>3277 CB score @4ghz
Xeons and Core i9s BTFO.
3277 CB score @4ghz
Other urls found in this thread:
servethehome.com
twitter.com
>4GHz
Will clocklets ever learn?
Impressive.
>128gb quad channel 3200mhz
Whut
Yes, that is something you'd expect out of a Threadripper build.
...
Is CPU-Z reporting your RAM timings wrong? Those are looser than your mum after a night om the town
...
>top 2% bin
>1.41v
What did AMD mean by this
Threadripper platform is x399 - quad channel.
Eypc also supports up to 256GB of memory per socket iirc.
I'm wrong, it is actually 2TB RAM per socket on Epyc.
EPYC supports up to 2TB of memory per socket (you'll have to use 128GB LR-DIMMS for that, that is).
Don't the 32 core EPYC and 28 core Xeon get around 4300?
>CL19
Holy shit, have fun rendering on that. Stick to Photon Map and ditch the entire idea of Irradiance Cache unless you want shitty Xeon tier frame render times.
That is prob. just CPU-Z being derpy.
one guy benchmarked dual EPYC 7601s on cinebench and got ~5100, but that was with the initial firmware
Cinnebench is broken on really high core counts
servethehome.com
Kek
I love STH as it really shows how cluless Sup Forums is when it comes to srs bsns hardware.
>p-pls buy i9 .. pls ..
it has 4.2 GHz XFR BTW (even 1900X).
DELID
threadripper NDA lift when?
August 10th
Tsk tsk tsk look who's talking shit, it's the corelet! How is that obsolete house fire i7 7700k doing? Don't worry, just buy the (finally) arriving 6 core mainstream parts. But don't forget to buy a new motherboard and delid good goy!
if it does 4.2GHz turbo on a sensible amount of cores, there's no reason to overclock it whatsoever
>Intel getting its ass whipped by Ryzen and Threadripper in Cinebench
>Release a new driver
>Now Intel is skyrocketing to impossible scores
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
It's a 4 socket system
Read the article, the score is scaling beyond anything possible, even if you had 200 cores the score would not go that high in Cinebench.
They need to fix Cinebench.
Strange, isn't it? Ryzen also whipped Intel in the CPU-Z benchmark and they responded by changing the benchmark so that Intel was ahead again.
Just a (((coincidence))) I'm sure.
This is only an issue under insane core counts so it's obviously not something like the bullshit CPU-Z did.