# Cinebench: the Triple Crown Challenge (In House Benchmark Competition)



## storm-chaser (Mar 5, 2020)

**Leaderboards updated 3/10 10:40 AM*


Welcome! First of all, the main point of this competition is to get a pulse on current tech here at TPU. **Bottom Line: Tune your System to the best of your abilities and run the benchmarks! **No pressure, just enjoy the challenge, compare the scores and have some fun.

This is the triple crown challenge, and it consists of running all three iterations of CB (R15, R15 Extreme and R20) and posting your scores here. While we will rate your scores by overall average (all core average) on the leaderboard, there will be no distinct winner and no distinct champion due to the wide range of diverse hardware. Main point here is to have fun and measure your performance relative to other submissions with the same number of cores. Competitions like this are notoriously difficult to score, so we have it set up like this: *

From each submission we will calculate your *single core average (overall score divided by core count),* your* Quad Core average (single core result x 4) *and your *overall (all core or multi core) average.* This will give us a sense of how well your processor performs *from both a "per core" perspective and a "multi core" perspective,* in other words, this is a wide ranging assessment of your rigs performance.

Be sure to monitor the "Member notes and placings" section *to see how your rig places with other computers of the same core count.*

*Download links:*
*Cinebench R 15








						Cinebench 15 Download
					

Here you can download Cinebench 15. CINEBENCH is a real-world cross platform test suite that evaluates your computer's performance capabilities. CINEBENCH is based on MAXON's animation software CIN...




					www.guru3d.com
				



Cinebench R15 extreme








						Cinebench R15 Extreme Edition Download
					

Download Cinebench R15 Extreme Edition - This is a modded version of CB15 with a quadrupled workload....




					www.guru3d.com
				



Cinebench R20








						Download MAXON Cinebench R20
					

Download the all newCinebench.  Cinebench is a real-world cross-platform test suite that evaluates your computer's hardware capabilities. Improvements to Cinebench Release 20 reflect the overall adv...




					www.guru3d.com
				



*
*Basic ground rules:*
*1) This is considered an "unlimited" class competition - I would encourage you to go all out here. In other words, pull out all the stops and give us your best result
2) Must be current, you cannot use old results, as this is more of a performance assessment of your current hardware
3) Multiple submissions are allowed, just tell me which one you want me to use - BE SPECIFIC I don't want to have to hunt for info
4) We will have a Red Lantern leaderboard for slow motion rigs - 500 all core average is the cutoff *
*5) You must follow the submission protocol set below or your scores will not be counted.*
*6) Learn how to use the snipping tool in windows (yes I know its a PITA, but I cannot think of a better way to capture the data we need) *

Reward: There is an *Intel based LGA 775 system with an Asus P5Q3 motherboard and mystery processor that's up for grabs, perhaps a playoff round or sudden death will suffice.

*Results must be legible and readable as seen below
*Please use the forum picture button to upload your result

Proper submission format:
****************************************************************************************************************************************












*


***************************************************************************************************************************


*Main Leaderboard - UPDATED 3/10 10:40 AM*






*Red Lantern Leaderboard: *


----------



## Arctucas (Mar 5, 2020)

I will enter, but someone with an EPYC rig, or a multi-processor XEON rig will most likely win.


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 5, 2020)

Arctucas said:


> I will enter, but someone with an EPYC rig, or a multi-processor XEON rig will most likely win.


Good point. So I wonder how we can make this more competitive? Judge winners based on a per platform basis so they are competing against like systems with similar hardware?


----------



## basco (Mar 5, 2020)

thx for taking the time + work storm-chaser !

on how much cores basis would be good for comparison even though amd will shred my 5960x to pieces maybe(lol) with lesser cores too

after i saw anatoms crazy score on his 5960x in the how low can ya go challenge i did not even dare to enter


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 5, 2020)

basco said:


> thx for taking the time + work storm-chaser !
> 
> on how much cores basis would be good for comparison even though amd will shred my 5960x to pieces maybe(lol) with lesser cores too
> 
> after i saw anatoms crazy score on his 5960x in the how low can ya go challenge i did not even dare to enter



Okay - we can address the performance / core count differential using some simple math formulas to come up with the performance per core value. Divide your final score by number of cores and I think that will do the trick...

So this might require a second leaderboard...


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 5, 2020)

Thanks for taking the time to start another benchmark competition.

Below are nine results (6 images, 3 with HT, 3 w/o, then 3 single core scores - everything else the same). These results tell a story about the current scoring method...is it fair to everyone?

That said, due to the nature of this multi-threaded benchmark, more cores/threads obviously wins (there are extreme exceptions!). The only way I can think of is to make a scoreboard for each CPU that participates... meaning Intel and AMD each have 4c/4t, 4c/8t, 6c/6t, 6c/12t, 8c/8t, 8c/16t, and so on...but then, who is the overall winner in that situation (and it sounds like a royal PITA for you)? This is a very difficult benchmark to try and normalize across such drastically different hardware...I don't have the answer this second. But it doesn't look like the current method accomplished what you are after... I'll leave it at that.

FYI, if you want a true per core score result, each benchmark has a Single Core option (takes a while, lol)....HT does not influence that test. Though all that shows is who has the newest CPU and can run it the fastest (AKA - AMD loses out here since they can't reach the same clocks same as above).

My scores (zero tweaks, just raw MHz) and screenshots. Enjoy. 

-------------  R15     R15e    R20 ----------
With HT - 3849 / 1041 / 9084 = 13974 / 3 = 4658 / 16 = 291.125
W/O HT - 2937 /   801 / 6960 = 10698 / 3 = 3566 / 16 = 222.875
Single    -   197 /     53  /  462  =     712 / 3 = 237.33 / 1 = 237.33


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 5, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Single - 197 / 53 / 462 = 712 / 3 = 237.33 / 16 = 14.83



I don't think you would divide this one by 16 since you ran a single thread.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 5, 2020)

Oops. 1... lol. 237.  Edited.


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 5, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Oops. 1... lol. 237.  Edited.



How did you only get 462 on CB20 ST?


----------



## Arctucas (Mar 5, 2020)

Initial results, at my 24/7 settings.


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 6, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Thanks for taking the time to start another benchmark competition.
> 
> Below are nine results (6 images, 3 with HT, 3 w/o, then 3 single core scores - everything else the same). These results tell a story about the current scoring method...is it fair to everyone?
> 
> ...


What do you think of the idea of giving everyone a quad core (in addition to the other leaderboards)? Would that level the playing field a bit? In this case I think we will get better indicators and be able to narrow the scope of the competition. I.E take the overall average known as data set #1 and divide that number by 4, right? 

So just to review what our leaderboards would look like: 
*Overall average
Single core result
Quad core result*

I think we may need 4 leaderboards if we keep going at this rate...


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 6, 2020)

storm-chaser said:


> I think we may need 4 leaderboards if we keep going at this rate...


lol. I dont have the answer. 

Maybe only have one leaderboard but limit the number of cores and threads allowed (4c/8t). People like me can just disable cores in the bios and run...

...though those without HT are screwed. In your case, you'd go down to 4c/4t.


No idea on this one yet.


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 6, 2020)

storm-chaser said:


> What do you think of the idea of giving everyone a quad core (in addition to the other leaderboards)? Would that level the playing field a bit? In this case I think we will get better indicators and be able to narrow the scope of the competition. I.E take the overall average known as data set #1 and divide that number by 4, right?



Maybe I'm not understanding, but all of this ends up just dividing down by the number of cores to 'simulate' a single core so why not just run everything on a single core?  What is the point of running multi-core test and then attempting to try to normalize to a single core when all these benchmarks have a single core option?

EDIT: Now it is my dumb ass not reading correctly.  I do see the overall score and single core score.  Those make the most sense to me, I don't see any reason for the quad core test.  Anything with a fast single score should be similarly faster as a quad.  Although, it would be neat to see if that was false lol.



EarthDog said:


> W/O HT - 2937 / 801 / 6960 = 10698 / 3 = 3566 / 16 = 222.875



Looking back on it, if you turned HT off, how many threads were you running?


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 6, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> Looking back on it, if you turned HT off, how many threads were you running?


OMG.. 3 hours of sleep over the past 36... oof.

Edit: wait... he said CORES.  That's right. I have 16c/32t. If you did it by threads any non HT clu would be screwed, right (I don't trust myself at this point)...


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 6, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> OMG.. 3 hours of sleep over the past 36... oof.
> 
> Edit: wait... he said CORES.  That's right. I have 16c/32t. If you did it by threads any non HT clu would be screwed, right (I don't trust myself at this point)...



LOL, I was just going off of your posts.  I have far too many medications in my at the moment.  It would have to be threads though.  Or else those with HT would just obliterate everything.  Unless it was limited to a single core/thread, that is.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 6, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> LOL, I was just going off of your posts.  I have far too many medications in my at the moment.  It would have to be threads though.  Or else those with HT would just obliterate everything.  Unless it was limited to a single core/thread, that is.


Right it goes both ways. One side gets screwed depending on if cores or threads are used.


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 6, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> EDIT: Now it is my dumb ass not reading correctly.  I do see the overall score and single core score.  Those make the most sense to me, I don't see any reason for the quad core test.  Anything with a fast single score should be similarly faster as a quad.  Although, it would be neat to see if that was false lol.


Yeah, perhaps we don't need the quad core score. My whole theory behind it was it could potentially be a more trustworthy value in determining processor performance, or at least a better go between from just single core scoring and overall scoring. 

This is where I'm at with the leaderboard... thoughts? suggestions? I have plenty of room to add more rows of data if needed.


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 6, 2020)

storm-chaser said:


> Yeah, perhaps we don't need the quad core score. My whole theory behind it was it could potentially be a more trustworthy value in determining processor performance, or at least a better go between from just single core scoring and overall scoring.
> 
> This is where I'm at with the leaderboard... thoughts? suggestions? I have plenty of room to add more rows of data if needed.



I agree this tough as pretty much any test will favor one or the other - clocks on single, cores on multi.  Quite the pickle


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 6, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> I agree this tough as pretty much any test will favor one or the other - clocks on single, cores on multi.  Quite the pickle


So at this point my hand is forced. *We will have three distinct champions. *One for "*Overall AVG"* another for *"Single Core" *and another for *"Quad Core"*

I suspect in this configuration we will have a relatively level playing field (or at least slightly better than it was): The core monsters will compete for the overall AVG, most enthusiasts will target quad core and per core people will obviously go for the single core performance. Three distinct divisions.


----------



## sam_86314 (Mar 6, 2020)

storm-chaser said:


> *Lastly, we determine 4 core performance by ? Help me out here guys....Drawing a blank (data set #3)*



Maybe something like this...

(m/c)*4=q

m = multi core score
c = core count
q = quad-core score



Spoiler: Example



For a six core part that scored 1206:

1206/6=201
201*4=804



...or this...

c/4=x
m/x=q

m = multi core score
c = core count
q = quad-core score



Spoiler: Example



For an eight core part that scored 2214:

8/4=2
2214/2=1107



Both equations will also work for CPUs with fewer than four cores.


----------



## Arctucas (Mar 7, 2020)

A little overclocking:










Do I have this scoring correct?

654+5902+2446=9002.

Do we divide that score by number of threads (you said cores, but did not specify to run HT off)?

Also, would it not be better to get the single core score from the benchmarks, rather than doing math?


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2020)

Why make it a contest? Just keep an overall leaderboard by score. This is virtually impossible to try to make things fair for everyone. It's a heavily multithreaded test, dont neuter it by using single and quad core scores...especially when most people have more. 

If you want a contest for everyone.... try super pi and limit clockspeeds then split amd and Intel up.


----------



## sneekypeet (Mar 7, 2020)

Color code the results by core count. One chart. Easy to see what direct competition is, and will also make life easy when it comes time to sort "winners."


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 8, 2020)

All good advice. We will implement the color scheme and hope the community hasn't lost interest. 

Im pondering the ideas..scoring could most definitely be done CPU to CPU. Core count to core count. I think this might work. 

Im going to make some changes to the leaderboards tomorrow and hope we can still generate some interest.


----------



## delshay (Mar 8, 2020)

Err but how do you know user(s) are not cheating? I do believe you can cheat the Cinebench results if you known what you are doing.


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Mar 8, 2020)

I always like to see the good chart with benchmark results it's easier for me to compare where I stand and how can I tweak my machine...so here are results of my "old"mule:
CPU Xeon 2650 V2 OC 3,4Ghz on all cores/Turbo 3,842Ghz












1181+308+2538=4027/3=1,342,3
OVERALL SCORE=1,342,3


----------



## Mr.Scott (Mar 8, 2020)




----------



## ThrashZone (Mar 8, 2020)

Hi,
Is the op straightened out yet or are you still seeing how much you can complicate it for dual/quad/... core cpu's ?


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Mar 8, 2020)

Mr.Scott said:


> View attachment 147505View attachment 147506


Nice....EVGA Classified SR-2 with 2xX5675 still rocking hard!!!


----------



## Mr.Scott (Mar 8, 2020)

It's my daily. lol

CB20 coming as soon as I load it.


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Mar 8, 2020)

Mr.Scott said:


> It's my daily. lol
> 
> CB20 coming as soon as I load it.


 Nice.....seems like you not much into gaming as you have GT 610 in that Rig....well anyway I know how capable is X58 platform when is OC properly I guess it's even better with 2xOC Xeons in it


----------



## Mr.Scott (Mar 8, 2020)

610 is in there until I get a new card. 970 imploded recently.


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Mar 8, 2020)

Mr.Scott said:


> 610 is in there until I get a new card. 970 imploded recently.


Cool...I "feed"with 0 bottleneck GTX 970&RX 480 with X58/6 core Xeon(@E5645)OC on 4,2Ghz.....I believe they can "feed"easily up to Vega 56/64 or GTX 1070/1080.....


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 9, 2020)

This is very good guys! I was about to throw in the towel on this whole competition. Thanks for the submissions, I should have the leaderboard up within the hour. 

By no means is the leaderboard finalized so if you see something that can be improved, point it out.



ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Is the op straightened out yet or are you still seeing how much you can complicate it for dual/quad/... core cpu's ?


Yeah, its too complicated. It may be a little overwhelming for you to see all those numbers neatly lined up in a row.


----------



## sam_86314 (Mar 9, 2020)

Apologies since apparently I am incapable of reading the rules. Hope this is acceptable.

Here's my main rig...


















CPU maxed out at 71C during the tests.


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 9, 2020)

sam_86314 said:


> Apologies since apparently I am incapable of reading the rules. Hope this is acceptable.



No, that was my responsibility and I was prevented from revising the steps (that seemed a little convoluted) in the very first post because were past the forums time limit of editing posts.

I had a request into one of the mods but I have not heard anything him and it's been two days, and I still cant edit the first post. 

Regardless, when the post is eventually unlocked I will lay out a much more concise, refined procedure. In this case, we have dropped the official "winners" from the comp, although, the names of those leading in single core, Quad Core and Multi averages will be highlighted in green... Even though there will be no winners, I felt it proper to sort by your overall score since that's the effective workload and standards that all the CPUs here must process.

*Main takeaway here: Tune your systems and run the benchmarks. *

You shoot and we will guide your "dart" to the target. 

Again, it's good to see a little traction here. Here is our leaderboard (which will be posted on the first page). Now, I am still very much open to new ideas or better methods of plotting the data points. So constructive criticism is welcome.


----------



## sam_86314 (Mar 9, 2020)

Running on my media server. This is over RDP, so it could probably be better.


















Max temps across all 3 runs were 85C on the hottest core, and 79C on the second hottest. Cooler is an Akasa Nero LX and the case is a Fractal Node 304.


Also, you should bring back the "red lantern" awards for the worst scores since that's the only place I can really compete...


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 9, 2020)

Alright, since you've show interest we will bring it back.... "How slow can you go" will come inline tomorrow. 



sam_86314 said:


> Running on my media server. This is over RDP, so it could probably be better.
> 
> Also, you should bring back the "red lantern" awards for the worst scores since that's the only place I can really compete...



Here it is...

@agent_x007 Have any old hardware that can compete in this comp?


----------



## sam_86314 (Mar 9, 2020)

storm-chaser said:


> Alright, since you've show interest we will bring it back.... "How slow can you go" will come inline tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Didn't really intend for my media server to be on that list, but it's fine. 

Gonna attempt to run the tests on my Celeron M system after work. Hopefully they'll finish by the end of the week (if they even work).


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 9, 2020)

sam_86314 said:


> Didn't really intend for my media server to be on that list, but it's fine.
> 
> Gonna attempt to run the tests on my Celeron M system after work. Hopefully they'll finish by the end of the week (if they even work).


No I wasn't quite sure myself. I actually just put it on both leaderboards to be certain but I will just keep it on the main one going forward, sorry about that.


----------



## j0taDasFestasPT (Mar 9, 2020)

Hi There

*Cinebench 15*





*Cinebench Extreme mod*





*Cinebench WStore*


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 10, 2020)

Leaderboards Updated. Please let me know what you think, we can always change/modify the data points as needed.


----------



## sam_86314 (Mar 10, 2020)

Sadly old Celery couldn't run Cinebench since it's 64-bit (could've sworn there was a 32-bit version of R15).

So here's my Revolve instead...


















Max temp across all three runs was 83C.


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 10, 2020)

My Q9650 cooled by a Thermalright 120mm Extreme













I know... I'm on the bugged 3:5 divider. The memory speed is more like 712Mhz

And yes, the Q9650 @ 4.3GHz outperforms the FX4350 @ 4.8GHz...

And I will run that rig through the benchmark as well....

FX 4350 cooled by a Hyper 212
Note I had to raise the voltage slightly for R20


----------



## Hardi (Mar 10, 2020)

Score: 3979

4.3GHz, bios vcore 1.32v, with llc on auto,  cpu voltage at load went as low as 1.206  but no crashes at all..  maybe it affected the scores too, but who knows : P


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 10, 2020)

Leaderboards updated. AMD is really doing well for itself with that last entry. The more I see their performance in action, the more I want to get a 3950X


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 10, 2020)

On your scoreboard,.... system core count, why not write it like is more commonly written......... 4c/8t (where c = cores and t = threads)? It looks weird with the X there to denote cores.

This is like the Cesius/Farenheit thing... lolol. Why be different and confusing?

Edit: odd.. one leader board has the "X" the other done more clearly with c/t... make them both match.



storm-chaser said:


> Leaderboards updated. AMD is really doing well for itself with that last entry. The more I see their performance in action, the more I want to get a 3950X


I mean.... heavily multuthreaded benchmark with chips that have a lot of cores and threads... one cant expect much else!


----------



## sneekypeet (Mar 10, 2020)

Let's keep it civil. Fair warning to all.

Thread closed as OP has shown himself to be incapable of keeping an unbiased thread. Sorry folks, nothing left to see here.


----------

