Post your Cinebench R23 Score

[mrcardio33x]

Yeah intel's "Cinebench Accelerators / E cores" are great for apps like R23/ 20.

Better to test P Core v P Core (no "E cores / Cinebench Accelerators)

 

[Paramount]

Does it matter what's inside them? I just showed you that an Intel, at the same consumption, is not below a Ryzen and even achieves a better performance.
Another example, a better score with the limitation of 159W as I notice you have here.
Your score: 30138 pts
My score: 32199 pts
The score is significantly better, without tricks and optimizations, only with a simple limitation of PL with XTU.

View attachment 338274
View attachment 338275

As I told you , my chip optimized in PBO to achieve higher single core performance ( 5.9) !
let us agree that AMD and Intel should be much more efficient in undervolt/wattage limit BUT never compare both companies at same level of cores/speed with same performance because there is more than 5 year gap in nanometer between them

7950x can destroy 14900K ( we compare the fastest CPU for both companies) at level of 65w :

 

[Gica]

Yeah intel's "Cinebench Accelerators / E cores" are great for apps like R23/ 20.

Better to test P Core v P Core (no "E cores / Cinebench Accelerators)

E-cores are accelerators for all intensive multithread applications.
Why would I test without them? Are they perishable?

7950x can destroy 14900K ( we compare the fastest CPU for both companies) at level of 65w :

And Ferrari can kill a man at 65 KM/h.
What relevance do those tests have? Who buys r9/i9 for use in 65W? Anyway, reading the fine print, the test can show that the 7950X also loses a lot of efficiency as the power increases.

Despite the efforts of AMD owners to demonstrate on the TPU forum the superiority of their processors, it does not exist. They have advantages but also disadvantages and therefore no choice is wrong.
Clues:
1. AMD had to reduce prices several times.
2. Mercury Research and Puget System show us that AMD has lost the lead taken with Zen 3.

 

[A Computer Guy]

My 5800x scores.

What relevance do those tests have? Who buys r9/i9 for use in 65W?

5950x at 65W TDP (88w) still feels pretty snappy. If you had to downsize your system with a smaller air cooler it still makes a nice CPU.
Also if you know you have a less than stellar motherboard geared toward 65w CPU's (not strong VRM solution) you might consider running a r9 chip at 65w TDP.
In either scenario I don't think most anyone would buy an r9/i9 new only to handicap it so much other than perhaps in some very niche cases.

2. Mercury Research and Puget System show us that AMD has lost the lead taken with Zen 3.

View attachment 338306

Overall I think most regular people still trust the Intel brand. If I recall correctly 12th gen started to be competitive again in particular with whole system pricing (CPU, motherboard, ram).
I think there is some realization that 6 to 8 p-cores still gets the job done for most people. Intel QuickSync is also an attractive option to have.
Lastly like my old boss put it - nobody get's fired for choosing Microsoft and Intel. That's a hard thing to overcome without having something more compelling to offer.

On the workstation front it looks very different. Threadripper outright murders Xeon. Clearly people want Threadripper platform capabilities.

 

[Paramount]

E-cores are accelerators for all intensive multithread applications.
Why would I test without them? Are they perishable?


And Ferrari can kill a man at 65 KM/h.
What relevance do those tests have? Who buys r9/i9 for use in 65W? Anyway, reading the fine print, the test can show that the 7950X also loses a lot of efficiency as the power increases.

Despite the efforts of AMD owners to demonstrate on the TPU forum the superiority of their processors, it does not exist. They have advantages but also disadvantages and therefore no choice is wrong.
Clues:
1. AMD had to reduce prices several times.
2. Mercury Research and Puget System show us that AMD has lost the lead taken with Zen 3.

View attachment 338306

I know Intel took a lead and still dominant in desktop cpu no doubt about
The point is you don't realize that i actually overclock my cpu with less power usage ! 28.6k @180 watt to 30138@159watt ( or 28.6k @ 123watt or 33% less power) and i can squeeze more power in manual oc. can you do that ? Yes or No

 

[Veseleil]

Despite the efforts of AMD owners to demonstrate on the TPU forum the superiority of their processors, it does not exist.

Whatever makes you feel better while justifying your purchase decisions. AMD is just a smarter choice nowadays, just as the Sandy Bridge was over FX, back in the 2011. We don't need to prove anything to anyone, especially not in the CB thread. We just want to enjoy our superior CPUs in peace. Cheers.

 

[P4-630]

AMD is just a smarter choice nowadays

AMD is just not as "plug and play" friendly as intel.
AMD CPU's often need some adjustments and what not.

 

[rethcirE]

Here's my results from Nov 2020 on what was then a roughly 1 year old laptop.

• i7-8750H (-250mV core/-150mV cache) @ 3.9GHz (stock locked)
• 16GBx2 PC2666 Overclocked to 2993MHz 16-18-18-36 1T
• Throttle Stop, Park Control
• Windows 10 Pro, 20H2, 19042.630

My Results:

ST - 1105
MT - 8164

Not too shabby!

View attachment 175316

And here are today's results on the same laptop. Still overclocked/tuned on all components! Despite it's age I feel it's still totally relevant and I game on it semi-regularly still! RTX 2070 still also very capable.

Also funny to see all the undervolt numbers all over the place. I was dreaming at -250mV. 4 years of use have proven that Cache/Core are both set to -165mV equally and it works perfectly. I've stepped this number down over (literally) years of testing to land at these results. Thanks autism.

 

[pristrabre]

My aliexpress pc, purchased a year ago
-€160 for the motherboard + cpu
-€170 for the 6700xt

The motherboard is an erying, the laptop 12500h soldered to a desktop motherboard

 

[Gica]

Whatever makes you feel better while justifying your purchase decisions. AMD is just a smarter choice nowadays, just as the Sandy Bridge was over FX, back in the 2011. We don't need to prove anything to anyone, especially not in the CB thread Single and Multi Core applications. We just want to enjoy our superior CPUs in peace. Cheers.

I corrected you. Cheers.

Below is a simple demonstration. Not bad for a $220 processor. If you add another $100 for the motherboard and the reuse of DDR4 memory from the old system, yes, it's a wrong choice. Better a 7600X at twice the price (CPU+MoBo+RAM) and with much lower performance.

I remember very well that exactly on Cinebench you argue the "superiority" of Ryzen processors in your "smart" choice between the years 2017-2020. What happened in the meantime? Have you moved the "smart superiority" to another field? Why?

 

[Gica]

The point is you don't realize that i actually overclock my cpu with less power usage ! 28.6k @180 watt to 30138@159watt ( or 28.6k @ 123watt or 33% less power) and i can squeeze more power in manual oc. can you do that ? Yes or No

I think you don't understand what I want to say: the idea is that the 14700K (variant F is bought at the same price as the 7900X) is much more energy efficient than the 7900X to achieve the same target. Yes, with overclock and undervolt, the 14700K can reach a score of 37K+ at a very high power consumption, but this score cannot be reached by the 7900X even with liquid nitrogen. On the other hand, it only needs 119W to match a 7900X@159W.
Yes, these E-cores, blamed by many, work wonders. I bet that we will see them in a Zen future when AMD succeeds in developing the technology, but... the present is present and we live in it.

 

[Paramount]

I think you don't understand what I want to say: the idea is that the 14700K (variant F is bought at the same price as the 7900X) is much more energy efficient than the 7900X to achieve the same target. Yes, with overclock and undervolt, the 14700K can reach a score of 37K+ at a very high power consumption, but this score cannot be reached by the 7900X even with liquid nitrogen. On the other hand, it only needs 119W to match a 7900X@159W.
Yes, these E-cores, blamed by many, work wonders. I bet that we will see them in a Zen future when AMD succeeds in developing the technology, but... the present is present and we live in it.

View attachment 339749

Be smart,
I am not a fool guy to buy 400 USD CPU in order to destroy its 20% performance just to prove its better then a CPU which is 1 year older in term of power draw
My target is to achieve highest possible score with lowest power /temp .
enjoy your results and have a nice day

 

[Gica]

No, you spent $400 to get the results of a $300 one. If you're trying to bring the discussion here, you're really smart, LOL.
You don't lose anything. The TPU review showed that, together with the RTX 4090, the 14900K@125W loses only 2% in games at 1440p and 0% (ZERO) in 4K. With a weaker video card, it doesn't lose anything or below the margin of error even in 1080p.
The Puget review with 14900K@125W shows zero losses in the entire Adobe suite with the same processor at 125W and marginal losses in the other applications (1-2%). Bigger losses, of ~10%, are only heavy multitasking applications (rendering) and here you can also associate the comparison between the 14700K and your processor. You can use it at full capacity and get results impossible to achieve with the 7900X or choose a more efficient way with consumption if you had $400 to buy a processor but you don't have $1 per month for the difference in the bill.
I notice that you still don't understand that the 7900X is much more inefficient from an energy point of view if you want to get a result for which the 14700K barely heats up.
And you didn't do miracles with the 7900X. AMD processors are much harder to cool and much more aggressive with the voltage, that's why you can't get with 200W what you get with 159W.

 

[AVATARAT]

No, you spent $400 to get the results of a $300 one. If you're trying to bring the discussion here, you're really smart, LOL.
You don't lose anything. The TPU review showed that, together with the RTX 4090, the 14900K@125W loses only 2% in games at 1440p and 0% (ZERO) in 4K. With a weaker video card, it doesn't lose anything or below the margin of error even in 1080p.
The Puget review with 14900K@125W shows zero losses in the entire Adobe suite with the same processor at 125W and marginal losses in the other applications (1-2%). Bigger losses, of ~10%, are only heavy multitasking applications (rendering) and here you can also associate the comparison between the 14700K and your processor. You can use it at full capacity and get results impossible to achieve with the 7900X or choose a more efficient way with consumption if you had $400 to buy a processor but you don't have $1 per month for the difference in the bill.
I notice that you still don't understand that the 7900X is much more inefficient from an energy point of view if you want to get a result for which the 14700K barely heats up.
And you didn't do miracles with the 7900X. AMD processors are much harder to cool and much more aggressive with the voltage, that's why you can't get with 200W what you get with 159W.

You can enjoy all the cores that you can use in a few rendering programs, and wait for Intel to extend its ABO that just shows how bad Windows scheduler plays with them, so much time after it starts.
ABO will make Intel really efficient, just wait a few years more and don't stop to spam how efficient are they in every topic on the forum

 

[Eiffel]

I thought this thread shows how long and thick everyone's PCs are.

 

[Det0x]

With all the talk about CPU efficiency and what gives highest performance/watt in Cinebench R23 above, i guess i can share some numbers for the 7950X

With easymode just limiting PPT targets:

PPT 250w, 160A TDC and 225A EDC limit = 40360 points (OBS: CPU only pulled 230w maximum)


PPT 210w, 140A TDC and 200A EDC limit = 40085 points (OBS: CPU only pulled 204w maximum)


PPT 160w, 115A TDC and 175A EDC limit = 39068 points


PPT 130w, 100A TDC and 160A EDC limit = 37344 points


PPT 100w, 80A TDC and 150A EDC limit = 34574 points


PPT 65w, 70A TDC and 130A EDC limit = 28387point



PPT 50w, 65A TDC and 125A EDC limit = 22832 points


If i spent any time setting manual OC i could achieve even better watt/performance

 

[Paramount]

With all the talk about CPU efficiency and what gives highest performance/watt in Cinebench R23 above, i guess i can share some numbers for the 7950X

With easymode just limiting PPT targets:

PPT 250w, 160A TDC and 225A EDC limit = 40360 points (OBS: CPU only pulled 230w maximum)
View attachment 339934

PPT 210w, 140A TDC and 200A EDC limit = 40085 points (OBS: CPU only pulled 204w maximum)
View attachment 339935

PPT 160w, 115A TDC and 175A EDC limit = 39068 points
View attachment 339936

PPT 130w, 100A TDC and 160A EDC limit = 37344 points
View attachment 339937

PPT 100w, 80A TDC and 150A EDC limit = 34574 points
View attachment 339938

PPT 65w, 70A TDC and 130A EDC limit = 28387point

View attachment 339939

PPT 50w, 65A TDC and 125A EDC limit = 22832 points
View attachment 339940

If i spent any time setting manual OC i could achieve even better watt/performance

Impressive results
I think you can achieve a bit better with better ram timings.
What is your cpu cooler?

 

[Det0x]

Impressive results
I think you can achieve a bit better with better ram timings.
What is your cpu cooler?

Memory almost dont matter at all in cinebench R23, it does in R24 tho
Very large custom watercooling setup (i like to bench and submit scores to hwbot)

Here is a "power optimized" run in Cinebench r24
181w peak / 176w average package power for 2342 points

Finished run

 

[Braegnok]

 

[Hugis]

Keep on topic :-

"Post your Cinebench R23 Score"​

 

[Ikkyusan]

i5-13500, B760M AORUS Elite, 32GB DDR5-5200 CL40 (OC @ 5400 CL34), Thermaltake TOUGHAIR 310 Air Cooler

[Room temp = 29°C]

Auto CPU Vcore, power usage 140W

Set CPU Vcore at 1.100V in BIOS

After CPU Vcore fixed, power usage 115W and very cool!

 

[AVATARAT]

7900x@5575/5000MHz
DDR5@6600MHz

 

[Gica]

14700KF@PL200W

 

[RichieC]

No power limit, testing out my iceman direct die cooler. 5.9p 4.7e

 

[Rorre]

My X299 platform with I9 7940x OC and Undervolted by individual core from 4,1Ghz to 4,5Ghz.....Reg ECC memory at 2666Mhz with tweaked timings

View attachment 336046

Had no idea that Intel Xseries cpu could be paired with Registered ECC memory.

Hard to believe that my 4 year old i9-10980xe achieves as good a score or better than a stock Ryzen R9 5950x.
I’m mildly overclocked to 4.4Ghz all cores.
3 cores got a little toasty, but I was only using 1 fan on my Noctua NH D15s. Any overclocking above 4.4 I add the second fan. Keeps temps below 100C.

Here are all my R23 scores for current rigs in my possession now:

Multi Core
i7-3770K………….…….4420
i7-4790K………….…….5691
I7-7820X…………….….12114
Xeon E5-2680v4……….12213
I9-10980XE..……………25844