Why does that seem abysmally low to me? Like, almost unrealistically low...
I mean, my Ryzen 2600 (non-X) scores in the 1200's running stock settings. It's only boosting to >3.8ghz to score that. And then it easily overclocks to 4.25 @ 1.33v, pushing it just into the upper-mid 1400's. And it's maxing 78C under heavy stress. I broke 1500 at 4.35 at around 1.45v the other day and the voltage/temps were just beginning to approach that i5, which is stupidly high imo - completely unrealistic overclock, but still. The 4.25 isn't too far off and I ran that for quite a while.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's really something to brag about. Don't wanna be one of those "duhhrr... mah aye ehm dee" guys, but this is a $150 CPU getting those scores no problem. Call it $210 if you count the Scythe Mugen Max on top.
Just looking at the base specs, I don't see how it can be that comparatively bad. Obviously I'd be oversimplifying, but I would expect a 6c/6t Intel CPU to at least keep up with a 6c/12t AMD one with almost a full ghz max clock difference. Even if you take the advertised boost of 4.6ghz you'd think that'd be enough to give it some edge. There's no way this is even close to the whole picture. Something is missing.
If that's a real indicator, it's a joke. I wonder what the SC score is like. Not to mention other benchmarks. Just doesn't seem right. CB doesn't usually mislead - there's
something to it I suppose... ...I dunno, I don't fully trust this. Reserving judgement. I think in this case comparing CB scores has got to be misleading. I like my AMD chip but that's a ridiculous difference.
But hey, at least it has integrated graphics
One thing I will say... if real, it does make Intel look a little haggard, being that they've used CB scores against AMD in the past.