find what my daily settings are going to be.


We have a problem though. Let me try to explain. If you purely want to test the ram disks peak performance, you will need to run novabench from your physical hardware (i.e. you need to have said ramdisk visible from my computer and assigned a drive letter.) As opposed to running novabench from a VM, because measuring the ramdisk performance through the VM is definitely going to dampen your read and write speed.

*Hence, for optimal results, you need to run novabench from the physical machine and the only way to do this (to pick up your ram drive that is not C is via the Individual test, which cannot be validated. We are simply going to have to go with the honor system on this one. I certainly hope nobody would take the time to fabricate something like this.*

Basic instructions:
*
















*


----------



## Luggage

Can't find the last percentile on the scoreboard since you can't search for cpu score only (or can you?)






Novabench - Luggage's Benchmark Result


5501 Novabench score with AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 8-Core CPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPU




novabench.com


----------



## storm-chaser

Good to see you joining the fray Luggage!


----------



## Luggage

Sorry- playing around with PBO limits and afterburner, can't quite dial it in. This will do 'till I have a really cold night...















Novabench - Luggage's Benchmark Result


5515 Novabench score with AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 8-Core CPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPU




novabench.com





"Winter is coming..."


----------



## J7SC

storm-chaser said:


> That wasnt so bad! And it did improve my scores drastically.
> 
> BEFORE:
> View attachment 2574766
> 
> 
> *After...* I guess I should be content with this, but what is the deal with poor read speed?
> View attachment 2574767


I was only kidding about the RAMDisk... that said, using some of that 3090 GDDR6X would be useful for that


----------



## storm-chaser

J7SC said:


> I was only kidding about the RAMDisk... that said, using some of that 3090 GDDR6X would be useful for that


  

LOL I was desperate for a good score, and that was an answer to my prayers. Of course, now I'm going to get smoked by someone with GDDR6X running at like 14,000MHz or something crazy like that!


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## storm-chaser

xioaxi said:


> @storm-chaser and anyone else interested. That's why your score is so low, nova only see's how many cpu's in the node and it gets worse, a least on my system. Try running novabench with affinity set to one thread and see what CPU score you get! You can check with taskmanager to see it's only running on one thread.
> 
> View attachment 2574763


So I did give this a try. However, it appears Novabench can indeed recognize two numa nodes, as it had all 36 cores checked off.

That being said, I did disable all but one thread for it, but in my case, it didn't seem to improve performance. At this point I would really like to pay for someone to build and implement a custom overclockable BIOS for the Z840 because there is so much potential wasted right there.


----------



## domdtxdissar

bmgjet said:


> I figured domdtxdissar is using raid0 with 2XNVME drives to get the read speed he has vs the write speed its showing.


No i'm using single SK hynix Platinum P41


----------



## xioaxi

storm-chaser said:


> I did disable all but one thread for it, but in my case, it didn't seem to improve performance.


So your effectively going from 36 threads to 1 thread which should kill MT performance and give a very low score one would think.

Here's what happens on my system with 36 threads and affinity set appropriately









Now if I set affinity to just 2 threads, extra one to reduce the GUI interference.








It's about the same score! It's as if the bench is taking one thread as the result, ignoring all the others and adjusting by multipling the result by some determined factor for 36 threads. Just does not seem right to me. Then there's the question of turbo values, multi thread on all logical CPU's should see a drop from 3.8GHz to 3.3GHz, just what is going on. Maybe if someone has ADL they can try the same setting of affinity, once with a P core selected and then with an E core selected. Or maybe it's just me getting these kind of results


----------



## Avacado

xioaxi said:


> So your effectively going from 36 threads to 1 thread which should kill MT performance and give a very low score one would think.
> 
> Here's what happens on my system with 36 threads and affinity set appropriately
> View attachment 2574793
> 
> 
> Now if I set affinity to just 2 threads, extra one to reduce the GUI interference.
> View attachment 2574794
> 
> It's about the same score! It's as if the bench is taking one thread as the result, ignoring all the others and adjusting by multipling the result by some determined factor for 36 threads. Just does not seem right to me. Then there's the question of turbo values, multi thread on all logical CPU's should see a drop from 3.8GHz to 3.3GHz, just what is going on. Maybe if someone has ADL they can try the same setting of affinity, once with a P core selected and then with an E core selected. Or maybe it's just me getting these kind of results


Can verify in my testing that the E-Cores helped. I ran 8/16 and the CPU score was lower. I did not play with affinity, but can try tonight.


----------



## stahlhart

Novabench - stahlhart06's Benchmark Result


1985 Novabench score with Intel Core i7-2700K CPU and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 SLI x2 GPU




novabench.com





Ah, the good old days.


----------



## Halibutox




----------



## storm-chaser

Leaderboard Update (*OVERALL*)










I'm going to post the individual Category ratings right here after I sort it specifically for each (CPU, RAM, GPU, DISK) 

*Individual CPU Performance*









*Individual RAM Performance*









*Individual GPU Performance










Individual Disk Performance*


----------



## bscool

There is a simple/easy way make this bench "look better"(cheating/hack?). Couple clicks in Windows "display settings".

Not enter just showing my results as an example of my GPU score on stock 2080ti FTW3 how it really inflates scores.





__





Novabench - Benchmark Result


6067 Novabench score with 12th Gen Intel Core i9-12900KS CPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPU




novabench.com


----------



## Avacado

bscool said:


> There is a simple/easy way make this bench "look better"(cheating/hack?). Couple clicks in Windows "display settings".
> 
> Not enter just showing my results as an example of my GPU score on stock 2080ti FTW3 how it really inflates scores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Novabench - Benchmark Result
> 
> 
> 6067 Novabench score with 12th Gen Intel Core i9-12900KS CPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> novabench.com


It's possible. I didn't personally alter any of my settings within windows. Not really the cheating kind (I know you didn't say me), the fastest novice overclocker in the world doesn't cheat bruh


----------



## bscool

Avacado said:


> It's possible. I didn't personally alter any of my settings within windows. Not really the cheating kind (I know you didn't say me), the fastest novice overclocker in the world doesn't cheat bruh


No, it wasnt aimed at anyone. Just saying/sharing for info, an example I have 1440p/240hz monitor changing to 60hz really boosts my score so even monitor can "effect" the score as if someone if using same hardware but has 720p 60z monitor vs 1440p(4k)240hz the later will have a lower overall score. Just sharing what I found.

Edit even without doing this though Nova really favors Intel CPU users GPU scores it seems.


----------



## storm-chaser

bscool said:


> There is a simple/easy way make this bench "look better"(cheating/hack?). Couple clicks in Windows "display settings".
> 
> Not enter just showing my results as an example of my GPU score on stock 2080ti FTW3 how it really inflates scores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Novabench - Benchmark Result
> 
> 
> 6067 Novabench score with 12th Gen Intel Core i9-12900KS CPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> novabench.com


@bscool. There is cheating and then there is "tweaking". I don't consider fine tuning your monitor cheating, just another way to gain a small edge, and sometimes that's all it takes to win. I know you said you don't want to participate, but I am going to add you to the leaderboard anyway (decent score) because Intel seems to be suffering a bit at the hands of AMD. LOL never thought I would say that!


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## dk_mic

Luggage said:


> View attachment 2574778


how do you run that 2080 Ti?

I have a pretty good 2080 Ti on water and can get only ~ 1600


----------



## Luggage

dk_mic said:


> how do you run that 2080 Ti?
> 
> I have a pretty good 2080 Ti on water and can get only ~ 1600


18c water, heat killer iv, zotac reference pcb with KFA/galax 380W vbios. +175 core, +1275 mem.
Can’t get it stable on xoc vbios but it’s decent on colder water I scored 16 730 in Time Spy


----------



## dk_mic

time spy scores are very close I scored 17 403 in Time Spy
but I can't score better in this bench


----------



## storm-chaser

J7SC said:


> FYI - AMD is bringing an Epyc with 96 cores / 192 threads...put that on a 240mm AIO 🥴


Nah, a Hyper 212 with just a single fan is all you gonna need for that... and I don't know the exact TDP on that processor, but it could probably double as a small grilling surface.

😁


----------



## Maximization

first run


----------



## Slaughtahouse

storm-chaser said:


> View attachment 2574813


Crap, looks like the Red Sea is being parted by Alder Lake. Good luck against those 16 core Zen chips, Intel.


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## stahlhart

bscool said:


> No, it wasnt aimed at anyone. Just saying/sharing for info, an example I have 1440p/240hz monitor changing to 60hz really boosts my score so even monitor can "effect" the score as if someone if using same hardware but has 720p 60z monitor vs 1440p(4k)240hz the later will have a lower overall score. Just sharing what I found.


Going to experiment with this, but will state for the record that I kept my Swift at 144Hz for the 12700K submission -- never even occurred to me that you could hack the score like that. The 7700K was also at 144Hz, and the 2700K is on an old 60Hz IPS panel. The graphics test windowed for the first two, then went full screen for the third.



bscool said:


> Edit even without doing this though Nova really favors Intel CPU users GPU scores it seems.


And AMD CPU users CPU scores, it appears.


----------



## bscool

stahlhart said:


> Going to experiment with this, but will state for the record that I kept my Swift at 144Hz for the 12700K submission -- never even occurred to me that you could hack the score like that. The 7700K was also at 144Hz, and the 2700K is on an old 60Hz IPS panel. The graphics test windowed for the first two, then went full screen for the third.
> 
> 
> 
> And AMD CPU users CPU scores, it appears.


Yeah here is ddr5 with changing resolution and refresh rate. Makes a fairly decent difference. Stock 3080ti FTW3.

On 12th gen ocing e cores and cache doesnt seem to make much of a difference for this bench for me.


----------



## xioaxi

bscool said:


> On 12th gen ocing e cores and cache doesnt seem to make much of a difference for this bench for me.


Try running the CPU test with novabenchgui affinity set to 2 P cores. Can you take advantage of tvb that way?


----------



## bscool

xioaxi said:


> Try running the CPU test with novabenchgui affinity set to 2 P cores. Can you take advantage of tvb that way?


Yeah it looks like that helps a bit. Went from 2942 to 3043.

Edit I see I had e cores 42 on this run vs 43 on run above.

Set 43 e core and reran and 3008 so looks like run to run variance and if e core OC make a difference seems small.

Set 40 ecore and 3003.

I know disabling them drops score a lot but doesnt seem like there is much difference once enabled if you oc e cores. I am too lazy to test more.


----------



## 72kos




----------



## storm-chaser

xioaxi said:


> So your effectively going from 36 threads to 1 thread which should kill MT performance and give a very low score one would think.
> 
> Here's what happens on my system with 36 threads and affinity set appropriately
> View attachment 2574793
> 
> 
> Now if I set affinity to just 2 threads, extra one to reduce the GUI interference.
> View attachment 2574794
> 
> It's about the same score! It's as if the bench is taking one thread as the result, ignoring all the others and adjusting by multipling the result by some determined factor for 36 threads. Just does not seem right to me. Then there's the question of turbo values, multi thread on all logical CPU's should see a drop from 3.8GHz to 3.3GHz, just what is going on. Maybe if someone has ADL they can try the same setting of affinity, once with a P core selected and then with an E core selected. Or maybe it's just me getting these kind of results


I think you are on to something here. First of all, good news, The z840 workstation is back online with 72 threads! I reinstalled Windows 10 and the issue resolved itself! 

The bad news is, like you said, it's not seeing the second numa node! (that's why my score is so low)... Question is, how do I go about resolving this issue?









When I go in to set processor affinity, I can chose between group 0 or group 1, but never both! So I'm only using a single CPU for this benchmark! You called it!










OR










But group 0 and group 1 cannot be selected at the same time.


----------



## 72kos




----------



## 72kos

Novabench - CrKos's Benchmark Result


----------



## storm-chaser

reserved


----------



## xioaxi

storm-chaser said:


> Question is, how do I go about resolving this issue?


Contact support at nova? I have zero experience with dual socket but maybe there's a bios option for numa and/or setting the bcdedit groupsize option to 64. Disabling numa might see a general performance drop. Since the maximum processors per group is 64 then there will still be a second group unless disabling a couple of cores on each processor.

On a separate note testing showed microcode version 0x49 drops 200 or 300 points on the score vs version 0x3A.


----------



## storm-chaser

Well it looks like used I novabench a couple years back and totally forgot my account information. Just got back in and this was my original z820 system with two Xeon E5 2696 v2 processors (24C/48T). Not sure if this result is comparable to the new version, however.


----------



## stahlhart

Looks like your overall score column got shifted -- you gave me Luggage's score...?


----------



## storm-chaser

stahlhart said:


> Looks like your overall score column got shifted -- you gave me Luggage's score...?


Can you just show me exactly what you are talking about? I just want to be sure of what's going on here. Probably shifted after I custom sorted the individual categories.


----------



## stahlhart

storm-chaser said:


> Can you just show me exactly what you are talking about? I just want to be sure of what's going on here. Probably shifted after I custom sorted the individual categories.












It looks like you've got some AMD scores on Intel submissions, and vice versa...


----------



## storm-chaser

stahlhart said:


> View attachment 2574892
> 
> 
> It looks like you've got some AMD scores on Intel submissions, and vice versa...


Okay thanks for pointing that out. I think I have leaderboard back on track now. Let me know....


----------



## dk_mic

AMD Ryzen 9 5950x @ PBO (CO: -30 All Core, 168 TDC, 220 EDC, +0 MhZ) beats manual all core oc (4.8/4.7 @ 1.35V) by 200 points in CPU test. GPU score is totally independant of GPU oc here (screenshot shows an undervolt @ 0.8 mV).
Had a higher ram score (432) on windows 10.


----------



## SoloCamo

15w tdp Ryzen 7 4700U laptop / 32gb ddr4 3200 / Vega 7 integrated graphics. The cpu test had the cpu bouncing between 3.6-3.8ghz (all core is 3.6, max turbo is 4.2). So I guess for the charts sake just call it 3.7ghz.

Sorry AMD folks, going to bring the average a bit down with this but it's a laptop.


----------



## NoelC

A new Threadripper workstation...


----------



## storm-chaser

*Leaderboard Update*
@NoelC very impressive workstation you have there! Puget systems does not mess around. You are now in 1st place overall.


----------



## Wilco183

storm-chaser said:


> *Leaderboard Update*
> @NoelC very impressive workstation you have there! Puget systems does not mess around. You are now in 1st place overall.
> 
> View attachment 2574970


Got bumped out of the top 10 by 2 points below @Maximization. No problem...I moved the KS back into the Hero, replaced 5600 with new 6600 ram, and swapped 3080 with 3080-ti. The score was lower. How the baseball-sized hail does that happen lol.


----------



## stahlhart

Wilco183 said:


> Got bumped out of the top 10 by 2 points below @Maximization. No problem...I moved the KS back into the Hero, replaced 5600 with new 6600 ram, and swapped 3080 with 3080-ti. The score was lower. How the baseball-sized hail does that happen lol.


You could try that 60Hz refresh rate adjustment also.  I haven't posted the result here, but it bumped mine up about 25 points.


----------



## Wilco183

stahlhart said:


> You could try that 60Hz refresh rate adjustment also.  I haven't posted the result here, but it bumped mine up about 25 points.


I was going to, but you outed my plan. 😆 I even had 2 980 pros instead of 970 evos. I'm getting desperate...might need to add more hamsters by slapping in the Dark Hero/5950x.


----------



## storm-chaser

Not so desperate anymore lol

I disabled numa and re-ran the tests, much better result. For some reason the first time I tried this the CPU dropped down to 1.9GHz. Now everything is fine. Boosted my score by about 1000 points. 










Novabench - Benchmark Result


----------



## storm-chaser

EDIT: Just did a quick sort to see where we are at with the individual CPU test


----------



## J7SC

...update: *7233* same basic system settings as before but switched from 48 inch 4K/120 OLED to 27 inch Samsung; also 21 C instead of 25 C ambient. 

I've had higher CPU, RAM, disk and GPU individual scores, but this is the best 'overall' (so far)


----------



## stahlhart

Wilco183 said:


> I was going to, but you outed my plan. 😆 I even had 2 980 pros instead of 970 evos. I'm getting desperate...might need to add more hamsters by slapping in the Dark Hero/5950x.


I've gracefully embraced my permanent residency somewhere in the middle of the standings.


----------



## storm-chaser

Top 5 is all AMD....










Yup, my next build is definitely going to be AMD. Haven't been on team red since the Phenom II 970 days!


----------



## Halibutox

I beat on the ram a bit and was able to eke.


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## SoloCamo

Third and likely final different system submission:

4790k @ 4.4ghz / 32gb cl10 ddr3 2400 / Vega 56 and the slow disk results are due to it being a good old basic MX500 500gb sata ssd. Still makes for a great living room pc and secondary gaming pc for guests.


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## Maximization

Wilco183 said:


> Got bumped out of the top 10 by 2 points below @Maximization. No problem...I moved the KS back into the Hero, replaced 5600 with new 6600 ram, and swapped 3080 with 3080-ti. The score was lower. How the baseball-sized hail does that happen lol.



I cannot get out of that score range. I think my CPU is substandard, or user dont know what going on


----------



## Wilco183

Denitely


Maximization said:


> I cannot get out of that score range. I think my CPU is substandard, or user dont know what going on


 Definitely a change of benchmarking pace compared to the knowing of how and why one fares in CB, CPU-z., etc... At times I feel like Chevy Chase playing one of those unorthodox casino games in "Vegas Vacation".


----------



## 8800GT

Wilco183 said:


> Denitely
> Definitely a change of benchmarking pace compared to the knowing of how and why one fares in CB, CPU-z., etc... At times I feel like Chevy Chase playing one of those unorthodox casino games in "Vegas Vacation".


Funny you mentioned that, because I built my PC using the money I dug up in cousin Eddie's yard.


----------



## xioaxi

NoelC said:


> A new Threadripper workstation...


nova says your cpu score is below average, maybe need to try harder 













__





Novabench - AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX 32-Cores - CPU Performance


Compare AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX 32-Cores CPU performance. Novabench score: 6489




novabench.com





Okay, it might be only 2 scores so far but your score is below both! 

Look forward to seeing a better result


----------



## storm-chaser

8800GT said:


> Funny you mentioned that, because I built my PC using the money I dug up in cousin Eddie's yard.


Did cousin Eddie bury anything other than money back there?

Maybe we can find Jimmy Hoffa after all...


----------



## storm-chaser

8800GT said:


> Funny you mentioned that, because I built my PC using the money I dug up in cousin Eddie's yard.


Hey now! I charge 5 cents for every post if you haven't submitted your benchmark result yet


----------



## storm-chaser

@domdtxdissar 

Are you going to have an answer for the other guy with the 7950X? With cold weather you should be able to go toe to toe with a score like that.


----------



## mongoled

Here you go







__





Novabench - mongoled's Benchmark Result


1092 Novabench score with AMD Phenom II X4 965 CPU and ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series GPU




novabench.com


----------



## yzonker

Took a run at this using my settings I use for 3DMark.

12900k, 5.5/4.4/4.6
6C water using chiller
[email protected], reBar forced, no other changes in NVCP


----------



## 8800GT

storm-chaser said:


> Hey now! I charge 5 cents for every post if you haven't submitted your benchmark result yet


I'm worried that once I see my CPU compared to zen 4, there's no going back.


----------



## storm-chaser

_*Leaderboard Update*_


----------



## storm-chaser

mongoled said:


> Here you go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Novabench - mongoled's Benchmark Result
> 
> 
> 1092 Novabench score with AMD Phenom II X4 965 CPU and ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series GPU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> novabench.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2575110


@cssorkinman 

Can you fire up that 1075T Phenom II you had for the userbenchmark thread? Looks like your competition has fired a shot across the bow.


----------



## cssorkinman

storm-chaser said:


> @cssorkinman
> 
> Can you fire up that 1075T Phenom II you had for the userbenchmark thread? Looks like your competition has fired a shot across the bow.


Heh, well that's a really good score that's for sure.

I have a propus that is sitting on a board in front of me that might be fun to chase him with. We'll see what time allows


----------



## vabeachboy0

Anyone else having issues with the gpu test seeming like there's a hard limit on it? It maxes out at 300 fps and the gpu is barely being utilized.
3DMark Fire Strike


----------



## yzonker

vabeachboy0 said:


> Anyone else having issues with the gpu test seeming like there's a hard limit on it? It maxes out at 300 fps and the gpu is barely being utilized.
> 3DMark Fire Strike


It's completely cpu/mem bound since it runs in 720p.


----------



## vabeachboy0

yzonker said:


> It's completely cpu/mem bound since it runs in 720p.












Looks like the cpu is hardly doing anything as well.


----------



## yzonker

This is one case where the 5800x3D just doesn't get it done even for the graphics test. Only ran it thinking it would at least be close in graphics.

5800x3D, 102 bclk, -25 CO, Ambient water


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## storm-chaser

yzonker said:


> This is one case where the 5800x3D just doesn't get it done even for the graphics test. Only ran it thinking it would at least be close in graphics.
> 
> 5800x3D, 102 bclk, -25 CO, Ambient water
> 
> View attachment 2575166


Maybe so, but your memory performance is not lacking.


----------



## cssorkinman

MSI Delta Lappy


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## SoloCamo

cssorkinman said:


> MSI Delta Lappy
> 
> View attachment 2575205


What memory are you running with it? Interesting my 4700U laptop edged it out in ram score. Same with disk score.


----------



## cssorkinman

SoloCamo said:


> What memory are you running with it? Interesting my 4700U laptop edged it out in ram score. Same with disk score.


Jedec 13.
It's in another world compared to any other lap top I've owned - never bothered fiddling with it.


----------



## NoelC

xioaxi said:


> nova says your cpu score is below average, maybe need to try harder


I literally have been tuning up this system for just a few hours, and I had everything I typically run on when I did that test. I know for sure there's more horsepower to be found in there. I'll be back. 

-Noel


----------



## storm-chaser

NoelC said:


> I literally have been tuning up this system for just a few hours, and I had everything I typically run on when I did that test. I know for sure there's more horsepower to be found in there. I'll be back.
> 
> -Noel


No... no.... you need to turn the wick DOWN so the rest of us can pretend we have a fighting chance! lol

Server stuff is always more fun than the retail space


----------



## storm-chaser

NoelC said:


> I literally have been tuning up this system for just a few hours, and I had everything I typically run on when I did that test. I know for sure there's more horsepower to be found in there. I'll be back.
> 
> -Noel


What's your memory throughput on that rig? Memory setup/configuration? Can you run an AIDA64 Cache and memory benchmark? I'd be very interested to see those numbers. You can post it here if you want.


----------



## domdtxdissar

storm-chaser said:


> @domdtxdissar
> 
> Are you going to have an answer for the other guy with the 7950X? With cold weather you should be able to go toe to toe with a score like that.


No, i think there is something strange going on with this benchmark.

Static 5900-6000mhz cpu allcore clockspeeds enough for worldrecords on hwbot is getting beaten by a simple 3min PBO profile here.. ?
Makes no sense for me. There is some trickery going on here, but i dont want to invest the time needed to figure it out.

And as far as i can read between the lines, if you want a good GPU score you need force rebar enabled with nvinspector.. For a "no-name" benchmark it simply dont seem worth the hazzle i think


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> No, i think there is something strange going on with this benchmark.
> 
> Static 5900-6000mhz cpu allcore clockspeeds enough for worldrecords on hwbot is getting beaten by a simple 3min PBO profile here.. ?
> Makes no sense for me. There is some trickery going on here, but i dont want to invest the time needed to figure it out.
> 
> And as far as i can read between the lines, if you want a good GPU score you need force rebar enabled with nvinspector.. For a "no-name" benchmark it simply dont seem worth the hazzle i think


If I remember right he was clocking at 5.75GHz.... and you were at 5.5? 

He did say he was getting an AC assist that might be affecting his clock speeds / turbo in a positive way, no?

But also, you are both running the same benchmark on similar hardware, if there is a flaw in the benchmark system wouldn't you both have to deal with it?


----------



## JSHamlet234

Since I can't have the top score, I'll have to aim a bit lower.


----------



## 8800GT

JSHamlet234 said:


> Since I can't have the top score, I'll have to aim a bit lower.
> 
> View attachment 2575236


Nostalgia. I still love the 2500k, and full aero effects in windows.


----------



## storm-chaser

CPU Performance 










I see my 8 year old Z840 can still hold it's own in 2022 😁 
now in the top spot on team Intel for CPU performance category!


----------



## J7SC

storm-chaser said:


> CPU Performance
> 
> View attachment 2575240
> 
> 
> I see my 8 year old Z840 can still hold it's own in 2022 😁
> now in the top spot on team Intel for CPU performance category!


...amazing what 2x Xeons with 72 threads will do 

In general, I like Novabench (w/one caveat). While I never ran it before, it apprently has been around since 2007 (last update 2017). For CPU, you learn a lot having HWInfo open for a few initial runs and check per-core CPU usage for the two CPU tests. The only caveat I have is the GPU test...at 1280x720P, it is really just another CPU test (mostly), and Novabench should probably update that either to 1440p, or add it as a second GPU tests (personally, I prefer and run 4K...)


----------



## storm-chaser

J7SC said:


> ...amazing what 2x Xeons with 72 threads will do
> 
> In general, I like Novabench (w/one caveat). While I never ran it before, it apprently has been around since 2007 (last update 2017). For CPU, you learn a lot having HWInfo open for a few initial runs and check per-core CPU usage for the two CPU tests. The only caveat I have is the GPU test...at 1280x720P, it is really just another CPU test (mostly), and Novabench should probably update that either to 1440p, or add it as a second GPU tests (personally, I prefer and run 4K...)


I have a trouble ticket in with them right now for a NUMA question I had, so when (if) they respond I will ask them about those upgrades to the GPU part of the test.

i would say overall, the benchmark has already exceeded my expectations (in terms of ease of use, accuracy and comprehensiveness). it's like userbenchmark without the crack cocaine. lol


----------



## storm-chaser

*Leaderboard Update*


----------



## cssorkinman

Not the best ram setup for this machine - will have to try again.
EDIT : give it a little kick in the butt


----------



## Slaughtahouse

Got to say, quite surprised by how active the community is on this benchmark that most, if not all of us, have never heard of.

I’m stuck right in the middle, don’t expect to make any more traction, but it’s been fun to watch. 

I’ll have to give it a test on my work laptop


----------



## SoloCamo

cssorkinman said:


> Jedec 13.
> It's in another world compared to any other lap top I've owned - never bothered fiddling with it.
> View attachment 2575207


Yea, my 4700U cpu is amazingly faster then my old A8-6410 (puma 4c4t) 15w tdp lap.

I paid a bit below $400 after tax on it (well memory was upgraded it was 8gb 3200 stock) and it's one of the best purchases I've made especially after pairing it with the 2x16gb cl20 1T ddr4 3200 vs the cl22 2T it had.



cssorkinman said:


> Not the best ram setup for this machine - will have to try again.
> EDIT : give it a little kick in the butt
> View attachment 2575306
> 
> View attachment 2575304


You are making me want to take out my 9590 + Asus VII Formula Z. But I'm honestly out of room for more systems and don't have a spare psu nor cooler that can handle any proper oc'ing on it.
Probably selling them both at this point as I just don't have a need for it.



Slaughtahouse said:


> I’ll have to give it a test on my work laptop


Did that today on a work HP Z420 for laughs. Forgot to screenshot it but it did better then expected.


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## storm-chaser

Very tempted to put my 9600KF rig back together again. Plus the weather is getting cooler and you all know what that means!
Maybe I can get it up and running tonight. the loop is in pieces and i am back down to two pumps but I think everything is there. watch me have everything but the heatkiller mounting screws. 

😁


----------



## storm-chaser

Well, it looks like I have everything I need to start putting it back together again - for once there are no parts missing lol. I even have some left over Galinstan from liquid metal cooling project, so we will be using that as thermal paste. 




























Yes there are 4 radiators in this loop. The reservoirs (two) are opaque do to 40% methanol from sub zero ambient benching from last winter. 

They still work fine, though. I've inspected the heatkiller IV water block and its fine as well. This loop will have two freezemod water pumps in it (to the right of PSU). Should be more than enough.

You guys are going to get a kick out of how I'm going to set this up... since I don't have a case for it. But more on that later.


----------



## domdtxdissar

storm-chaser said:


> I even have some left over Galinstan from liquid metal cooling project, so we will be using that as thermal paste.
> 
> ...reservoirs (two) are opaque do to 40% methanol from sub zero ambient benching from last winter.


Dont use LM as thermal paste if you plan to go below zero! It perform worse than regular paste then..
Otherwise, carryon


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> Dont use LM as thermal paste if you plan to go below zero! It perform worse than regular paste then..
> Otherwise, carryon


Interesting to note. It did so well on liquid metal last winter, I thought I would go that route again I had no idea it got that bad that quick. I did get it to over 5.8GHz but, I will follow your advice and just use standard thermal paste instead maybe I'll be able to pick up a bit more speed.

By the way, I've been monitoring task manager activity when running these benchmarks (on my Z840). I noticed it will load up MOST of the cores for the benchmark run, but in this case, you can see the issue. Those 8 cores at the bottom are not getting utilized, so I have to figure out if it's possible to load all cores. CPUz does not have a problem doing this, just seems to happen with novabench so far. It's not much but still, that means I'm down 8 cores from optimal performance.


----------



## Slaughtahouse

Third submission - Laptop
*Score:* 2914
*AMD 4750U *w. Integrated Vega graphics (4.1Ghz stock boost)
*32gb DDD4 RAM *










Novabench - Benchmark Result 


https://img.novabench.com/[email protected]/2622214.png


----------



## Luggage

storm-chaser said:


> Interesting to note. It did so well on liquid metal last winter, I thought I would go that route again I had no idea it got that bad that quick. I did get it to over 5.8GHz but, I will follow your advice and just use standard thermal paste instead maybe I'll be able to pick up a bit more speed.
> 
> By the way, I've been monitoring task manager activity when running these benchmarks (on my Z840). I noticed it will load up MOST of the cores for the benchmark run, but in this case, you can see the issue. Those 8 cores at the bottom are not getting utilized, so I have to figure out if it's possible to load all cores. CPUz does not have a problem doing this, just seems to happen with novabench so far. It's not much but still, that means I'm down 8 cores from optimal performance.
> 
> View attachment 2575357


Normal LM apparently phase changes (goes solid) at 8C and drops in cooling performance. Don’t know about pure galistan.
So for a winter cold loop it’s not the end of the world but you won’t get the IHS colder than that.
For dry ice, ln2 etc it’s very bad.

I hit 7c idle last winter so if we get a really cold winter I might have to repast with kpx _sigh_


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## SoloCamo

Slaughtahouse said:


> Third submission - Laptop
> *Score:* 2914
> *AMD 4750U *w. Integrated Vega graphics (4.1Ghz stock boost)
> *32gb DDD4 RAM *
> 
> View attachment 2575397
> 
> 
> Novabench - Benchmark Result
> 
> 
> https://img.novabench.com/[email protected]/2622214.png


Interesting, the main difference between your 4750 and my 4700 is you have 8c16 and mine is 8c8t and it shows in the cpu score. GPU score of both our Vega 7 was literally identical and oddly enough, your slightly slower memory scored a point higher. Did you happen to catch (or can you check) to see what clocks your cpu is holding during the cpu tests? Mine hovered from 3.6-3.8ghz.


----------



## Slaughtahouse

I didn't check but sure, I'll follow up and edit this comment with results.



Spoiler: Log results pulled from Excel (HWiNFO)




DateTimeVirtual Memory Committed [MB]Virtual Memory Available [MB]Virtual Memory Load [%]Physical Memory Used [MB]Physical Memory Available [MB]Physical Memory Load [%]Page File Usage [%]Core VIDs (avg) [V]Core 0 VID [V]Core 1 VID [V]Core 2 VID [V]Core 3 VID [V]Core 4 VID [V]Core 5 VID [V]Core 6 VID [V]Core 7 VID [V]Core Clocks (avg) [MHz]Core 0 Clock (perf #8) [MHz]Core 1 Clock (perf #4) [MHz]Core 2 Clock (perf #7) [MHz]Core 3 Clock (perf #2) [MHz]Core 4 Clock (perf #3) [MHz]Core 5 Clock (perf #1) [MHz]Core 6 Clock (perf #6) [MHz]Core 7 Clock (perf #5) [MHz]Bus Clock [MHz]Core Effective Clocks (avg) [MHz]Core 0 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 0 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 1 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 1 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 2 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 2 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 3 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 3 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 4 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 4 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 5 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 5 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 6 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 6 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 7 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 7 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Average Effective Clock [MHz]11.10.202208:08.6​7283​29300​19.9​6607​25368​20.6​0.7​1.405​1.419​1.419​1.4​1.4​1.4​1.4​1.4​1.4​2244.6​1597.1​1597.1​1397.5​1397.5​1841.1​4142.5​1841.1​4142.5​99.8​353.4​254.6​36.3​135.1​109​129.9​25.6​72.6​195.9​234.7​14.1​4003.9​16.9​109.5​66.4​110.9​138.8​353.4​11.10.202208:10.6​7295​29287​19.9​6617​25358​20.6​0.7​1.381​1.375​1.4​1.4​1.4​1.369​1.369​1.369​1.369​1908.4​1852.2​1841.1​4142.5​1841.1​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​598​791.2​166.7​703.1​84.5​227.2​136.9​202.4​215.1​490.2​97.8​3523.2​71.4​2080​110.9​466.1​201.7​598​11.10.202208:12.7​7285​29298​19.9​6619​25355​20.7​0.7​1.347​1.35​1.35​1.35​1.35​1.344​1.344​1.344​1.344​3831.6​4117.6​1830​4117.6​4117.6​4117.6​4117.6​4117.6​4117.6​99.8​436.6​767.5​19.6​139.9​101.2​202​35.4​87.6​166.9​290.7​101​4066.4​21.3​277.4​130.4​505.1​72.7​436.6​11.10.202208:15.7​7294​29289​19.9​6626​25348​20.7​0.7​0.887​0.931​0.931​0.925​0.869​0.863​0.863​0.863​0.856​2757.5​2919.7​2894.8​2894.8​2695.1​2670.2​2670.2​2670.2​2645.2​99.8​1670.3​1389.7​1447.6​1510.2​1515.3​1526.2​1491.1​1523.1​1548.6​1603.3​1556.3​2975.2​1534.1​2174.3​1590​1714.5​1625.1​1670.3​11.10.202208:18.2​7279​29303​19.8​6617​25357​20.6​0.7​0.831​0.844​0.844​0.825​0.825​0.831​0.831​0.825​0.825​2573.5​2620.3​2620.3​2545.4​2545.4​2570.4​2570.4​2545.4​2570.4​99.8​2621.6​2681.9​2628.9​2627.4​2625.3​2621.7​2618.3​2617.7​2616.3​2615.7​2615.2​2614.8​2614.1​2613.5​2612.4​2611.2​2610.7​2621.6​11.10.202208:20.3​7324​29258​20​6645​25329​20.7​0.7​0.82​0.825​0.819​0.825​0.819​0.819​0.819​0.819​0.819​2526.7​2545.4​2520.5​2545.4​2520.5​2520.5​2520.5​2520.5​2520.5​99.8​2573.3​2587.2​2573.4​2569.3​2571​2574.5​2569.6​2577​2571.7​2572.1​2570.7​2574.7​2572.3​2570.1​2569​2574.4​2576.7​2573.3​11.10.202208:22.3​7307​29276​19.9​6653​25321​20.8​0.7​1.326​1.337​1.319​1.325​1.325​1.325​1.325​1.325​1.325​2450.1​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1807.9​4067.7​4067.7​4067.7​99.8​1156.3​2499.2​511.6​2005​388​1175.9​555.5​781.9​1121.1​1116.8​1029.5​2294.4​720.8​1703.4​468.7​1702.9​426.4​1156.3​11.10.202208:24.4​7314​29269​19.9​6661​25314​20.8​0.7​1.004​1.013​1​1​1​1​1.006​1.006​1.006​3119.4​3119.4​3119.4​3119.4​3119.4​3119.4​3119.4​3119.4​3119.4​99.8​906.7​1232.9​287.6​896.9​584.1​2340.8​631.3​1859​428.9​1490.9​216.3​1931.8​370.2​748.4​483.2​750.1​254.3​906.7​11.10.202208:26.8​7307​29276​19.9​6662​25312​20.8​0.7​0.911​0.906​0.912​0.906​0.912​0.912​0.912​0.912​0.912​2826.2​2795​2819.9​2819.9​2819.9​2819.9​2844.9​2844.9​2844.9​99.8​1235.6​3558.5​3389.2​1853.7​232.8​2242.9​273.2​666.9​539​611​499.9​3034.8​469.6​669.9​448.6​690.1​589.7​1235.6​11.10.202208:29.7​7296​29287​19.9​6648​25327​20.7​0.7​0.934​0.944​0.931​0.931​0.938​0.931​0.931​0.931​0.931​2901​2919.7​2894.8​2894.8​2919.7​2894.8​2894.8​2894.8​2894.8​99.8​2874.3​2874.2​2871​2871.1​2871.3​2871.9​2872.3​2872.8​2873.5​2874.9​2875.1​2875.3​2875.7​2876.2​2876.7​2877.7​2878.4​2874.3​11.10.202208:32.3​7285​29297​19.9​6631​25344​20.7​0.7​0.908​0.912​0.9​0.9​0.906​0.906​0.912​0.912​0.912​2816.8​2844.9​2770​2819.9​2819.9​2819.9​2819.9​2819.9​2819.9​99.8​2836.1​2859.2​2839.7​2838.5​2837.3​2836.5​2836​2835.3​2834.9​2833.8​2833.7​2833.1​2833​2832​2832.1​2831.4​2831.4​2836.1​11.10.202208:34.3​7285​29297​19.9​6644​25331​20.7​0.7​1.232​1.238​1.231​1.231​1.231​1.231​1.231​1.231​1.231​2873.3​3967.8​1763.5​3967.8​1763.5​1763.5​3992.8​3992.8​1774.6​99.8​1115.6​2844.8​1094.9​1424.2​395.9​1648​256.2​2113.5​344​1568​378.2​1274.7​884.3​1937.1​750.6​565.7​369.8​1115.6​11.10.202208:36.3​7244​29338​19.8​6622​25353​20.7​0.7​1.232​1.238​1.231​1.231​1.231​1.231​1.231​1.231​1.231​3647.2​3967.8​1752.4​3942.9​3942.9​3893​3893​3893​3893​99.8​847.2​1706.6​909.2​111.9​322​2447​27.1​90.8​159.3​129.4​488.6​2173.8​24​1499.6​18.5​3364.3​82.8​847.2​11.10.202208:38.4​7235​29348​19.7​6614​25361​20.6​0.7​1.279​1.306​1.275​1.275​1.275​1.275​1.275​1.275​1.275​2637.6​1796.8​1796.8​4042.7​4042.7​1796.8​4042.7​1796.8​1785.7​99.8​714.5​1194.5​716.4​467.8​34.3​217.9​105.2​136.6​84.9​1607.9​535.2​1922.3​115.2​3972.9​37.8​207.3​75.8​714.5​11.10.202208:40.4​7239​29343​19.7​6618​25356​20.6​0.7​1.175​1.175​1.175​1.175​1.175​1.175​1.175​1.175​1.175​2721.5​1674.8​3768.2​1674.8​3768.2​1674.8​3768.2​1674.8​3768.2​99.8​633.6​468.8​66​3865.7​81.6​507.8​114.4​326.4​119.5​167.4​71.2​3395.1​70​468.6​38.1​193.1​184.5​633.6​11.10.202208:42.4​7240​29343​19.7​6617​25358​20.6​0.7​1.169​1.169​1.169​1.169​1.169​1.169​1.169​1.169​1.169​3223.4​1663.7​3743.2​3743.2​3743.2​1663.7​3743.2​3743.2​3743.2​99.8​1066.8​2595.4​1431.5​2100.3​98.8​2080.7​145.5​1948​279.6​1298.3​171.8​2319.7​214.1​807.6​469.2​709​399.1​1066.8​11.10.202208:44.5​7244​29339​19.8​6620​25354​20.7​0.7​0.876​0.869​0.875​0.875​0.875​0.875​0.875​0.881​0.881​2710.7​2695.1​2720.1​2720.1​2720.1​2720.1​2720.1​2695.1​2695.1​99.8​883.6​1382.4​240​2570.9​255.5​2914.8​148.8​1240.1​210.4​295.2​181.7​2320.4​155​346.7​1384.9​231.1​260.3​883.6​11.10.202208:46.6​7508​29074​20.5​6893​25082​21.5​0.7​0.919​0.919​0.919​0.919​0.919​0.919​0.919​0.919​0.919​2844.9​2844.9​2844.9​2844.9​2844.9​2844.9​2844.9​2844.9​2844.9​99.8​2082.6​2523.5​1896.2​2073.7​1884.8​2075.5​2027​2086.5​2020.9​2126.4​1960.3​2429.1​1851.1​2131.8​1969.2​2316.8​1948​2082.6​11.10.202208:48.6​7507​29075​20.5​6769​25206​21.1​0.7​1.016​1.006​1.013​1.013​1.019​1.019​1.019​1.019​1.019​3166.2​3144.3​3169.3​3169.3​3169.3​3169.3​3169.3​3169.3​3169.3​99.8​2018.7​2281​1790.7​1893.1​1892.1​2135.4​1966.5​2158.7​1921.1​1910.3​1920.6​2439.2​1855.9​2139.5​1989.3​2105.5​1899.6​2018.7​11.10.202208:50.6​7514​29069​20.5​6908​25066​21.6​0.7​0.938​0.931​0.938​0.938​0.938​0.938​0.938​0.938​0.944​2879.2​2894.8​2869.8​2869.8​2869.8​2869.8​2869.8​2869.8​2919.7​99.8​2062.4​2335.2​1813.3​1983.9​1787.7​2261.4​2262.4​2297.6​2178.2​1986.5​1972.2​2209.4​1821.9​2084.9​1905.1​2179.2​1919.1​2062.4​11.10.202208:53.3​7228​29355​19.7​6632​25343​20.7​0.7​1.376​1.356​1.381​1.381​1.381​1.381​1.381​1.381​1.363​2388.7​4092.6​1818.9​1818.9​1818.9​1818.9​4092.6​1818.9​1830​99.8​1300.2​2846.7​2921.5​1126.3​893​1196.8​1085.6​1954.7​1027.6​937.3​903.4​1136.6​853.9​985.3​973.1​1059​902.9​1300.2​11.10.202208:55.4​7237​29346​19.7​6646​25329​20.7​0.7​1.317​1.35​1.313​1.313​1.313​1.313​1.313​1.313​1.313​2921.1​1807.9​4042.7​4042.7​4042.7​4042.7​1796.8​1796.8​1796.8​99.8​532.1​2261.9​364​422.1​164.7​288.4​44.3​1450.4​198.8​980.1​124.7​699.7​68.9​107.9​186.4​1072.5​78.7​532.1​11.10.202208:57.4​7245​29338​19.8​6605​25370​20.6​0.7​1.398​1.388​1.413​1.413​1.394​1.394​1.394​1.394​1.394​2194.7​4167.5​1841.1​1841.1​4117.6​1330.9​1330.9​1330.9​1597.1​99.8​470.1​2210​1649​662.2​32.6​312.1​23.1​325.3​138.8​700.9​84.8​760.5​118.3​202.7​62.2​168.6​70.9​470.1​11.10.202208:59.5​7529​29054​20.5​6780​25194​21.2​0.7​1.387​1.388​1.388​1.388​1.388​1.388​1.388​1.388​1.388​1907​4142.5​1841.1​1841.1​1841.1​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​545.8​3030.6​2813.7​182.5​132.4​214.7​61.6​148​161.3​254.8​259.9​407.1​56.7​314.7​122​263​309.9​545.8​11.10.202209:01.5​7875​28708​21.5​6958​25017​21.7​0.7​1.013​1.019​0.938​0.938​1.069​1.069​1.025​1.025​1.025​2959.2​1414.1​3393.9​3344​3344​3344​3044.5​2894.8​2894.8​99.8​547.3​2462.4​1968.3​367.6​157.2​346.1​103.3​381.1​190.1​349​328.2​739​115.1​409.8​134.6​472.8​231.9​547.3​11.10.202209:03.6​7894​28689​21.5​6952​25022​21.7​0.7​0.927​0.925​0.925​0.925​0.925​0.925​0.925​0.931​0.931​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​340.9​629.4​123.5​382.2​119.4​426.8​109.4​283.4​203.5​391.5​500.6​808.6​121.5​512.6​159.6​357.7​324.1​340.9​11.10.202209:05.7​7897​28686​21.5​6954​25021​21.7​0.7​0.912​0.906​0.912​0.912​0.912​0.912​0.912​0.912​0.912​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​324.5​655.5​108.2​381.9​104.8​381.6​84.8​292.6​186.4​414.5​405.2​741.4​127.9​483.6​204.9​325.2​293.9​324.5​11.10.202209:07.7​7896​28687​21.5​6956​25019​21.7​0.7​0.904​0.912​0.906​0.906​0.906​0.906​0.906​0.894​0.894​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​325.1​627.8​129.6​429.7​107.9​382.5​89.1​279.5​209.3​420.9​432.9​749.7​114.3​465.6​155.5​313.8​293.7​325.1​11.10.202209:09.8​7895​28687​21.5​6955​25020​21.7​0.7​0.908​0.906​0.906​0.906​0.906​0.906​0.912​0.912​0.906​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​350.1​667.8​125.6​438.8​144.8​410.8​138.4​364.2​221.8​455.6​440.7​771.5​134.1​508.2​143.9​335.3​300​350.1​11.10.202209:11.9​7891​28691​21.5​6955​25019​21.7​0.7​0.914​0.925​0.912​0.912​0.912​0.912​0.912​0.912​0.912​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​324​630.7​117.2​350.3​127.8​374.2​111.2​288.2​214.5​446.1​387​719.8​135.2​496.5​155.8​323.3​305.9​324​11.10.202209:13.9​7895​28688​21.5​6955​25019​21.7​0.7​0.928​0.931​0.925​0.925​0.925​0.925​0.931​0.931​0.931​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​304.9​578.3​114.4​374.1​139.5​328.2​121.2​266.7​204.1​357.9​428.3​708.6​96.6​445.1​137.5​314.3​263.4​304.9​11.10.202209:16.0​7904​28679​21.6​6956​25018​21.7​0.7​0.875​0.875​0.875​0.875​0.875​0.875​0.875​0.875​0.875​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​442.8​953.2​263.4​461.9​335.1​554​301.1​401.8​303.4​491.5​378.4​762.7​261.1​572.2​229​489.4​326.5​442.8​11.10.202209:18.1​7902​28681​21.6​6970​25005​21.7​0.7​0.871​0.875​0.875​0.875​0.869​0.869​0.869​0.869​0.869​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​462.7​1006.6​516​646.3​500.3​626.2​205.3​365.3​300.4​401.6​473.3​769.5​180.4​528.5​183​402.4​298.1​462.7​11.10.202209:20.1​7903​28680​21.6​6972​25002​21.8​0.7​0.993​0.981​0.988​0.994​0.994​0.994​0.994​1​1​2232.1​1353.1​3094.4​3094.4​1375.3​3094.4​3094.4​1375.3​1375.3​99.8​486.7​717.9​128.2​1057.9​432.8​474.5​735.2​281.8​633​438.3​500.3​796.1​154.8​595.5​152.3​392.4​295.7​486.7​11.10.202209:22.2​7198​29385​19.6​6616​25359​20.6​0.7​1.353​1.388​1.356​1.356​1.363​1.363​1.363​1.319​1.319​2894.1​1397.5​4092.6​4092.6​4092.6​1818.9​1818.9​1796.8​4042.7​99.8​627.5​1821.6​867.5​653.1​506​956.9​270.8​928.7​463.8​437.3​378.5​760.7​417.7​487​333.5​494.6​262.3​627.5​11.10.202209:24.2​7330​29252​20​6647​25328​20.7​0.7​1.07​1.388​1.025​1.025​1.025​1.025​1.025​1.025​1.025​2734.1​2470.5​1235.3​4192.4​1863.3​4192.4​1863.3​4192.4​1863.3​99.8​378.6​1085.7​809.3​242.4​47.4​383​46.4​220.3​167​124.1​174.1​230.2​720.1​645.9​50.2​111.9​999.7​378.6​11.10.202209:26.2​7192​29391​19.6​6610​25364​20.6​0.7​0.698​0.681​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​186​332.7​27.6​265.5​59.9​66.3​284.1​74.9​130.2​103.8​123.1​524.7​9.4​628.4​10.1​156.7​177.8​186​11.10.202209:28.3​7190​29393​19.6​6607​25368​20.6​0.7​0.735​0.981​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​2038​1397.5​1397.5​1863.3​1863.3​4192.4​1863.3​1863.3​1863.3​99.8​37.7​106.5​19.6​24.2​80.9​31.8​8.5​19.8​6.2​51.9​3.5​97.7​3​6.7​60.7​19.9​61.8​37.7​11.10.202209:30.3​7207​29375​19.7​6624​25351​20.7​0.7​1.38​1.381​1.406​1.375​1.375​1.375​1.375​1.375​1.375​1892.4​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1818.9​1818.9​4092.6​1818.9​99.8​49.1​88.5​17.9​31.2​45.6​33.8​3.1​29.4​3.5​29.1​17.8​25.3​6.3​308.2​53.2​32.5​59.9​49.1​11.10.202209:32.3​7179​29404​19.6​6617​25358​20.6​0.7​0.976​1.388​1.381​1.381​0.731​0.731​0.731​0.731​0.731​2387.4​1863.3​1397.5​1863.3​1863.3​4192.4​4192.4​1863.3​1863.3​99.8​80.4​146.1​27.2​66.9​61.7​37.9​12.4​33​45​90.9​3.4​47.5​15.3​545.1​9.6​75.3​68.4​80.4​11.10.202209:34.4​7177​29406​19.6​6622​25352​20.7​0.7​0.699​0.681​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.706​0.706​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​125​193​13.1​72.3​57.4​81.3​10.3​46.4​297.7​893.5​15.4​154​2.4​25.3​29.7​28.6​79.3​125​11.10.202209:36.4​7178​29405​19.6​6621​25354​20.7​0.7​0.698​0.681​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​1863.3​1397.5​1863.3​1863.3​4192.4​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​68.9​227.3​15​36.7​59​74.4​12.2​26.6​352.6​49.7​6.6​97.7​2.9​8.7​52.4​21.4​58.8​68.9​11.10.202209:38.4​7173​29409​19.6​6604​25370​20.6​0.7​1.264​0.706​1.344​1.344​1.344​1.344​1.344​1.344​1.344​1572.2​1397.5​1863.3​1863.3​1863.3​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​63.1​176.5​11​59.8​51.1​66.9​10.9​23.6​180.9​55.7​10​232.7​1.7​8.7​36.9​25​58​63.1​11.10.202209:40.5​7184​29398​19.6​6615​25359​20.6​0.7​0.7​0.681​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.7​0.706​0.706​0.706​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​77.3​289.6​26​65.4​89​89.1​21.6​61.3​297.3​55.6​20.1​49.8​4.6​42.1​19.2​40.3​65.5​77.3​11.10.202209:42.5​7184​29399​19.6​6604​25370​20.6​0.7​0.727​0.681​0.731​0.731​0.731​0.731​0.738​0.738​0.738​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​1397.5​99.8​100.3​224.5​23.5​61​77.9​78.8​15.3​36​162.2​143.2​5.3​93.5​6.2​14.7​102.7​29.2​530.7​100.3​11.10.202209:44.6​7180​29402​19.6​6610​25365​20.6​0.7​1.343​1.35​1.35​1.35​1.35​1.35​1.331​1.331​1.331​1921.5​1597.1​1330.9​1330.9​1330.9​1863.3​1863.3​1863.3​4192.4​99.8​64​198​20.6​48.8​78.5​118.6​9.3​40​144.6​54.6​9.1​36.2​4​9.7​36.4​53​162.8​64​DateTimeVirtual Memory Committed [MB]Virtual Memory Available [MB]Virtual Memory Load [%]Physical Memory Used [MB]Physical Memory Available [MB]Physical Memory Load [%]Page File Usage [%]Core VIDs (avg) [V]Core 0 VID [V]Core 1 VID [V]Core 2 VID [V]Core 3 VID [V]Core 4 VID [V]Core 5 VID [V]Core 6 VID [V]Core 7 VID [V]Core Clocks (avg) [MHz]Core 0 Clock (perf #8) [MHz]Core 1 Clock (perf #4) [MHz]Core 2 Clock (perf #7) [MHz]Core 3 Clock (perf #2) [MHz]Core 4 Clock (perf #3) [MHz]Core 5 Clock (perf #1) [MHz]Core 6 Clock (perf #6) [MHz]Core 7 Clock (perf #5) [MHz]Bus Clock [MHz]Core Effective Clocks (avg) [MHz]Core 0 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 0 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 1 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 1 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 2 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 2 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 3 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 3 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 4 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 4 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 5 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 5 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 6 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 6 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 7 T0 Effective Clock [MHz]Core 7 T1 Effective Clock [MHz]Average Effective Clock [MHz]




Doesn't seem to differ much from what you mention from watching the graphs from Task Manager. @SoloCamo 

However, I think HWiNFO tells a slightly different story. Seems like (depending on the test) a cluster is boosting up to 4.1. Maybe that is a single CCX hitting full clocks. I've highlighted that in yellow.

Early on in the CPU test, HWINO is reporting "most" cores boosting up to 4Ghz. I've highlighted that in red.


----------



## CrustyJuggler

Novabench - CrustyJuggler's Benchmark Result


4319 Novabench score with AMD Ryzen 5 5600X 6-Core CPU and AMD Radeon RX 6800 GPU




novabench.com


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## CrustyJuggler

storm-chaser said:


> View attachment 2575520
> 
> View attachment 2575521


FYI I have a non XT 600


----------



## storm-chaser

Individual placings.

*CPU Performance 
AMD Leader = @NoelC 
Intel Leader = @storm-chaser *

















*RAM Performance

AMD Leader = @NoelC
Intel Leader = @bscool*

















*Disk Performance
AMD Leader = @domdtxdissar 
Intel Leader = @Avacado *

















*GPU Performance *
*AMD Leader = @bmgjet *
*Intel Leader = @yzonker* 
*







*


----------



## xioaxi

domdtxdissar said:


> No, i think there is something strange going on with this benchmark.
> And as far as i can read between the lines, if you want a good GPU score you need force rebar enabled with nvinspector.


No resizeable base address register here, old CPU but if you reduce monitor resolution some gain can be had, add some extra disk cache to the mix for a bit more score 








Not sure about the RAM score, this CPU single thread RAM speed is around 14000 MB/s and over 50000 MB/s for MT.

But for me the biggest surprise is the CPU score which seems to take a single score and multiply by number of threads, doesn't even matter if they are HTT or not or running with affinity set to a lower number of logical CPUs. Here's what happens if you get the OS to report having a thousand threads.








Note how the float and integer results end in 000, the hash ops is just a single thread result so not subject to the multiplication.

Can I have first place now?


----------



## storm-chaser

Making some progress on the 9600KF rig. It's coming back together. Just cleaned the heat killer jet plate so we should in theory be operating at 100% loop efficiency.
All compression fittings are in place, just need to plumb the lines, install memory, wire both pumps and fill/bleed the loop. I cannot find my 512GB Samsung 980 pro!  So I've resorted to another 256GB SSD Nvme I won a few months back in a benchmark comp. Probably going to hurt my disk score compared to the 980 pro, but it's all I've got at the moment.

Now this is what you call benching! 😁 (motherboard to be mounted directly onto the bench)
And the radiators are more or less in the right spot as well.










All copper Heatkiller IV has been cleaned and "ported" as I removed the 90* restriction from within the block for better flow. This is on the outlet side and the restriction inside causes the water to make a tight turn when departing the waterblock. Not recommended for slow single pump configured loops. You need to have a good flow rate to take advantage.









Ratchet strap power supply mod 









Using 240mm + 360mm radiators only. Should be all I need for this CPU. Especially since it will mostly be cold weather benching, so I should have more than enough to reach at least 5.5GHz.

Opted for liquid metal for now for a couple reasons. First, I made this Galinstan from scratch using gallium, indium and tin, so I am curious to see how it performs relative to other liquid metal thermal pastes I've tried in the past. Also, it should be good down to -2*F, so no need to worry about thermal exchange performance fade.

Galinstan is composed of 68.5% Ga, 21.5% In, and 10.0% Sn (by weight).

Galinstan - Wikipedia

I was going to use this 35 gallon tank as a reservoir. But I think that would be a little over the top LOL


----------



## cssorkinman

Newest machine in it's work clothes.


----------



## storm-chaser

@xioaxi just noticed I added your rig twice, I'll fix this when I update the leaderboard again.

Also, I will need some verification for your disk score. You went from 172 to 650... that's ramdrive territory lol


----------



## domdtxdissar

xioaxi said:


> But for me the biggest surprise is the CPU score which seems to take a single score and multiply by number of threads, doesn't even matter if they are HTT or not or running with affinity set to a lower number of logical CPUs. Here's what happens if you get the OS to report having a thousand threads.


Bingo, that's why 3min PBO profile could beat my 5.8ghz allcore clocks.. Thanks for sharing 
...And thats why i said there were something fishy with this benchmark.
(maximum PBO allcore clocks are 5.5ghz)


----------



## storm-chaser

I don't know. I think there is more to it than simply multiplication of one cores performance though. Task manager shows quite a lot of core loading and unloading throughout the CPU test. But you could be right. 

@xioaxi please don't point out any more ways to cheat. *All benchmarks are fallible, everyone knows this. *If we have a suspect result, we will ask that user to run a secondary benchmark to confirm their original score is accurate. Whether that be CPU, memory or something else, we will be able to confirm one way or the other if the result legit. It's not the end of the world.
I will start with you. Please run Crystal Disk Mark and post your results here so we can compare your SSD read/write scores as they seem a bit on the high side.

CrystalDiskMark - Crystal Dew World [en] (crystalmark.info)

Processor affinity tweaking through HP Performance Advisor: (all cores but two are disabled)









All cores pretty much getting loaded










The final result of running the test with all cores available gives me something like this:










@bmgjet
@domdtxdissar

Here is a snip of the leaderboard. We can see that both CPUs get a very close results.










Here is @domdtxdissar final run....
Novabench - Benchmark Result








What was your all core and single core clocking for this run?


Here is @bmgjet final run....
Novabench - bmgjet's Benchmark Result








@bmgjet is running:
6ghz single code
5.75ghz all core.


This is legit? In the sense I have seen other 7950Xs run these kinds of clock speeds before.... but just to be sure, can you please both run CPUz benchmarks (if you still have these OC settings loaded) and report back with your respective results. Remember he only beats you by 9 points in CPU score.


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> (maximum PBO allcore clocks are 5.5ghz)


If this is true we have a problem. Because he's saying 5.75 all core. Let's let your competitor respond here before making any rash decisions, though.


----------



## storm-chaser

It's starting to take shape!


----------



## domdtxdissar

storm-chaser said:


> @bmgjet
> @domdtxdissar
> 
> Here is a snip of the leaderboard. We can see that both CPUs get a very close results.
> 
> View attachment 2575716
> 
> 
> Here is @domdtxdissar final run....
> Novabench - Benchmark Result
> View attachment 2575719
> 
> What was your all core and single core clocking for this run?
> 
> 
> Here is @bmgjet final run....
> Novabench - bmgjet's Benchmark Result
> View attachment 2575718
> 
> @bmgjet is running:
> 6ghz single code
> 5.75ghz all core.
> 
> 
> This is legit? In the sense I have seen other 7950Xs run these kinds of clock speeds before.... but just to be sure, can you please both run CPUz benchmarks (if you still have these OC settings loaded) and report back with your respective results. Remember he only beats you by 9 points in CPU score.


I'm at work now, but if iam remembering correctly i ran a static OC @ 5800mhz CCD0 and static 5450mhz CCD1 for this benchmark.
(this is supposed to a multicore workload benchmark no?)


> 6ghz single code
> 5.75ghz all core.


Those are just flimsy (ST) PBO clocks. (which holdes for 0.00001seconds)

I think its his PBO ST score that "9 points" faster than my allcore MT clocks.
PBO is limited to maximum 5.5ghz in allcore loads.(when all cores are loaded at the same time)
Its easy to see in workloads such a testmem5 1usmus cfg. (many memory benchmarks are very light cpu allcore workloads) (OCCT memory etc also)

So its should be impossible to beat a static 5800/5450mhz overclock with PBO in a real multicore workload..

I can post numbers from other benchmarks with my cpu maxed out which i think bngjet will find very hard to get close too, if he can match these numbers i will accept this novabench scoring.








Result not found







www.3dmark.com




or Cinebench R23







I simply haven't spent the time playing with affinity/disabling cores to find the correct thread/core in this novabench to max ST clocks on, since the benchmark seem to take your highest ST score and simply multiply with numbers of threads windows have available.


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> I'm at work now, but if iam remembering correctly i ran a static OC @ 5800mhz CCD0 and static 5450mhz CCD1 for this benchmark.
> (this is supposed to a multicore workload benchmark no?)
> 
> Those are just climsy (ST) PBO clocks. (which holdes for 0.00001seconds)
> 
> I think its his PBO ST score that "9 points" faster than my allcore MT clocks.
> PBO is limited to maximum 5.5ghz in allcore loads.(when all cores are loaded at the same time)
> Its easy to see in workloads such a testmem5 1usmus cfg. (many memory benchmarks are very light cpu allcore workloads) (OCCT memory etc also)
> 
> So its should be impossible to beat a static 5800/5450mhz overclock with PBO in a real multicore workload..
> 
> I can post numbers from other benchmarks with my cpu maxed out which i think bngjet will find very hard to get close too, *but if he can match these numbers i will accept this novabench scoring*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Result not found
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or Cinebench R23
> View attachment 2575732
> 
> I simply haven't spent the time playing with affinity to find the correct thread/core in this novabench to max ST clocks on, since the benchmark seem to take your highest ST score and simply multiply with numbers of threads windows have available.


Thank you @domdtxdissar and @bmgjet 

dom, I've had a chance to get some updated OC information and I'd like to discuss with you. I think his result is legit and I will explain via PM so we can maintain the sterile benchmark rule. 
Goes without saying if you find something suspect (all participants), you can mention it in this threat, but for details and discussion please bring to PM. By sterile I mean stay focused on the benchmark itself, essentially like tunnel vision, that way we get the best results, and the comp stays pure. I will respond to your above post via PM.


----------



## mongoled

@storm-chaser
Just a heads up on the sole 5600x score, you got a copy and paste error for the CPU score (you took the total score and put it in the CPU score, 4319)

Will get my 24/7 PBO bench up soon, its not too crumby when compared to those using fixed CPU clocks



Nice looking bench table


----------



## storm-chaser

And guys let's just focus on the fun here. Yes, results can be contested but the main objective is to have fun and push the limits of your hardware. Let's not forget about this, after all we are chasing "The pursuit of performance" here on overclock.net (and for the intel guys, maybe chasing storm-chaser in CPU Performance! lol)..but only for limited time. I think the 13000 series is going to blow me out of the water. That's why I'm getting two E5 2698 v4 processors next month for the z840! So that will be an upgrade to 40 cores and 80 threads, as well as being able to run the memory at it's full 2400Mhz potential. Right now, that's limited to 2133 with v3 haswell processors. Gotta keep this thing future proofed!

No, all in good fun! lets try to stick with that and make it entertaining.

So far so good with the 9600KF! Both water pumps and the remainder of the cooling system is set up and ready to go. I find a pump before and after the main restriction, which in my case, is the heatkiller waterblock, works optimally, because you are pushing and pulling at the same time through said restriction. Will be adding water for now as coolant and then likely switch to methanol again once the temps dip below 20*F at night.

I like how it's turning out. I now have a great wall of radiator on one side, as you can see in the pic below....
(I will tidy everything up but I want to make sure it posts before I do) - final task is adding the water to my loop, which I will tackle right now. 
Two pumps on a custom loop really make that process easier, at least that's what I've found....


----------



## mongoled

Here you go, my 24/7 PBO settings













Novabench - mongoled's Benchmark Result


4657 Novabench score with AMD Ryzen 5 5600X 6-Core CPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 GPU




novabench.com


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## storm-chaser

Sorry if I was short with anyone earlier, I've been up all night working on the bench rig and it's the first time I've gone caseless and set up a rig like this. I'm just a little cranky because I had to wire both water pumps twice, for some reason the first yellow wire I tapped into was dead going to the power supply. Oh well, just a little speed bump, no big deal. 

So far so good, the loop has been bled and I just need to swap in a good GPU and set up a monitor for it and whatnot. Pictures and updates to follow.

I filled the loop with 50% automotive coolant so I'm good down to -10*F or so.


----------



## mongoled

storm-chaser said:


> Sorry if I was short with anyone earlier, I've been up all night working on the bench rig and it's the first time I've gone caseless and set up a rig like this. I'm just a little cranky because I had to wire both water pumps twice, for some reason the first yellow wire I tapped into was dead going to the power supply. Oh well, just a little speed bump, no big deal.
> 
> So far so good, the loop has been bled and I just need to swap in a good GPU and set up a monitor for it and whatnot. Pictures and updates to follow.
> 
> I filled the loop with 50% automotive coolant so I'm good down to -10*F or so.


Nah you good with me



I fully agree with your sentiments regards this is supposed to be fun


----------



## storm-chaser

9600KF rig is officially back in action! lol I just need a better SSD, better GPU and faster RAM and I will be a happy camper 

But no, I am really excited for cold weather benching with this new setup. I will post some pictures of the finished work bench for it. Memory needs some tuning yet.


----------



## storm-chaser

Okay how am I getting beaten by a 4C/8T Intel chip that's running 1000MHz less clock speed? Shouldn't I be way out in front?


----------



## J7SC

storm-chaser said:


> Okay how am I getting beaten by a 4C/8T Intel chip that's running 1000MHz less clock speed? Shouldn't I be way out in front?
> 
> View attachment 2575929


IPC ?


----------



## storm-chaser

J7SC said:


> IPC ?


I don't think so because IIRC that is a Haswell and was released in like 2014. Coffee lake should have much better IPC - at least 5-10%
Even at 5.5GHz I can't catch him! lol


----------



## mongoled

storm-chaser said:


> I don't think so because IIRC that is a Haswell and was released in like 2014. Coffee lake should have much better IPC - at least 5-10%
> Even at 5.5GHz I can't catch him! lol
> 
> View attachment 2575937


Thats very strange.

A quick passmark comparisson shows that the results you are seeing are weird



Intel Core i5-9600KF @ 3.70GHz vs Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz [cpubenchmark.net] by PassMark Software



You need someone else to validate a 4790k result ..


----------



## cssorkinman

managed a little better score on the laptop


----------



## SoloCamo

Edit: ignore, I'm clearly blind



storm-chaser said:


> Okay how am I getting beaten by a 4C/8T Intel chip that's running 1000MHz less clock speed? Shouldn't I be way out in front?
> 
> View attachment 2575929


This bench is very... strange, I'll say that. It seems to favor core count and ignores ipc at times, and then sometimes ignores core count and reads IPC with some weird multiplier. 

The only thing I can say is maybe it's memory intensive during the cpu testing? The 4790k I have is paired with cl10 ddr 2400 and runs like 43ns latency in aida 64. Not amazing for DDR3 but still good (and ahead of my 10900 / ddr4 4000 cl18 setup by quite a bit in mem latency).


----------



## cssorkinman

SoloCamo said:


> The above post is a perfect example for the below info... a 5800H somehow losing to a 4790k that is just running all core turbo and decent memory.


I guess i missed that - what test was that?


----------



## SoloCamo

cssorkinman said:


> I guess i missed that - what test was that?


CPU score only. My 4790k is a hair above your 5800H in this test which makes zero sense.

If only my 10900 setup runs as good as my devil's canyon one appears to in this bench.



mongoled said:


> Thats very strange.
> 
> A quick passmark comparisson shows that the results you are seeing are weird
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i5-9600KF @ 3.70GHz vs Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz [cpubenchmark.net] by PassMark Software
> 
> 
> 
> You need someone else to validate a 4790k result ..


If I get a chance I'll see if I can install it on my brother's pc as well. His only does an all core of 4.0ghz and is paired with ddr3 1866 with highter timings so it will be slower then mine in this but it should at least give a baseline.


----------



## cssorkinman

SoloCamo said:


> CPU score only. My 4790k is a hair above your 5800H in this test which makes zero sense.
> 
> If only my 10900 setup runs as good as my devil's canyon one appears to in this bench.
> 
> 
> 
> If I get a chance I'll see if I can install it on my brother's pc as well. His only does an all core of 4.0ghz and is paired with ddr3 1866 with highter timings so it will be slower then mine in this but it should at least give a baseline.


I think the 4790 cpu score was 994 and the 5800u was 2505.... isnt it?


----------



## SoloCamo

cssorkinman said:


> I think the 4790 cpu score was 994 and the 5800u was 2505.... isnt it?


My bad, feel like an idiot. Was benching in speedway and then just saw similar numbers and made assumptions. Disregard.


----------



## storm-chaser

SoloCamo said:


> The only thing I can say is maybe it's memory intensive during the cpu testing?


The 9600KF rig is outside and ready to bench. I'll be back later with results. 

Yeah, and as you can see here, the 5800H should be smoking the 4790K...


----------



## SoloCamo

storm-chaser said:


> The 9600KF rig is outside and ready to bench. I'll be back later with results.
> 
> Yeah, and as you can see here, the 5800H should be smoking the 4790K...
> 
> View attachment 2576065


My bad on that, misread the scores as I've been too busy benching in speedway and mixing numbers up. The 5800H is absolutely smoking it. My 4700U is as well... as they should. Hoping you find out the bottleneck or issue here as a 9600KF should make easy work of a mild at best 4790k.


----------



## cssorkinman

SoloCamo said:


> My bad, feel like an idiot. Was benching in speedway and then just saw similar numbers and made assumptions. Disregard.


Np - I've been dealing with some cognitive issues and was just checking myself - be well


----------



## storm-chaser

SoloCamo said:


> The only thing I can say is maybe it's memory intensive during the cpu testing?


The 9600KF rig is outside and ready to bench. Issues with memory right now so that is a possiblity.


----------



## storm-chaser

Okay, we are all set for cold weather benching. The motherboard does not like XMP, if you set the memory to XMP and reboot, I always get a message that the overclock has failed. So at this point I can only focus on CPU benches. Basically, the system will crash if you change the memory speed at all.


View attachment 2576066


View attachment 2576070




View attachment 2576068


----------



## storm-chaser

@J7SC

Another classic blue light build... I remember you liked the blue lighting with some of your projects so here is another one for you....

Kinda off topic but I purchased some blue lighting to enhance the look of my Z840.

Pictures don't do it justice, but you get the idea...


----------



## domdtxdissar

New bios and setting made a lot more difference than what i would have thought 









Online results


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## storm-chaser

Damnit

I think my Z390 ACE is totally shot. First it was acting weird with the memory, now it wont even post unless I do a complete reset every time the computer boots. 

So it's not doing so well. (still got 5.7 tho) Anyone have an old cheap z390 motherboard for me? Must keep chasing that dragon!


----------



## storm-chaser

So I am curious to see why my RAM score was so low? Was reporting like 15000MB/s speed. But I have an octal channel memory configuration on this Z840, all sixteen memory slots are populated @ 2133MHz.









Throughput is much higher on AIDA64.


----------



## stahlhart

Novabench - stahlhart06's Benchmark Result


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## storm-chaser

So I figured out the only possible solution to my reliability / memory problems with the MSI Z390 ACE. After about an hour of troubleshooting, I eventually concluded the only stable configuration is with a single 8GB memory module installed in DIMM slot #4. Obviously, this limits me to single channel memory but at least the system is 100% reliable now and I can still bench the CPU, which is mostly what I focus on anyway. XMP mode also works flawlessly now. 

Still something up with the CPU scores though. Even at 5600Mhz I am slower than that 4C/8T chip by 5 points. 

This is a fresh install of windows 10 so I have no idea how this could be happening. 

Latest run:


----------



## mongoled

storm-chaser said:


> So I figured out the only possible solution to my reliability / memory problems with the MSI Z390 ACE. After about an hour of troubleshooting, I eventually concluded the only stable configuration is with a single 8GB memory module installed in DIMM slot #4. Obviously, this limits me to single channel memory but at least the system is 100% reliable now and I can still bench the CPU, which is mostly what I focus on anyway. XMP mode also works flawlessly now.
> 
> Still something up with the CPU scores though. Even at 5600Mhz I am slower than that 4C/8T chip by 5 points.
> 
> This is a fresh install of windows 10 so I have no idea how this could be happening.
> 
> Latest run:
> 
> View attachment 2576412


Maybe time for a second bath of isopropyl alcohol?


----------



## JSHamlet234

storm-chaser said:


> Still something up with the CPU scores though. Even at 5600Mhz I am slower than that 4C/8T chip by 5 points.
> 
> This is a fresh install of windows 10 so I have no idea how this could be happening.
> 
> Latest run:
> 
> View attachment 2576412


I think someone discovered earlier in this thread that the 3 CPU benches are single-threaded and that the scores from the first 2 are multiplied by the number of threads that the CPU has. Based on that, I would expect there to be an unrealistic disparity between CPUs with and without HT.


----------



## J7SC

JSHamlet234 said:


> I think someone discovered earlier in this thread that the 3 CPU benches are single-threaded and that the scores from the first 2 are multiplied by the number of threads that the CPU has. Based on that, I would expect there to be an unrealistic disparity between CPUs with and without HT.


Could be, but I am not certain about that; just leave HWInfo open during Novabench and check current thread utilization per test as they unfold.


----------



## cssorkinman

Played around with affinity settings on my 5800x rig
Dark green = 2c+2SMT T
Light green= 4c
Dark blue = 8c
Light blue = 8SMT T

Clocks weren't locked so theres some variance there.


----------



## storm-chaser

mongoled said:


> Maybe time for a second bath of isopropyl alcohol?


Im sticking with a 50/50 mix of anti-freeze for the winter ahead. I think it's a little easier to manage than the methanol. lol.

Temps will eventually dip below -10*F so for those conditions I will add a bit more anti-freeze so nothing slushes up on me.


----------



## storm-chaser

cssorkinman said:


> Played around with affinity settings on my 5800x rig
> Dark green = 2c+2SMT T
> Light green= 4c
> Dark blue = 8c
> Light blue = 8SMT T
> 
> Clocks weren't locked so theres some variance there.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576504


So I don't know how much this tells us, but the novabench averages are listed below. It would appear that those who thought the CPU benchmark appears to test one core and then multiply by # of threads may be correct (at least partially correct), Although it's not just calculating one core and then multiplying by # of cores. I think it probably tests one core and then one thread independently and calculates the remaining performance by applying these numbers to total core/thread count. If it counted a hyper thread as equivalent in performance to a single core, that score would roughly indicate 1738 points for the 8700K. But it doesn't.

Does this logic appear to be correct? Let me know what you think...

Hence the major scoring difference between an 8700K and 9600K)... only difference essentially being the 8700K is hyperthreaded and the 9600KF/K is not.

@J7SC
@xioaxi
@domdtxdissar
picked up on this behavior pretty early on and it appears their hunch was correct.


----------



## Luggage

storm-chaser said:


> So I don't know how much this tells us, but the novabench averages are listed below. It would appear that those who thought the CPU benchmark appears to test one core and then multiply by # of threads may be correct (at least partially correct), Although it's not just calculating one core and then multiplying by # of cores. I think it probably tests one core and then one thread independently and calculates the remaining performance by applying these numbers to total core/thread count. If it counted a hyper thread as equivalent in performance to a single core, that score would roughly indicate 1738 points for the 8700K. But it doesn't.
> 
> Does this logic appear to be correct? Let me know what you think...
> 
> Hence the major scoring difference between an 8700K and 9600K)... only difference essentially being the 8700K is hyperthreaded and the 9600KF/K is not.
> 
> @J7SC
> @xioaxi
> @domdtxdissar
> picked up on this behavior pretty early on and it appears their hunch was correct.
> 
> View attachment 2576551


1c score x (1c+0.5ht)?
869x1.5=1303+run to run variance?


----------



## cssorkinman

Running novabench on my 1800x comparing scores with SMT disabled and varying numbers of cores enabled in bios. 2,4,6, and 8 cores enabled.


----------



## storm-chaser

Luggage said:


> 1c score x (1c+0.5ht)?
> 869x1.5=1303+run to run variance?


Yup, I think you got it. Hyperthreading = .5c

Only viable conclusion we can draw at this point...

For a CPU benchmark this isn't very confidence inspiring... they could have and should have done much better.


----------



## Luggage

storm-chaser said:


> Yup, I think you got it. Hyperthreading = .5c
> 
> Only viable conclusion we can draw at this point...
> 
> For a CPU benchmark this isn't very confidence inspiring... they could have and should have done much better.


Should skew 12 and 13 gen results one way or the other.
Anyone feel like trying 1 p core (smt on/off), all p core no e core (smt on/off), 1 e core, all e core, all cores? (Huh, got tired just typing that >_< )


----------



## xioaxi

storm-chaser said:


> If it counted a hyper thread as equivalent in performance to a single core, that score would roughly indicate 1738 points for the 8700K. But it doesn't.


No it wouldn't because while the integer and float results are multiplied by the thread count the hash result is a single thread result so remains the same regardless of thread count. This might mean a score increase of roughly 1.6x if threads were doubled for same arch/clocks. You can get singular float and integer values by dividing by thread count and adapt frequency to compare different CPU's. 

I don't know what the purpose of running multithread is as it doesn't appear to influence the result except perhaps for the clock frequency. Maybe you can ask when/if you get your numa reply?

I find the actual GUI, submission and lookup quite nicely done. The bench part is what it is, maybe the author wanted to keep similarity to the older versions, idk.


----------



## storm-chaser

xioaxi said:


> I find the actual GUI, submission and lookup quite nicely done. The bench part is what it is, maybe the author wanted to keep similarity to the older versions, idk.


Thanks for the insight as always, @xioaxi 

I like the benchmark as a whole as well. I think it's a well - put together, comprehensive interface and have no problem recommending it. Just shocked that here we are on an overclocking forum and most of us had never even run this bench before. 

I am going to be upgrading my rig so I'm interested to see how moving to two E5 2696 v4 processors next month will affect this. These are 22C/44T 150W TDP processors so I should see a substantial boost in performance. Also I get 2400MHz memory moving from v3 to v4 chips.

Could you possibly find a use for another E5 2696 v3 processor? I'd let them or just one go pretty cheap if you want.


----------



## stahlhart

Novabench - stahlhart06's Benchmark Result 

Looks like your first Raptor Lake entry.


----------



## criccio

Not sure why it picked up the virtual desktop monitor but its a 3090.

7900x is just aircooled using an AK620














__





Novabench - criccio's Benchmark Result


6273 Novabench score with AMD Ryzen 9 7900X 12-Core CPU and Virtual Desktop Monitor GPU




novabench.com


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## xioaxi

storm-chaser said:


> Just shocked that here we are on an overclocking forum and most of us had never even run this bench before.


 I found a backed up older version from Vista days, nb3  With v4 there seems to be a bug with the hash benchmark which seems to have been around for the last five years! It happens around/after 4.7 GHz where the score stays fixed at 1771991 then seems to jump 100,000 to 1871991 at around 6GHz! My clocks don't reach those frequencies but you should be able to test with your 9600kf where 1771991 is reached. I might try to post some stuff on the software bench side if I have time or do you think it's not worth the effort? Don't have a lot of free time at the moment.

Thanks for the offer of CPU's but sadly I'm maxed out with computer HW at this time and the foreseeable future.


----------



## storm-chaser

xioaxi said:


> I found a backed up older version from Vista days, nb3  With v4 there seems to be a bug with the hash benchmark which seems to have been around for the last five years! It happens around/after 4.7 GHz where the score stays fixed at 1771991 then seems to jump 100,000 to 1871991 at around 6GHz! My clocks don't reach those frequencies but you should be able to test with your 9600kf where 1771991 is reached. I might try to post some stuff on the software bench side if I have time or do you think it's not worth the effort? Don't have a lot of free time at the moment.
> 
> Thanks for the offer of CPU's but sadly I'm maxed out with computer HW at this time and the foreseeable future.


Perfect, that means its time for you to build a new high end Hewlitt Packard Z840 dual processor 2696 v3 36C/72T workstation! 😁

Will look into the suspected hash situation. Thought my initial effort did not go so well. I was not able to get my 9600KF rig to POST earlier tonight. not sure what happened, as I haven't fired it up for 3-4 days. So a CMOS reset might be in order. If/when I get it running, I will test your theory. I would encourage you to take a look on the software bench side and I will do the same once up and running.

Again, @xioaxi is our resident benchmark analyzer. He is usually first to figure out how they tick, and any flaws / idiosyncrasies they may have. Good to have him working out details so we know exactly how the benchmark is operating in order to make an assessment.


----------



## yzonker

Just got this one running. CPU is just running stock. DDR4 3600CL13 (long story why I'm on DDR4), 4090 also running stock (probably doesn't matter). reBar forced, no other changes. [email protected]


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## Zero989

I ran this benchmark and my 4090 is losing to 3090s, I need to upgrade : (


----------



## storm-chaser

Zero989 said:


> I ran this benchmark and my 4090 is losing to 3090s, I need to upgrade : (


Change your resolution and see if that helps.


----------



## usbTypeF

9900k ht off 49/48 1.4
3090ti +175 +700
980pro 1tb
garbage mobo that i have to power on and off twice to boot, every, single, time
garbage ram 4400 20 1.62v





Novabench - Benchmark Result


3281 Novabench score with Intel Core i9-9900K CPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti GPU




novabench.com


----------



## petar.romanov

13900kf P/5.9Ghz E/4.6Ghz DDR5-32GB-7200MHz-32-44-44-30 2T 
3080TI/2120mxz


----------



## storm-chaser

Thanks for the subs. Ill get the leaderboard updated tonight, I got into some trouble trying to tweak the CPU scheduling in windows 10 so the rig has been down for a couple days .Ill be back though!


----------



## stahlhart

This space available for rent (313) 555-1212


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## stahlhart

Novabench - stahlhart06's Benchmark Result

A little more.


----------



## stahlhart

Novabench - stahlhart06's Benchmark Result 

Forgot to exit Steam last time.


----------



## mtasquared




----------

