# Solo AIDA64 CPU Benchmark: Photoworxx



## storm-chaser

We will just be measuring one parameter in AIDA64 with this competition. Go to CPU benchmark and select "CPU Photoworxx" and run the benchmark.

Take a snip of your result and follow the submission protocol below:
I need the information below your result for the leaderboard so please follow this to the letter.











If we get enough interest, I will create a leaderboard.


----------



## zebra_hun




----------



## JSHamlet234




----------



## storm-chaser

Updated run, with memory at 1.8v lol


----------



## Lionvibez

Interesting results from this benchmark.

It does look like it favors intel hardware. It has my 8 core zen 3 cpu barely faster than an 8 core Zen 1 cpu. And a 6 core old haswell cpu also faster which is not the case outside of this benchmark.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Lionvibez said:


> Interesting results from this benchmark.
> 
> It does look like it favors intel hardware. It has my 8 core zen 3 cpu barely faster than an 8 core Zen 1 cpu. And a 6 core old haswell cpu also faster which is not the case outside of this benchmark.
> 
> View attachment 2539721


This is all a bandwidth test.. The higher MT/s your memory is running the higher the score you will get..

Zen 5000 series with memory controller on separate IO-die can never compete here, but i would think a 5700G APU would be decently fast here.. Maybe @PJVol can grace us with a run of his 4600MT/s APU 

Anyway, here is my (async) result for the 5950x








Ofcourse 8 memory channel EPYC should also smash in this this bandwidth test


----------



## storm-chaser

Lionvibez said:


> Interesting results from this benchmark.
> 
> It does look like it favors intel hardware. It has my 8 core zen 3 cpu barely faster than an 8 core Zen 1 cpu. And a 6 core old haswell cpu also faster which is not the case outside of this benchmark.
> 
> View attachment 2539721


Probably a long shot but make sure your version is up to date as well.... but yeah I've seen the correlation here as well.


----------



## JSHamlet234

Lionvibez said:


> Interesting results from this benchmark.
> 
> It does look like it favors intel hardware. It has my 8 core zen 3 cpu barely faster than an 8 core Zen 1 cpu. And a 6 core old haswell cpu also faster which is not the case outside of this benchmark.
> 
> View attachment 2539721


Did you try running that RAM faster than 3200? This bench is roughly 90% memory bandwidth, 10% OS optimization.


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> This is all a bandwidth test.. The higher MT/s your memory is running the higher the score you will get..
> 
> Zen 5000 series with memory controller on separate IO-die can never compete here, but i would think a 5700G APU would be decently fast here.. Maybe @PJVol can grace us with a run of his 4600MT/s APU
> 
> Anyway, here is my (async) result for the 5950x
> View attachment 2539726
> 
> 8 memory channel EPYC should also smash in this this bandwidth test


Thank you for the informative post. Will add some of this to the rules so people know what to tune when running this.


----------



## storm-chaser

JSHamlet234 said:


> Did you try running that RAM faster than 3200? This bench is roughly 90% memory bandwidth, 10% OS optimization.


Yeah, I was getting that impression bc there was not much difference in my scores between 5.2GHz and 5.5


----------



## JSHamlet234

storm-chaser said:


> Yeah, I was getting that impression bc there was not much difference in my scores between 5.2GHz and 5.5


You should run this on that dual Xeon rig.


----------



## Lionvibez

Thanks for all the suggestions folks. Yes the versions of the software need to be similar as that can affect the scores. And it being bandwidth limited also makes sense since all the scores above mine are all quad channel setups. i'm on B-die so I can push the clocks up higher and recheck the scores.


----------



## storm-chaser

So with this bandwidth limitation should we switch to another benchmark that favors CPU over memory? I didn't realize this was so heavily ram dependent.


----------



## JSHamlet234

storm-chaser said:


> So with this bandwidth limitation should we switch to another benchmark that favors CPU over memory? I didn't realize this was so heavily ram dependent.


 <------ How I feel about this benchmark.

But yeah, being serious, this benchmark is kinda lame as a CPU test. I just ran it at 3.0GHz and my score was basically the same.


----------



## domdtxdissar

storm-chaser said:


> So with this bandwidth limitation should we switch to another benchmark that favors CPU over memory? I didn't realize this was so heavily ram dependent.


I think maybe Linpack Xtreme could be a good benchmark if you want to host something else, it scales with bandwidth, latency and CPU clockspeed


----------



## Redwoodz

Lionvibez said:


> Thanks for all the suggestions folks. Yes the versions of the software need to be similar as that can affect the scores. And it being bandwidth limited also makes sense since all the scores above mine are all quad channel setups. i'm on B-die so I can push the clocks up higher and recheck the scores.



Not all. You just have to know how to get max bandwith out of your system.


----------



## Gábor Bikki




----------



## Lord Alzov

Hello guys!


----------



## storm-chaser

JSHamlet234 said:


> <------ How I feel about this benchmark.
> 
> But yeah, being serious, this benchmark is kinda lame as a CPU test. I just ran it at 3.0GHz and my score was basically the same.


So we will keep it open so long as people understand this is geared toward memory performance over cpu


----------



## Lord Alzov

Update


----------



## ocisdead

This is a memory benchmark btw. Bottoming out tRRDS/tRRDL/tFAW will boost your scores dramatically.


----------



## storm-chaser

JSHamlet234 said:


> You should run this on that dual Xeon rig.


----------

