Share your CPUZ Benchmarks!

[Dirtdog]

 

[fusseli]

i7-10700K overclock to 5.1 on all cores -- No changes besides changing multipliers and setting XMP.

Intel Core i7 10700K @ 5100 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR

[kvll3e] Validated Dump by fusseli (2020-06-02 04:23:04) - MB: Gigabyte Z490 AORUS ULTRA - RAM: 16384 MB

valid.x86.fr

One more with 1-core turbo at 5.3 and 7 through 8-cores turbo at 5.1

CPU-Z doesn't seem to see the fastest core... or it's not working, not sure which...

Intel Core i7 10700K @ 5100 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR

[kvll3e] Validated Dump by fusseli (2020-06-02 04:23:04) - MB: Gigabyte Z490 AORUS ULTRA - RAM: 16384 MB

valid.x86.fr

 

[tabascosauz]

@fusseli AFAIK CPU-Z doesn't use anything other than Core 0 for the ST test. It kinda sucks because Windows is smart enough to know which are the best cores on both AMD and Intel, but CPU-Z can't make use of it if it's not Core 0.

Maybe 2004 will change that, I dunno.

 

[Dinnercore]

@fusseli These new chips clock insanely well. If your aio holds up you might be able the get 5.3GHz all-core.

I just saw Luumi got 5.5GHz on a 10900k with ambient watercooling.

 

[Dirtdog]

My low power HP laptop... interestingly the RAM runs at 2400MHz although Intel seems to say that 2133 is the max for this CPU type. It came with a single stick of 2666 which ran at 2400 CL17, which I replaced with 2x4GB HyperX 2400 CL14.

 

[dont whant to set it"']

All is good so far , yet when I increased the multiplier by .25x vid needed a 50mv bumb up

 

[Fizban]

This has served me well, but I just ordered its replacement, curious to see how well the new one will perform.

Its replacement is a i7-10875H,I'm expecting it to score around 525 single-core and around 4350 multi-core, or on par with a Ryzen 1800X in all-core performance, and about on par with a i7-6950X in single-core.

 

[Dinnercore]

 

[Zyll Goliat]

View attachment 160453

LIquid nitrogen or what?

 

[Dinnercore]

LIquid nitrogen or what?

This was on dry ice

 

[Fizban]

Laptop CPU, not that far off 9900KF performance.

So much for my 4350 all-core score expectations referenced above. Nah, we're in the 5k+ club now.

Just barely beat that dry-iced Core 2 Duo in single-core performance.

 

[Pugheaven]

 

[xman2007]

View attachment 160453

How in God's name have you managed such a single core score that beats a lot of modern day processors with a 12 year old CPU? that in itself is a feat or perhaps more of an indication that since it's inception the "Core" series of processors even over 12 years haven't really improved a great deal when it comes to actual IPC though there has been quite a lot of frequency bumps which have made up the performance increase with minor tweaks and improved process nodes making up for the rest. As now most modern Core I CPU's are well within the 5Ghz region you would have thought that even a 12 year old E8600 at 5.7Ghz, which is considered extreme for that class of CPU, would be decimated by a 2020 Core I CPU at about 4Ghz which wouldn't seem to be the case... boggling!

 

[Pugheaven]

Yeah it's because Intel has spent the last 8 years just throwing mhz at their chips and not increasing IPC like AMD, hence why they're in the trouble they are. I bet if everyone did a CPUZ benchmark all of us at 4GHZ exactly, and then showed our single cores... we'd find that AMD is on top... and the latest and greats I9 9 series and 10 series aren't barely any better than the i5's/i7's variations mhz for mhz (taking out featuresets like avx2 etc, i.e. keeping a level playing field)... there certainly won't be much in it!

So just incase anyone fancies doing that, I've just declocked mine to 4ghz as close as I can get... and here is my single core on CPUZ, lets see what other more modern cpu's can do at the same mhz?

 

[xman2007]

Yeah it's because Intel has spent the last 8 years just throwing mhz at their chips and not increasing IPC like AMD, hence why they're in the trouble they are. I bet if everyone did a CPUZ benchmark all of us at 4GHZ exactly, and then showed our single cores... we'd find that AMD is on top... and the latest and greats I9 9 series and 10 series aren't barely any better than the i7's mhz for mhz... there certainly won't be much in it! So just incase anyone fancies doing that, I've just declocked mine to 4ghz as close as I can get... and here is my single core on CPUZ, lets see what other more modern cpu's can do at the same mhz?

View attachment 162165 View attachment 162166

Ryzen 1600af @4ghz

 

[Pugheaven]

CPU_Z SCORES @ 4Ghz
Ryzen 1600AF: Single Core = 461.8,
E5 Xeon 1860V2: Single Core = 411.8,

 

[xman2007]

CPU_Z SCORES @ 4Ghz
Ryzen 1600AF: Single Core = 461.8, Multi Thread = 3734.5
E5 Xeon 1860V2: Single Core = 411.8, Multi Thread = 4062.1

Multi is kinda useless in this respect as you have an 8c/16t CPU compared to my 6c/12t though I can beat/match your 4.7Ghz ST score with a 4.2Ghz overclock on my 1600af:

 

[RealNeil]

i9-9900K Box

 

[harm9963]

Can push much harder, i prefer quiet and cool

 

[heinztvoert]

 

[biffzinker]

View attachment 162178View attachment 162179

I would of expected the 3800X to beat the i7-10700. Maybe not in gaming benchmarks.

 

[Dinnercore]

How in God's name have you managed such a single core score that beats a lot of modern day processors with a 12 year old CPU? that in itself is a feat or perhaps more of an indication that since it's inception the "Core" series of processors even over 12 years haven't really improved a great deal when it comes to actual IPC though there has been quite a lot of frequency bumps which have made up the performance increase with minor tweaks and improved process nodes making up for the rest. As now most modern Core I CPU's are well within the 5Ghz region you would have thought that even a 12 year old E8600 at 5.7Ghz, which is considered extreme for that class of CPU, would be decimated by a 2020 Core I CPU at about 4Ghz which wouldn't seem to be the case... boggling!

I had similar thoughts about the Core 2 Duos that I bench. The IPC did not increase all that much in the past decade. You also have to consider that this CPU is running on a 12 year old platform, still with memory controller outside of the CPU. And very small cache sizes.
Now CPU-Z bench is probably ideal for these old CPUs as it does not put much load if any at all on the memory bus. So these limitations will show a lot more when you try to use a Core 2 Duo today in typical applications.

I think most performance gains in the past years came just from higher clocks, larger cache and much faster memory bus due to IMCs. Pure IPC gains play a very small role in all that.

If you want to compare a 5GHz Core 2 Duo vs. modern CPUs: https://valid.x86.fr/r7wdt1
This one was on ambient water, so no extreme measures and still on a borderline 24/7 safe voltage.

 

[Bones]

Just messing around this morning with the daily machine.
Nothing special.

 

[ThrashZone]

Yeah it's because Intel has spent the last 8 years just throwing mhz at their chips and not increasing IPC like AMD, hence why they're in the trouble they are. I bet if everyone did a CPUZ benchmark all of us at 4GHZ exactly, and then showed our single cores... we'd find that AMD is on top... and the latest and greats I9 9 series and 10 series aren't barely any better than the i5's/i7's variations mhz for mhz (taking out featuresets like avx2 etc, i.e. keeping a level playing field)... there certainly won't be much in it!

So just incase anyone fancies doing that, I've just declocked mine to 4ghz as close as I can get... and here is my single core on CPUZ, lets see what other more modern cpu's can do at the same mhz?

View attachment 162165 View attachment 162166

Hi,
4.0 is a little too low here's a everyday web clock 4.2

4.8

 

[heinztvoert]

I would of expected the 3800X to beat the i7-10700. Maybe not in gaming benchmarks.

Unless I have some set up wrong on the BIOS. I ran the test a few times, it does go higher but eventually settles around this point.