Something Seems Wrong Here

More pics to come, wonder how CPU-ID structured their benchmark to favor the 6950X.

Is this Intel bribery at hand? More pics to come.

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/836214212301053952
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Hmmm I know they changed how the benchmark works somehow.

Not a single response despite the obvious bullshit going on.

we need a ryzen bro to run the older version and the newer one and compare against a reference cpu.

I don't get what I'm supposed to be looking at here. 6950X is overvalued?

The 6950X scores are definitely skewed. I've seen the test for Ryzen on older versions of CPU-Z and the 1700X crushed the 6950X.
Look at the second pic I posted.

...

...

>Multi Thread Ratio

version < 17 === [ ~NumberCores ]
version >= 17 === [ Randumb Values ]

>part 2

what did he mean by this

I don't get what they're doing here, I thought they were simply dividing the end results by 4 because the bars were outgrowing the fields. but that would make the sc/mc score for the 1800x
536/4704. I was just reading that cpu-z something cache something and Ryzen was getting inflated results. But doesn't ryzen bench better in real applications?

Older versions skewed results in favor of Ryzen. This is fixed in v1.79
twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/836214212301053952

3 optical drives?

>2.144v
nigga what are they doing to fuck up CPUz's readings so badly.

So now they're gimping Ryzen? wew I wonder who could be behind this

All I did was update CPU-Z
before
After

Ryzen scores were inflated. Do you really expect Ryzen to beat 7700K in single-threaded and 6950X in multi-threaded?

Cpu-z was configured for 256mb cache and Ryzen was getting bloated scores. This is the true face of AMD

Ryzen's faster IPC wise than anything Intel (except for 256 bit SIMD instructions) and it beats the 7700K and 6950X in some real world workloads and in some benchmarks

And now the readings are so fucked that Ryzen is being said to run at 2.144v?

With readings like that, how is the benchmark result in anyway trustworthy or indicative.

Nowhere in the posted images am I seeing any Ryzen compared to a 7700k on either of the versions we are currently comparing.

That's not true

Stilt's tests aren't nearly as extensive as Agner Fog's, he hasn't released his yet but he has said that it seems to be faster all around

Source on this?
I know a lot of Ryzen benchmarks were performed on the early BIOSes and were never retested.

I can understand why they weren't retested on grounds of time constraints, but at the same time, the increase provided by the newer BIOSes are not exactly insignificant.

I had a DVD ripping operation over the summer, never took them out.

Why does the 6950X beat my dual X5690s suddenly?
Look at OP pic and the first pic after that

Something fishy is going on.

>420*10.78=4527.6

>430*10.78=4635.4
wat

Yeh, I'ma go ahead and say that based off of some simple fucking math, that now Intel's results are inflated. A lot.

Is your X5690 underclocked? My W3690 is stock.

CPU-z was inaccurate for Ryzen and they fixed it.

Nope... That kinda pisses me off not going to lie. I wonder if there is anything I can do. I have turbo enabled, it's reaching the right clocks.

>just ignore how the 6950X now outdoes Intel processors that were doing better before dumb goy

Yeah I wonder why they would only inflate scores for their newer processors... Oh wait! So they don't compete with themselves. It's obvious what's going on here.

Hell used dual CPU Sandy Bridge workstations are the best bang for the buck you can get perf/price wise.

I am pretty sure that you're being gimped by 2 sockets.

>Ryzen outperforms Intel in CPU-Z because it has bigger cache! The test was designed with smaller cache in mind. Igonre it!
>Ryzen has MORE CACHE
>RYZEN OUTPERFORMS
>BUT YOU NEED TO IGNORE IT.

10.78 is a specific number showing scalability quality. If there is no HT, it is close to core count. If there is HT, it is expected to be slightly more than physical core count.

If they just fixed the set size the numbers should go up for 256KB cache CPUs more than for Ryzen and the truth would be restored. This is not the case, scores changed almost tenfold.

IDGAF really but intedasting nonetheless.

For single core performance? The fuck?

Multiple sockets affect memory performance negatively if program isn't numa aware.

Would setting my BIOS to SMP do anything?

CPU-Z is shitting the bed pretty badly