Share your CPUZ Benchmarks!

[ArbitraryAffection]

View attachment 115249Just FYI the same CPU at 5,4GHz with 8C/16T

That is absolutely mental. 5.7 Ghz. with just 8 threads you are matching my 2700X at stock with 16 threads. Madness.

I ran all three benches of the new CPUz version on my 2700X completely stock on B450 motherboard with 3000 MHz C16 ram.

Meow.

 

[tstr7119]

That is absolutely mental. 5.7 Ghz. with just 8 threads you are matching my 2700X at stock with 16 threads. Madness.

I ran all three benches of the new CPUz version on my 2700X completely stock on B450 motherboard with 3000 MHz C16 ram.
View attachment 115253

Meow.

Its hardly fair to compare though, i9 9900k is twice the price and running at 158% of stock using a phase change cooler @-40 degrees celsius

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

Its hardly fair to compare though, i9 9900k is twice the price and running at 158% of stock using a phase change cooler @-40 degrees celsius

True but it's still pretty awesome from a nerdy point of view.

 

[Deleted member 185658]

Anyone know why the CPUZ validator results are so off? The 4770k scores less than a pentium 4 and my locked 4770 scores 200 points higher than a locked 4770 and beats the 6700 in single threaded?

 

[dorsetknob]

Probably because of under the hood tuning has altered the benchmark
test again with older version or test with a P4 for comparison

 

[mapnam charun]

xeon e3-1230 v2 stock

 

[overvolted]

Not sure what it proves, but here's what I have...I'll probably get 10 years out of this processor. Just like my old i7-920 I've had since its release. LOL

 

[Deleted member 178884]

6600k delidded @ 4.8ghz 1.36v

 

[cucaracha777]

Just installed 9700k! Awesome.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Brace yourselves for J4105:

 

[micropage7]

 

[Ibotibo01]

 

[Deleted member 163934]

Intel Pentium G3260:

Intel i5 3320M:

AMD Athlon II x4 640:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+:

Later I will see if I can get the results for AMD Athlon x2 5400B (for 17.01.64 results should be something like single thread 102, multi thread 209, if i remember right it kinda scaled linear). I no longer have access to AMD Sempron 145...

 

[Chomiq]

*plays sad trombone in the background*

 

[wally_1973]

Ah new versions benches .. Bought this CPU on Ali a year ago, for really cheap. It is stock btw, won't overclock a darn thang.

 

[EvOlViOlEnCe]

 

[wally_1973]

 

[TheUnbrained]

After switching Mainboards - From Sapphire Pure Black X79N to an Asus Rampage 4 IV Extreme.
I need to apologize to my CPU cause it is much more capable than i thought ... xD

 

[azngreentea01]

My new Cpu R9 3900x

 

[Vlada011]

AMD R9-3900 is better CPU then Intel 9900K. Who say opposite is abnormal person.
Advantage of i9-9900K need only to people who buy i3 for surfing on internet and playing Java games.
If I need to gave up for 3000 points in multi threaded applications because 500 points in single threaded applications then I don't need such platform at all and I should buy i3 processors and not Z390 chipset.
With this kind of power higher resolution mean less difference in fps between Intel and AMD.
If some new game show up and use 6-8 CPU Cores and you play on 4K there is a chance to AMD give you higher fps.
But in games 2012-2015 on 1080p Intel is little faster.

 

[EarthDog]

If I need to gave up for 3000 points in multi threaded applications because 500 points in single threaded applications then I don't need such platform at all and I should buy i3 processors and not Z390 chipset.

No.

If some new game show up and use 6-8 CPU Cores and you play on 4K there is a chance to AMD give you higher fps.

No again.

9900K has 8c/16t and faster clocks so it will not be faster at 4K. How would it 'slow down' when its faster at a more CPU bound res? The difference between the CPUs shrinks, yes, but suddenly the intel doesn't become slower.

Now, maybe if the game uses MORE than 8c/16t would the AMD perform better, but so long as games are using less than 16t, which 99% do and will for the next few years, AMD is still a few percent behind.

Man... you are all over AMD's tip....between the ESL and knowledge gap...........

 

[trog100]

cores are a bit like memory.. buying more than you need or use is a waste of money..

16 gigs of memory is plenty enough for gaming pretty much like 6 cores is plenty enough for gaming..

trog

 

[azngreentea01]

cores are a bit like memory.. buying more than you need or use is a waste of money..

16 gigs of memory is plenty enough for gaming pretty much like 6 cores is plenty enough for gaming..

trog

Nah man, 16 Gb is the past, Now you got to do 32GB. LOL JK

 

[Vlada011]

It's not true, difference between AMD and Intel is very small 2-3% in games.
Special because Intel platform suffer from Spectre and Meltdown and lost significant speed because of that.
Only chance for Intel is to beat AMD 12 cores with their 10 core CPU because extremely high boost.
But they need miracle to change that. That's 5.2-5.3GHz speed for all cores.
Off course Intel platform need and PCI-E 4.0 because OS last several years depend of PCI-E Interface not SATA III any more.

 

[mouacyk]

need. PCI-e 4.0.

go read the TPU review (hint conclusion)

NVMe at least provided a decent uplift in random IOPS over Sata3.