# [CPUID] New CPU-Z 1.73!



## kx11

thnx for the tip


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Direct download link ---> Here

Definitely going to try. Wonder what the benchmark/stress test uses...hmmm


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Beat my E5 if you can











Probably won't be that hard


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Beat my E5 if you can
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably won't be that hard


well


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> well


That's not even fair.


----------



## kx11

because mine is OC'd ?


----------



## Mhill2029

Ok, I need to upgrade. I'm so disappointed... sigh


----------



## Creator

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> well


Pfft.


----------



## hurleyef

3570k still going strong!


----------



## TopicClocker

A real Devil's Canyon chip.

i7 4790K 4.7GHz 1.28v.

Single-thread - 1799

Multi-thread - 6668 :O


----------



## d0mini

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Beat my E5 if you can
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably won't be that hard


I got kind of close











Got to love the single threaded goodness.


----------



## yunshin

I7-970 still keeping up at only 4.0ghz.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yunshin*
> 
> 
> 
> I7-970 still keeping up at only 4.0ghz.


Westmere is awesome!


----------



## yunshin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Westmere is awesome!


Agreed, it's a bit surprising actually. Westmere though? Was there some rename that I'm not familiar with?


----------



## ozlay




----------



## gasparspeed




----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yunshin*
> 
> Agreed, it's a bit surprising actually. Westmere though? Was there some rename that I'm not familiar with?


Oops I should have said Gulftown, although Westmere and Gulftown are pretty much the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulftown
Quote:


> Gulftown or Westmere-EP is the codename of an up to six-core hyperthreaded Intel processor able to run up to 12 threads in parallel. It is based on Westmere microarchitecture, the 32 nm shrink of Nehalem.


----------



## <({D34TH})>




----------



## Zen00

Is it possible for there to be a "real-time" cpu benchmark, that gives you a score that is constantly evaluated so you can see what tasks/processes increase/decrease your cpu performance?


----------



## ozlay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gasparspeed*


well that's strange


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gasparspeed*


When multi thread is worse than single thread.


----------



## HeadlessKnight




----------



## Cr4zy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Creator*
> 
> Pfft.


----------



## Alastair

5GHz of Vishera posts some impressive scores


----------



## wholeeo




----------



## Cybertox




----------



## Particle

It's worth pointing out that even AMD's own stock chips can get much better results than that included 8150 reference score that people appear to like making fun of.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> It's worth pointing out that even AMD's own stock chips can get much better results than that included 8150 reference score that people appear to like making fun of.


lol, 9590


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> lol, 9590


At $200, it's not exactly exotic or anything. Your objection is misplaced.


----------



## gasparspeed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ozlay*
> 
> well that's strange


I am doing something wrong?
I ran again the test...

Still looks like a low score.


----------



## th3illusiveman

1365/4008 with a 4.4GHz i5 sandy.


----------



## Cyrious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Beat my E5 if you can
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably won't be that hard


Let me crawl out of bed and get to my Xeon and I'll happily stomp yours into the ground.


----------



## Derp

4.5GHz core.
4GHz uncore because of Gigabyte's poor bios.
Garbage memory because I built this system when DDR3 prices went full ******.

I like that this little benchmark is extremely consistent.


----------



## Alastair

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> It's worth pointing out that even AMD's own stock chips can get much better results than that included 8150 reference score that people appear to like making fun of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, 9590
Click to expand...

That 9590 is running at stock 8350 speeds at 4Ghz.


----------



## Alastair

I am trying to work out how the benchmarks scale works. It cant be linear. Because if you look at the 4GHz vishera results just posted, it is not 25% slower than my 5GHz result.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyrious*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Beat my E5 if you can
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably won't be that hard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me crawl out of bed and get to my Xeon and I'll happily stomp yours into the ground.
Click to expand...

Damn you! Don't forget who gave you that Seasonic G550









Also Haswell is at least 10% faster than Sandy in IPC, so.....


----------



## Cyrious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Damn you! Don't forget who gave you that Seasonic G550
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also Haswell is at least 10% faster than Sandy in IPC, so.....



Muahahaha!









If the single core turbo on this board properly worked Id have you there too, as it goes all the way to 3.8ghz.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT




----------



## iluvkfc

Doesn't read core voltage properly at idle (tested on i5 4690K).


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*


Holy crap how did you get the BCLK strap to work?

Is it only unlocked on Ivy? Does it depend on the board?

God damn I want a 125 BCLK for this 2643v3.


----------



## Zyro71

You do know that this thread has become a complete benchmark warzone.

Its only a matter of time before CPUID changes everything to have a site where they benched all these processors and so on.

Oh and


Intel I5 4590. Honestly I don't feel a difference really between these two processors.



AMD A10 7850K @ 4.4GHz


----------



## WolfssFang




----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gasparspeed*
> 
> I am doing something wrong?
> I ran again the test...
> 
> Still looks like a low score.


Maybe cuz you are running the 32-bit version?

Edit : Yup. I got a significantly lower score with the 32-bit version.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Here is my 3770K @ 4.6GHz


----------



## Subayai

I was going to go Haswell-e, but decided to pop a Xeon in my x58 and wait for Skylake-e.


----------



## error-id10t

Proud of my little G3258 go-getter, just ignore multi threading.


----------



## 2010rig




----------



## cookieboyeli

The blue text is nice, but it breaks high contrast theme support (my theme is custom but works correctly as long as programs support regular high contrast themes)


----------



## jlhawn

Stock


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*




How on earth did you get that Ivy Xeon to 4.5GHz?

Is that a special motherboard or a special chip? :O


----------



## ozlay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> How on earth did you get that Ivy Xeon to 4.5GHz?
> 
> Is that a special motherboard or a special chip? :O


xeon 1600 series cpu's have unlocked multipliers in both socket 2011 and 2011-3

they are using an E5-1680 v2 it just misreads the name as a E5-2690 v2


----------



## SoloCamo

What do I win?



Still beat by a g3258 in multithreaded - but not bad for a 2.2ghz AMD 15W TDP laptop... considering a haswell at 3.2ghz is ridiculously faster.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ozlay*
> 
> xeon 1600 series cpu's have unlocked multipliers in both socket 2011 and 2011-3
> 
> they are using an E5-1680 v2 it just misreads the name as a E5-2690 v2


Oh cool, I didn't know about those chips. That's awesome, thanks!


----------



## juanitox

Nothing too impressive, just for reference


----------



## sargatanas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ozlay*
> 
> xeon 1600 series cpu's have unlocked multipliers in both socket 2011 and 2011-3
> 
> they are using an E5-1680 v2 it just misreads the name as a E5-2690 v2


so can this xeon 1691 v3 be overclocked? http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon%20E5-1691%20v3.html

haven't seen anything beyond 8c oc by multi (not those 5% oc by bus that's just weak) , and been looking for a long time for anything above 12 cores to be overclocked.


----------



## Yungbenny911




----------



## kckyle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Beat my E5 if you can
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably won't be that hard


it wasn't lol



not bad for a 6 years old platform. managed to match a 5930k @ stock


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alastair*
> 
> That 9590 is running at stock 8350 speeds at 4Ghz.


This is a feature of standard power savings technology. It clocks itself anywhere between 800 MHz and 5000 MHz depending on load. Running CPU-Z in the foreground and misc background tasks is not a heavy enough load to demand maximum frequency.


----------



## NapalmV5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Beat my E5 if you can
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably won't be that hard










3x lol


----------



## Blameless

My 7.5w TDP Pentium N3540 Dell Inspiron 11 scores 312 / 900 with all cores at maximum 2.67GHz bin.

Signature system (5820k @ 4.2/4.2) scores 1613 / 9387.


----------



## jsc1973

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zyro71*
> 
> You do know that this thread has become a complete benchmark warzone.
> 
> Its only a matter of time before CPUID changes everything to have a site where they benched all these processors and so on.
> 
> Oh and
> 
> 
> Intel I5 4590. Honestly I don't feel a difference really between these two processors.
> 
> 
> 
> AMD A10 7850K @ 4.4GHz


I got just a tad higher on an 860K at 4.5, so at least it's scaling properly on those chips.

You won't notice one bit of difference between a 4590 and an overclocked Kaveri quad unless you play some highly CPU-intensive game. In ordinary workloads, the AMD chip sometimes seems faster than Intel quads to me, although there's no reason that should be so.


----------



## Zyro71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsc1973*
> 
> I got just a tad higher on an 860K at 4.5, so at least it's scaling properly on those chips.
> 
> You won't notice one bit of difference between a 4590 and an overclocked Kaveri quad unless you play some highly CPU-intensive game. In ordinary workloads, the AMD chip sometimes seems faster than Intel quads to me, although there's no reason that should be so.


Actually yes. I was most disappointed by that. Even at stock in some scenarios.

The main difference i see is video rendering. All my AMD chips seem to work a little slower, but the system was still responsive.

Oh well. I do regret buying this i5 though, As its way more powerful than I ever needed.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

You guys are mean









Stop beating my score


----------



## Malo

Not too shabby


----------



## airisom2

4930K still hangin' on












Had to use 1.72.1 because 1.73 cuts my vcore in half...

Fun idea: maybe someone should compile all of the results and have a nice table of these processors at differing speeds. Should prove to be a very nice resource if it kicks off.


----------



## Cybertox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airisom2*
> 
> 4930K still hangin' on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had to use 1.72.1 because 1.73 cuts my vcore in half...
> 
> Fun idea: maybe someone should compile all of the results and have a nice table of these processors at differing speeds. Should prove to be a very nice resource if it kicks off.


Are your stock scores same as mine, or at least in the same range?


----------



## gasparspeed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airisom2*
> 
> Fun idea: maybe someone should compile all of the results and have a nice table of these processors at differing speeds. Should prove to be a very nice resource if it kicks off.


It would be nice to do, but remember, this "benchmark" is a BETA, maybe they change it later or something...


----------



## airisom2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Are your stock scores same as mine, or at least in the same range?


Here's my 4930K stock:


----------



## Cybertox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airisom2*
> 
> Here's my 4930K stock:


Single Thread benchmark looks same, however your multi thread bench is quite higher.


----------



## airisom2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Single Thread benchmark looks same, however your multi thread bench is quite higher.


I put my RAM at 1866 thinking that was the reason our multi scores were different, and my scores were still the same.

Weird









Edit: I disabled a core, and my multi score dropped to 6778, so that wasn't it either.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> What do I win?
> 
> 
> 
> Still beat by a g3258 in multithreaded - but not bad for a 2.2ghz AMD 15W TDP laptop... considering a haswell at 3.2ghz is ridiculously faster.


And to follow up with my main pc...



About right for stock speeds I guess


----------



## TheBloodEagle




----------



## hht92




----------



## philhalo66




----------



## Woundingchaney

I'm wondering why my single threaded performance is 300 points lower than reference?


----------



## inedenimadam

I wonder if this is going to become a widespread benchmark that people tweak systems for like they do for superPI


----------



## the Duff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> 4.5GHz core.
> 4GHz uncore because of Gigabyte's poor bios.
> Garbage memory because I built this system when DDR3 prices went full ******.
> 
> I like that this little benchmark is extremely consistent.


Just for comparison's sake. This is what 100Mhz less looks like. And to think how much voltage I pumped through this thing chasing 4.5Ghz.


----------



## Kimir

4930K @ 4.7Ghz

5960X @ 4.8Ghz


----------



## StrongForce

A built in benchmark, what a great idea !!

 

@Kimir







that 5960x ..silly


----------



## 222Panther222

I7 920 3.8ghz Single:1099 Multi:4334 getting old


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *the Duff*
> 
> Just for comparison's sake. This is what 100Mhz less looks like. And to think how much voltage I pumped through this thing chasing 4.5Ghz.


What is your uncore speed at though? 400-500Mhz probably makes a decent difference. Mine is only at 4GHz because Gigabyte refused to implement the minimum and maximum cache ratio options found on other boards. Instead if you set anything that isn't stock it will stay at that speed 24/7. The only way to have it idle at 800MHz is to set cache to stock 34x which "turbos" up to 4Ghz and no higher.


----------



## Crouch




----------



## the Duff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> What is your uncore speed at though? 400-500Mhz probably makes a decent difference. Mine is only at 4GHz because Gigabyte refused to implement the minimum and maximum cache ratio options found on other boards. Instead if you set anything that isn't stock it will stay at that speed 24/7. The only way to have it idle at 800MHz is to set cache to stock 34x which "turbos" up to 4Ghz and no higher.


At 4.0Ghz like yours. It was at stock until I gave up on 4.5 core. Just set the cache to 4.0 and left it.


----------



## Darkcyde




----------



## Luciferxy

not bad for a locked $257 proc eh


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkcyde*


1337


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *222Panther222*
> 
> I7 920 3.8ghz Single:1099 Multi:4334 getting old


Nehalem is still a beast, and under-appreciated by those who like to judge things by their age only, the 920 is maybe old but is still pretty powerful. I have owned an FX 8370 for a short-time and when I compared it to my i7 870 both OCed (FX @ 4.8 GHz, 870 @ 4.3 GHz) I noticed the 870 to be better in everything I tried, especially in gaming. I am not crapping on the FX 8370 (which is a good CPU) but it is not as fast as properly clocked first generation i7s even the quad-core ones.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> Nehalem is still a beast, and under-appreciated by those who like to judge things by their age only, the 920 is maybe old but is still pretty powerful. I have owned an FX 8370 for a short-time and when I compared it to my i7 870 both OCed (FX @ 4.8 GHz, 870 @ 4.3 GHz) I noticed the 870 to be better in everything I tried, especially in gaming. I am not crapping on the FX 8370 (which is a good CPU) but it is not as fast as properly clocked first generation i7s even the quad-core ones.


Yeah no doubt, many people forget this fact because it's so old. The fact that you can get a 6 core 12 thread X58 Xeon on ebay for $80-90 is unbelievable. So much performance per dollar.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> 5960X @ 4.8Ghz


Oh gawd, I'm seriously jelly.









Wish I had that for editing video!


----------



## Kimir

This is not video editing capable, only bench stable. This thing at 1.35v is heating bad.
Does 4.6Ghz @ 1.27v for mighty fine stable.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> This is not video editing capable, only bench stable. This thing at 1.35v is heating bad.
> Does 4.6Ghz @ 1.27v for mighty fine stable.


I'd take anything with that chip but 4.6ghz sounds great either way! Still saving up to go X99 or maybe the next gen.


----------



## cchalogamer

Yeah well....you guys try and top this!


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cchalogamer*
> 
> Yeah well....you guys try and top this!


Now some has to bust out an Intel 8086 to beat ya.


----------



## iluvkfc

Is the CPU stress test reliable or should I continue using XTU?


----------



## Disturbed117

I need a new system me thinks. :/


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iluvkfc*
> 
> Is the CPU stress test reliable or should I continue using XTU?


It is a pretty light loading. You are on a haswell processor, you should be using x264, not XTU.


----------



## Lennyx

Need to get into ocing again. Been running stock for 1,5 year, delidded few days ago so tried to get a oc going


----------



## philhalo66

what i usually run it at


----------



## Cr4zYH3aD




----------



## STEvil

1367/5573 on 2600K @ 4.4


----------



## Cr4zy

Intel atom in my tablet


----------



## Pandora51

How do I get the Pentium III as reference?

i7-3770k @4ghz
1460 / 5534


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pandora51*
> 
> How do I get the Pentium III as reference?
> 
> i7-3770k @4ghz
> 1460 / 5534


You might have to buy one, lol.

I ran it on a 2.8Ghz P4 but I forgot what I got.

I got double digit for single thread, and 1 for multithread.

That's right, I got 1 point.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *cchalogamer*
> 
> Yeah well....you guys try and top this!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now some has to bust out an Intel 8086 to beat ya.
Click to expand...

Oh man I'm totally gonna bust out my 2.8Ghz P4, and maybe even my 1.6Ghz 1st gen Atom.

Ready to get rekt


----------



## Cr4zy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pandora51*
> 
> How do I get the Pentium III as reference?
> 
> i7-3770k @4ghz
> 1460 / 5534


I think it's only available on the 32bit version


----------



## Pandora51

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cr4zy*
> 
> I think it's only available on the 32bit version


ah well that makes sense. Thanks


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

1. 2.8Ghz P4 130nm IBM prebuilt.
2. 1.6Ghz P4 mobile Acer craptop.
3. Glorious flashback.


----------



## thegreatsquare

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cr4zYH3aD*


Any idea why your Multi-Thread is so low?


----------



## Alex132

Blazing


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thegreatsquare*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Cr4zYH3aD*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea why your Multi-Thread is so low?
Click to expand...

Must be the aggressive turbo boost.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> Blazing


Did you underclock that?


----------



## Alex132

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> Blazing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you underclock that?
Click to expand...

Nope, 800-1000Mhz stock. Forced it to stay at 1000Mhz actually









edit- should I force it to stick at 800Mhz and try again lol?


----------



## Cr4zYH3aD

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thegreatsquare*
> 
> Any idea why your Multi-Thread is so low?


It goes to 4600, then 3200, then 3800, then 3200, then 4500, then 3200...

And the multiplier never goes to 35x, only 33x


----------



## Sand3853




----------



## Darkcyde

Moar benchez!

HTPC



Server



Crusty old HP EliteBook


----------



## NitrousX

My trusty 3770K @ 4.6


----------



## carlhil2

My i7 NUC, took over HTPC duties from my DC build, bye DC, hello Skylake...


----------



## thegreatsquare

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cr4zYH3aD*
> 
> It goes to 4600, then 3200, then 3800, then 3200, then 4500, then 3200...
> 
> And the multiplier never goes to 35x, only 33x


It's throttling because it's too hot. I figured it was that after I looked at the model. [...after I asked]


----------



## ladcrooks

well here is my skylake compared to a devils canyon -



Both at 4ghz


----------



## shredzy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ladcrooks*
> 
> well here is my skylake compared to a devils canyon -
> 
> 
> 
> Both at 4ghz


Was wondering if your Vcore is showing correctly? Asrock board showed the value correctly but my gigabyte board is giving me values like 1.696V....


----------



## ladcrooks

here, forgot to show


----------



## shredzy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ladcrooks*
> 
> 
> 
> here, forgot to show


Thanks







Running at full stock (default optimized in bios)? If so, if you monitor the vcore while doing things (opening apps and what not), how high are you seeing it spike?


----------



## gasparspeed

Maybe i should try running the benchmark on my Pentium II 266?


----------



## _Chimera

I have mine on summer settings (3Ghz ~0.99vcore) so I'm too scared to even try


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gasparspeed*
> 
> Maybe i should try running the benchmark on my Pentium II 266?


Do it!


----------



## ladcrooks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shredzy*
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Running at full stock (default optimized in bios)? If so, if you monitor the vcore while doing things (opening apps and what not), how high are you seeing it spike?


using new vesion of aida64, for skylake -


----------



## shredzy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ladcrooks*
> 
> using new vesion of aida64, for skylake -


Just tried it, reports back the correct votlage value! Thanks







was scary looking at 1.70V vcore haha.


----------



## cloudbyday

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> My i7 NUC, took over HTPC duties from my DC build, bye DC, hello Skylake...


I was hoping someone would put up benches for the NUC. I am seriously considering either a NUC or a SoC motherboard as my next HTPC. Right now, my Mediacenter is combined with my server lol

+rep

BTW, have you tried streaming steam games to your NUC? does it work good?


----------



## Derp

1.33 stock Vcore seems so high.


----------



## thomjak

6700K @ stock with auto on volts etc.


----------



## thomjak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ladcrooks*
> 
> 
> 
> here, forgot to show


Why is it only at 4ghz? No turbo?


----------



## Pandora51

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> Nope, 800-1000Mhz stock. Forced it to stay at 1000Mhz actually
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit- should I force it to stick at 800Mhz and try again lol?


wow the c50 is awful. Is this notebook even useable?








1ghz is max?


----------



## Sand3853

8320 @ 4.8ghz pretty low on the single (as usual)..but not to shabby on the multi


----------



## Alex132

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pandora51*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> Nope, 800-1000Mhz stock. Forced it to stay at 1000Mhz actually
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit- should I force it to stick at 800Mhz and try again lol?
> 
> 
> 
> wow the c50 is awful. Is this notebook even useable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1ghz is max?
Click to expand...

1Ghz max. It is surprisingly useful. It can play some 720p videos - most youtube videos and browse the Internet with supreme lag!

I should probably replace it... but the tablet I would replace it with isn't that much better really.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Pandora51*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> Nope, 800-1000Mhz stock. Forced it to stay at 1000Mhz actually
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit- should I force it to stick at 800Mhz and try again lol?
> 
> 
> 
> wow the c50 is awful. Is this notebook even useable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1ghz is max?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1Ghz max. It is surprisingly useful. It can play some 720p videos - most youtube videos and browse the Internet with supreme lag!
> 
> I should probably replace it... but the tablet I would replace it with isn't that much better really.
Click to expand...

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Surface or bust.

Actually, just get the new Macbook.


----------



## Alex132

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Surface or bust.
> 
> Actually, just get the new Macbook.


Pricing


----------



## Pandora51

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> Pricing


the surface 3 should perform really well. 500 is acceptable! maybe.

Speaking of it. Has anyone a cpu-z bench from it?


----------



## Alex132

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pandora51*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> Pricing
> 
> 
> 
> the surface 3 should perform really well. 500 is acceptable! maybe.
> 
> Speaking of it. Has anyone a cpu-z bench from it?
Click to expand...

It's $1500 for the entry level Surface 3 Pro here.


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Pandora51*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> Pricing
> 
> 
> 
> the surface 3 should perform really well. 500 is acceptable! maybe.
> 
> Speaking of it. Has anyone a cpu-z bench from it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's $1500 for the entry level Surface 3 Pro here.
Click to expand...

totally worth it if you need the pen functionality. I bought my series 7 slate for 1500 and it has been a great investment.


----------



## Pandora51

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> It's $1500 for the entry level Surface 3 Pro here.


Im talking about the surface 3. Well the price can add up quite fast but the cpu should rip that c50 apart.


----------



## Alex132

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pandora51*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> It's $1500 for the entry level Surface 3 Pro here.
> 
> 
> 
> Im talking about the surface 3. Well the price can add up quite fast but the cpu should rip that c50 apart.
Click to expand...

Oh I saw a decently cheap Surface 3 the other day on a bid actually... damn. I used to think any MS Surface but the Surface 3 *Pro* was garbage.

I'll definitely do some more research on this thing now, it actually looks like a good tablet. I just hope it can render 10bit 720p video smoothly and allows for hardware accelerated decoding


----------



## RedM00N

Don't have windows installed nativly ATM, so here's Linux hosting a VM'd windows 7 just to see how well the I score in Linux with a VMd W7.

3930k @4.5Ghz


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Wonder how the 8-core Atom C2758 does (great for NAS/Pfsense). Wish I had one to test!


----------



## Unknownm




----------



## Cakewalk_S

Here's my i5-2500k @ 4.6GHz for reference... that 6700k looks darn good compared to this. Wonder what the 6600k will be...


----------



## Casey Ryback

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cakewalk_S*
> 
> Here's my i5-2500k @ 4.6GHz for reference... that 6700k looks darn good compared to this. Wonder what the 6600k will be...


Thought people always said you only needed 200-300mhz to match a 3570K? Maybe that was just in gaming.

3570K @ 4.3 ghz

Single 1562

Multi 4611

Stock cpu voltage, can't be bothered loading my 4.6ghz clock for a few measly points


----------



## Buzzin92

Passively cooled 3770k.


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Casey Ryback*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Cakewalk_S*
> 
> Here's my i5-2500k @ 4.6GHz for reference... that 6700k looks darn good compared to this. Wonder what the 6600k will be...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thought people always said you only needed 200-300mhz to match a 3570K? Maybe that was just in gaming.
> 
> 3570K @ 4.3 ghz
> 
> Single 1562
> 
> Multi 4611
> 
> Stock cpu voltage, can't be bothered loading my 4.6ghz clock for a few measly points
Click to expand...

That's what I thought...apparently not compared to this benchmark. Wonder how haswell/devils canyon compares to this @ 4.6GHz... Definitely excited to see what Skylake can push @ 4.5-4.6GHz...

I'm very tempted to begin saving for Skylake but after looking at a new motherboard/memory/CPU we're talking $400+... which for me, right now, is quite a chunk of change.


----------



## Casey Ryback

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cakewalk_S*
> 
> That's what I thought...apparently not compared to this benchmark. Wonder how haswell/devils canyon compares to this @ 4.6GHz... Definitely excited to see what Skylake can push @ 4.5-4.6GHz...
> 
> I'm very tempted to begin saving for Skylake but after looking at a new motherboard/memory/CPU we're talking $400+... which for me, right now, is quite a chunk of change.


If you could carry over your DDR3 it would probably be an easy decision........as long as it's still performing fine for your uses may as well keep it.


----------



## HITTI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buzzin92*
> 
> Passively cooled 3770k.


----------



## tasospaok123

I only have my laptop now, but it gave me a good laugh.


----------



## NitrousX

2015 rMBP 13"


----------



## toughacton

Still beating up on the P4







Figured I'd throw this up since there were quite a few older ones already posted (or mobile ones with low scores as well) If you can't tell by the pic this is my retro gaming rig.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *toughacton*
> 
> 
> 
> Still beating up on the P4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figured I'd throw this up since there were quite a few older ones already posted (or mobile ones with low scores as well) If you can't tell by the pic this is my retro gaming rig.


Still better than that C-50 though posted above.


----------



## Redzo

Shame I can't use this properly.
Anything newer than 1.7.1 reads my CPU as a Phenom II x2 B05


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *toughacton*
> 
> 
> 
> Still beating up on the P4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figured I'd throw this up since there were quite a few older ones already posted (or mobile ones with low scores as well) If you can't tell by the pic this is my retro gaming rig.


Why is the second score identical?


----------



## Unknownm




----------



## Alex132

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Unknownm*


Lower single threaded than my C-50 :/


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> Blazing


----------



## Unknownm

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Unknownm*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lower single threaded than my C-50 :/
Click to expand...







Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> Blazing






oh damn!

Mine was in battery mode at the time


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cloudbyday*
> 
> I was hoping someone would put up benches for the NUC. I am seriously considering either a NUC or a SoC motherboard as my next HTPC. Right now, my Mediacenter is combined with my server lol
> 
> +rep
> 
> BTW, have you tried streaming steam games to your NUC? does it work good?


Thanks 4 rep, nah, I have a Shield console for that, even though I only used it once for that purpose...


----------



## Kuivamaa

My quad channel 1866MHz DDR3 Ivy Xeon...



...and my dual channel 2050Mhz DDR3 Vishera.

Apparently in this bench, a 3.4GHz ivy core equals a 4.73Ghz piledriver one. I am surprised in a negative way with the MP scaling of both chips. Xeon was running the MP [email protected] (Vishera has no turbo on) and HT was only able to compensate for the lower MT clock, since the performance is eight times higher than the single core one (the chip has 16 threads). Vishera on the other hand only performs like a 6.3 core whereas it usually scales a bit better than that.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> 
> 
> My quad channel 1866MHz DDR3 Ivy Xeon...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and my dual channel 2050Mhz DDR3 Vishera.
> 
> Apparently in this bench, a 3.4GHz ivy core equals a 4.73Ghz piledriver one. I am surprised in a negative way with the MP scaling of both chips. Xeon was running the MP [email protected] (Vishera has no turbo on) and HT was only able to compensate for the lower MT clock, since the performance is eight times higher than the single core one (the chip has 16 threads). Vishera on the other hand only performs like a 6.3 core whereas it usually scales a bit better than that.


HT should do better then this.


----------



## eiji-gravion

2500k @ 4.8GHz


----------



## ozlay

heres a treat for you











skulltrail


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ozlay*
> 
> heres a treat for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skulltrail


Is that dual CPU?


----------



## ozlay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Is that dual CPU?


Indeed duel socket 771 8 cores 8 threads total and one of the first duel socket gaming motherboards with 3 way sli/crossfire support


----------



## ozlay

Slightly overclocked laptop











http://valid.x86.fr/mbh7cs


----------



## MadRabbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> That's not even fair.


Because an Xeon vs 8150 is fair?









EDIT: I really need to check the date on posts.


----------



## mirzet1976

CPU-Z 1.73



CPU-Z 1.74


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mirzet1976*
> 
> CPU-Z 1.73
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CPU-Z 1.74


1.4 doesn't seem to be reading your voltage. Also, is it reading your clock correctly?


----------



## ozlay

Someone should make an official CPU-z benchmark thread


----------



## BradleyW

3930K 4.5GHz



Single CPU Thread 1 690.
Multi Thread 11 027.


----------



## Marpole

FX 8320 @ 4.5

single 1325, multi 8669


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BradleyW*
> 
> 3930K 4.5GHz
> 
> 
> 
> Single CPU Thread 1 690.
> Multi Thread 11 027.


Getting destroyed.


----------



## Disturbed117

Given the age of this. Locked.


----------

