Cpuz bench thread

post your cpu-z benchmarks.

>pic related

Other urls found in this thread:

valid.x86.fr/bench/v6thvg/4
overclock.net/t/1198504/complete-overclocking-guide-sandy-bridge-ivy-bridge-asrock-edition
valid.x86.fr/fs1phm
valid.x86.fr/ns55xy
microcad.ca/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The CPU-Z benchmark for some reason does not like this Xeon and will not properly detect the other 8 threads.

Try manually setting the thread count

>cpu-z 1.73
have you tried it on the newer 1.78 version of cpu-z?

isn't that an engineering sample?

Tried manually setting to 16 threads, still no go. Utilization is still limited to 8 threads, one on each core.

Look to the benchmarking side for the version, I was a lazy fuck and composted a screenshot of the recent version next to a CPU-Z screenshot from an older version.

Yep, and I still havent figured out whether its the board being derp (Biostar Tpower X79, apparently it acts strange with all chips because its Biostar) or if its the chip being an ES (release stepping mind you) doing it.

Works fine with cinebench and other benchmarks though. Just not CPU-Z

i don't know what else to say

you could by posting the bench.

i'm waiting for my x370 meme motherboard to ship so i can put my 1700 x meme processor in .

This looks correct to me, what is exactly not properly detected?

>poo theme

windows itself is poo so it blends

what does this mean

>synthetic benchmarks

you must have a golden chip to hit 4.5ghz stable with only 1.32v's.

yeah it's not bad

Irregardless of the type, since they are all using the same and comparing it is a valid comparison.

4.5GHz at 1.32V on skylake isn't good

Bullshit. That's an entirely normal voltage for 4.5GHz.

$70 BIN on ebay
valid.x86.fr/bench/v6thvg/4

Im not sure why i dont gain more, considering its running at 4500mhz..

>irregardless
I bet you could care less as well you southern hillbilly.

What about background process? kill everything in the taskbar and shut down your av.

No AV on the PC, i closed the browser and everything else beforehand, and winderps was using 0-2% cpu on idle, with the cpu idling too, so at 1600mhz there.

>what does this mean
it means 4.5gz>4.2
kaby is just a rebrand anyway

I updated CPU-z and it gave me a higher multi thread score

still seems a little low, considering the OC

CPU-Z's integrated benchmark is not utilizing all 16 threads on this CPU for some reason. It will only use 8 no matter how many or how few i have selected.

Seems about right

maybe, hard to tell without others with a 2500k on 4500mhz tho

undervolting and overclocking, take my time. currently at 4.7Ghz 1.175V as per BIOS, aiming for aircooled 5 but not willy to go past 1.28V. We'll see where it goes. Need to reseat my colour and try some new paste at some point oo

agreed, but 1800/[email protected] on ivy

see, thats what makes me thing mines a little low, 1699 ST on 4500mhz vs 1800+ on yours with 4ghz.

guess ill have to upgrade next generation
..buuuut windows 10 sucks massive ass so im fucked

LEAVE MEMES ALONE !

With a little bit of effort windows 7 will run on Ryzen. Maybe not 100% optimally, but it will run well enough (and if the benchies are to be believed better than win10)

Yeah, i was thinking Zen+ though, or coffee lake.

depends whats best for the money at that time

what board/bios settings?

Asrock Z68 Extreme4
offset voltage -0.0002 or something, it the first - one
Turbo boost +0.004v or something
PLL level 2 iirc

...

>tfw your $330 AMD Ryzen R7 1700 CPU at stock (3,2GHz on all cores) beats a $1000 Intel 6900K at 3,2GHz.

Intel is even worse than Apple when it comes to pricing KEK

ahiiiiiiiii

AHIIIIIIII!!!

and compared to Intel's gaymen CPU

look at that fucking multithreaded annihilation at a 1GHz deficiency!!!

Single thread is low though.

>intel has double the fucking TDP (140W vs R7 1700's 65W and still loses

jesus, and Intel's CPU costs 3 times the price, and you need an expensive X99 motherboard aswell. You can run any ryzen processor on fucking 80 bucks B350 boards

oy vey shut it down!

and what about Intel's $1600 6950X which has 10 Core and 20 threads?

We are talking about a price difference of fucking $1270 USD holy shit

so sad its pretty bad for games though, wish the 1600 had higher clocks with 6/12 cores

and none of that CCX bullshit going on

but nope, maybe next generation, if they fix that its gonna wreck shit though.

Why is everybody recommending i7's for gaming now? HT has always been worthless for gaming

Here is a good guide.
overclock.net/t/1198504/complete-overclocking-guide-sandy-bridge-ivy-bridge-asrock-edition

I don't have those options but.
All spread spectrum off
power saving off
LLC High
Max Current 130%
+ offset
give me best benchmarks. I have some other tweaks but that is to stabilize bclk and oc ram past xmp

its finally optimized, somewhat

yeah my ram is 1866mhz CL9
power saving also off, LLC Medium (level 2)
max current 500w
also using offset.

Oh, and it hits 65c under heavy load with a Phanteks PH14CT or whatever its called.

Ill add, my OC is stable, just seems to score low for 4500mhz is all.

Engineering Sample e5-2683v3. Paid $200 for two of them from my work. Currently waiting on ECC ram to arrive to put them both in a dual socket board I got. This is with only one cpu in an Asus x99a/usb3.1

DELET

>less than 5% difference in average FPS
>Ryzen has better minimum FPS and reportedly smoother and less "stuttery" gaming experience

shill get out

its actually less smooth from what ive read.

Shill pls.

Single core performance seems to be low?

>4.8ghz 6/12 core/thread

Jesus christ that must wreck face in pretty much anything.

...

1700X here... CPU-Z or speccy are the only progtams that wont run anymore for some reason it freezes at storage, maybe because I'm running RAID

...

valid.x86.fr/fs1phm

howd I do? at least i beat an i7-4790k

7700k 5ghz. min 98, max 144
1800x 4.1gz. min 121, max 132

aka, the amd cpu has higher frametimes and less stuttering.

aka its the better buy.

you mean lower frametimes

In probably a supremely cherry picked case

Listen, i want the amd cpus to be amazing too
which they are, just not for gaming right now.

now imagine the zen+ with the issues they have fixed, maybe with a bit more oc headroom.

Sides, at most id get the 1700, 1600, 1500 or even 1400, im not sure why i would want to pay extra for the x versions.

v2 howd I do?

valid.x86.fr/ns55xy

note: this is unstable and crashes after a couple hours once my shitty air cooler starts overheating

hello fellow fx sufferer

suffer not young crab

once you are inside amd sso you will see the light

i have a 1700x with the motherboard shipping soon i hope.

ur instructions tell me ur a special snowflake contact if u want in

why 1700x not man enough to go full cheapskate with 1700 or 1500 series?

this was an overall test.

and most reviews show the exact same thing. even tho its 10-20 fps lower, its still has the min/max closer to each other compared to the 7700k.

and with recent bios updates, and new reviews are showing the cpus closer and closer to each other when it comes to normal average fps.

So i dont understand this whole "not good for gaming stuff"

i don't even use virtualization

Typical ricer. I work microcad.ca/ use the searchbox for special stuff if you know what to look for. Ex: we sell HP NVDIMMs

i appreciate it but i don't know what the fuck you are talking about .

i just build computers , with minimal knowledge

WTF they FX space heaters are only 125W? Intel's 6900K is 140W, now those must be fucking mini-furnaces holy shit

>Multiplier 16 - 59
w-whats up with that?

...

thats the multiplier the motherboard supports

Hm ok? My OC'ed 2500K shows 16 - 42 and it indeed runs at 4.2 GHz (even though the motherboard also could do more)

...

Probably just the way asrock does it

Ayyy lmao

AyyMD housefire

My old asus does this when multi is set to all cores. It displays true max when set to by core though.
>ivy
my person of color.
>9k
For what is essentially a 2c/4t, a little over half of a 7700k isn't bad.

what the shit

not bad for an i5

>4.8Ghz
That's pretty impressive.
As for that single core, well my 5820k gets 1900~ at 4.2Ghz so dunno, doesn't seem extremely low in comparison to me.

One day I need to test how high my CPU overclocks.
These are god tier chips.

I am not upgrading till games fully utilize at least 6 cores

...

and my secondary @4.3

Yeah, my 4790k hits 4.6 on stock voltages.

You'll be fine with that CPU for the next 5 years at least.

What the hell is that thing?

...

You should get a better chip if possible. There are plenty of Athlon XP chips on fleabay.

Thanks for posting I was wondering how I would stack up to a 1700X. Soon I hope to join you.

pleb reporting in

At least it's better than fucking first gen bulldozer.

16c/32t monster reporting in.
Defend yourselves, corelets.

Now that Direct X12 games are going to be out, and multiple cores are better supported do you think multicore setups will become the high end for gaming?

Yes I think we'll start to see parallelization be implemented more now that 4/8 intel chips are the most common purchase because every gayming laptop comes with an i7 and normies are idiots and buying laptops by the pallet

i meant more like 6950x insterad of 7700k for gaming