Nope. I can;t do a screen grab right now, upgrading to 1903. I am on a different computer typing.Is it the drop down if you click 'File' in the upper left hand corner?
Just a few CPU that went trought my hands the past two weeks.
I have another A8-9600 around, i may do it with DC if i remember it. I was really not trying to do a fair comparison, just saving results of computers.The score of the BR 9600 is worthless due to the single channel, i already pointed it when you posted such a score in another thread, it should score about the same as an A10 7800 wich is at 657 pts.
Your MT score seems okay at 7114, but the ST should be > 500 on R20. I wonder if it's down to immature BIOS?OK< 500 on the single.
Well, thaty made a difference, 515. Now lets try multi again.Your MT score seems okay at 7114, but the ST should be > 500 on R20. I wonder if it's down to immature BIOS?
If you haven't already, install the 1.07 chipset drivers and enable the Ryzen Balanced or Ryzen High Performance power plan and see if it changes anything:
(Assuming you're using an X470 board here)
Very nice. For comparison's sake, a ST score of 515 on Cinebench R15 is within the margin of error for my Coffee Lake 8700K @ 5GHz AVX clocks using 3600 CL15 memory.Well, that made a difference, 515. Now lets try multi again.
Multi is 7035, margin of error.
Brand new 3700X
I am having a mixed feeling about this chip. (Not just because of this benchmark) I will take time to study what is going on before I decide what to do with it.
You have an interesting definition of what is not possible.Curious results, at Computerbase they measured this chip at 500 ST and 4856MT, so basically you are stati,ng that your chip run at 17% lower frequency in ST and 11% in MT, wich is not possible, so much for the mixed feeling....
Those scores of yours amount to barely 3.7GHz in ST and MT...You have an interesting definition of what is not possible.
I don't remember exactly, but me 3900x got somewhere close to that 436 score, as I have BIOS problems. You assume he has a perfect system, I have one of two working correctly.This amount t
Those scores of yours amount to barely 3.7GHz in ST and MT...
Unless your CPU is locked at 3.7GHz or so those scores are not possible since this chip turbo at 4.4GHz in ST and run in the vicinity of 4.1GHz in MT.
Well, my 3900x says its running 4.3 ghz all cores, but the scores sure don't look right, and I have other problems with it, he may have the same.That s why i linked Computerbase database where there s both their results and those from their readers, this way anyone can make a comparison with his own sets.
That being said there s a 700Mhz deficit in his ST score, i would imagine that someone with a chip scoring that lower woud first check what is going on before going to the conclusion of a mixed feeling about the chip...
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|T||Question Ryzen 3950X Overclocking/undervolting benchmarking results spreadsheet: Temps and CB20 scores. Thoughts?||CPUs and Overclocking||9|
|M||Question Maybe I found a serious bug in Cinebench R20???||CPUs and Overclocking||26|
|L||Question Cinebench: 3552, 477 (Single Core)||CPUs and Overclocking||8|
|H||Question [Phoronix] Ryzen 9 3900X vs. Ryzen 9 3950X vs. Core i9 9900KS In Nearly 150 Benchmarks (Linux)||CPUs and Overclocking||10|
|N||Intel Shows That Their 9th Gen Core CPU Lineup Is Faster Than AMD Ryzen 3000 In Everything Except Cinebench||CPUs and Overclocking||164|
|Question Ryzen 3950X Overclocking/undervolting benchmarking results spreadsheet: Temps and CB20 scores. Thoughts?|
|Question Maybe I found a serious bug in Cinebench R20???|
|Question Cinebench: 3552, 477 (Single Core)|
|Question [Phoronix] Ryzen 9 3900X vs. Ryzen 9 3950X vs. Core i9 9900KS In Nearly 150 Benchmarks (Linux)|
|Intel Shows That Their 9th Gen Core CPU Lineup Is Faster Than AMD Ryzen 3000 In Everything Except Cinebench|