• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

【Maxon】Cinebench R20 Benchmark Thread

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
@topmysteries5 , I can get a threadripper 1950x for $575 right now, and your CPU is $760 best price on ebay, so I would not consider it, seeing as the 16 core 1950x destroys the 18 core Xeons with modded bios.. I know I can get a few more mhz with modded bios, but I would rather spend my money on the next generation Ryzens, the current generation just beats Intel, and the next will destroy it.
And thans for the info "LFM bug, "lowest frequency mode" bug. ", but it was also only doing 50% or so utilization, in addition to the speed problem.
 
Markfw said:
@topmysteries5 , I can get a threadripper 1950x for $575 right now, and your CPU is $760 best price on ebay, so I would not consider it, seeing as the 16 core 1950x destroys the 18 core Xeons with modded bios.. I know I can get a few more mhz with modded bios, but I would rather spend my money on the next generation Ryzens, the current generation just beats Intel, and the next will destroy it.
And thans for the info "LFM bug, "lowest frequency mode" bug. ", but it was also only doing 50% or so utilization, in addition to the speed problem.
Click to expand...
Hi, i never said to upgrade your cpu, what i tried to show is real performance of these xeons. Anyway i got this at around half price which you mentioned.
 
Markfw said:
@topmysteries5 , I can get a threadripper 1950x for $575 right now, and your CPU is $760 best price on ebay, so I would not consider it, seeing as the 16 core 1950x destroys the 18 core Xeons with modded bios.. I know I can get a few more mhz with modded bios, but I would rather spend my money on the next generation Ryzens, the current generation just beats Intel, and the next will destroy it.
And thans for the info "LFM bug, "lowest frequency mode" bug. ", but it was also only doing 50% or so utilization, in addition to the speed problem.
Click to expand...

if I force downclock my CPU via the windows power setting (like maximum 5%), it will also show lower % total utilization under full load, but that's I think based on 100% as full clock, so it's actually loading 100% of the cores but at the lower clock I think.
 
Trying to use modded bios (which is sometimes problematic) and overclock my Xeons to equal STOCK second gen Ryzens, vs waiting a few months for the new Ryzens ? (I will say 3rd gen)... I will take the latter. Done with my Xeons for now. (until the 3000 series comes out)
 
naukkis said:
Yeah sorry about that 😀

Try again, using 256bit AVX2 ops Zen FPU utilisation goes up per thread as calculating 256bit ops takes twice the resources vs 128 bit ops. There's less FPU-resources left to have SMT gains. Intel's 256 bit vector units uses same amount of cpu resources whether using 128 or 256 bit ops but with 256 bit ops there's high possibility that same code uses less instructions with 256 bit ops -> more fpu resources available for SMT gains.
Click to expand...

If there were that much AVX with an impact in MT then it would have an influence in ST as well, but to the contrary Intel lead wich was 5-6% in R15 shrinked to 2% or so.


Because if less instructions are required for a given troughput this save cycles to execute more instructions within a given numbers of cycles, be it in ST, so so much for the nice try, you demonstrated the contrary of what you intended at the first place...
 
9900K @ 5050MHz two cores, 4950MHz four cores, and 4850MHz eight cores.

2fOpnGx.png
 
Broke the 4K mark with 5.2GHz, no AVX offset.

4061 cb
541 cb (single core)

Cinebench-R20-5200-MHz-SC.png


Takes almost 1.400V to achieve a stable 5.2GHz and nearly adds as much additional power usage as it took to go from 4.7GHz --> 5.1GHz, so I'm backing down to 5.1GHz for my 24/7 overclock.
 
Abwx said:
There s a summary at Computerbase.de using datas from their community.

https://www.computerbase.de/2019-03/cinebench-r20-community-benchmarks/

What is to be noticed is not only SMT scaling being lower than in R15 but also that the tables have been turned , with Intel suddenly scaling better, this has nothing to do with instructions but with specific optimisation of the code to suit better a uarch than the other, at least in this specific scene.
Click to expand...

G5500 = 903
i3 6100 = 907

it looks like AVX is not a big deal since the G5500 lacks it, but it helped overcome 3.7 to 3.8GHz difference (and the extra 1MB l3 cache)
 
SPBHM said:
G5500 = 903
i3 6100 = 907

it looks like AVX is not a big deal since the G5500 lacks it, but it helped overcome 3.7 to 3.8GHz difference (and the extra 1MB l3 cache)
Click to expand...
Something doesn't make sense here...
The g5500 only has a multi result but if you look at the difference between the i3-6100 and the g4560 the i3 is 9% faster in multi but then in single threaded the i3 is 40% faster...
 
Markfw said:
You did see thats its identified as "LFM bug, "lowest frequency mode" bug. " and I tried my 2683v3 retail,, and the problem is not there.
Click to expand...
I think this LFM bug can be fixed. When i was turbo modding my 2686v3, i did face this same bug on pc startup (cpu speed got stuck at X8, that is 800mhz).
After doing lots of experiments with efi file, i fixed it.
 
topmysteries5 said:
I think this LFM bug can be fixed. When i was turbo modding my 2686v3, i did face this same bug on pc startup (cpu speed got stuck at X8, that is 800mhz).
After doing lots of experiments with efi file, i fixed it.
Click to expand...
This is different. Just booting, it runs all cores 2.5 ghz. Until I run cinebench 20. The it goes to 1.2 ghz, and is stuck there no matter what until I reboot. But my retail 2683v3 does not have that problem, just the 2695v3 ES.
 
Markfw said:
This is different. Just booting, it runs all cores 2.5 ghz. Until I run cinebench 20. The it goes to 1.2 ghz, and is stuck there no matter what until I reboot. But my retail 2683v3 does not have that problem, just the 2695v3 ES.
Click to expand...
What speed you get on 2683v3 while running cinebench r15 and R20? use Hwinfo64/CPU-z to check you uncore and core speed while benchmarking.
E5 2683v3 runs all core x30 on normal load and x29 on AVX2 load. Cache/uncore must be 3ghz for best performance, it shouldn't drop during benchmarks

You can try same on ur 2695v3 ES also
 
topmysteries5 said:
What speed you get on 2683v3 while running cinebench r15 and R20? use Hwinfo64/CPU-z to check you uncore and core speed while benchmarking.
E5 2683v3 runs all core x30 on normal load and x29 on AVX2 load. Cache/uncore must be 3ghz for best performance, it shouldn't drop during benchmarks

You can try same on ur 2695v3 ES also
Click to expand...
All of mine run 2.5 ghz, as I said. No modded BIOS.
 
2600X stock:

Single core: 514 Was probably 414. I ran it again and got 408 and 410 on another run.
SMT off: 2318
SMT on: 2986
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IEC
Abwx said:
If there were that much AVX with an impact in MT then it would have an influence in ST as well, but to the contrary Intel lead wich was 5-6% in R15 shrinked to 2% or so.


Because if less instructions are required for a given troughput this save cycles to execute more instructions within a given numbers of cycles, be it in ST, so so much for the nice try, you demonstrated the contrary of what you intended at the first place...
Click to expand...

With 256 bit ops Intel hardware has double load/store bandwith to L1 cache vs 128 bit ops. Obviously L1 bandwith isn't problem for one thread as Zen can keep up but for SMT scaling extra L1 bandwith sure helps.
 
TheELF said:
Something doesn't make sense here...
The g5500 only has a multi result but if you look at the difference between the i3-6100 and the g4560 the i3 is 9% faster in multi but then in single threaded the i3 is 40% faster...
Click to expand...

the single thread score for the G4560 looks wrong,
that would be a 3.2x scaling from a 2c/4t CPU.

the other CPUs with 2c/4t and fixed max clock on the list
200GE
301/758 (2.5x)

i3 3210m
231/534 (2.3x)

Core i3-2367M
101/250 (2.5x)

in any case, it certainly would be interesting to investigate more, but with the 4560,5400 and the 6100 it looks like AVX is not a big factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top