Benchmark your computer @4K with Handbrake 1.1 and H265!

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
10,653
249
106
Instead of 12 of those cores, imagine 128 of them in one box !!! It would look exactly like this (but mine are generation one of EPYC, not gen 2/7002 series, and twice the cores that I have)
Nice set-up. Why do we need to imagine it? Why not provide actual benchmark results? I'm sure we would all much rather see how it performs. That is sort of the point of this thread!
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,325
8,020
136
Nice set-up. Why do we need to imagine it? Why not provide actual benchmark results? I'm sure we would all much rather see how it performs. That is sort of the point of this thread!
Because its running linus. These are windows apps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
10,653
249
106
Because its running linus. These are windows apps.
OK, odd. Not sure what that post provided to the thread. Would rather see how it actually performs. Not a lot of people have dual EPYC cpus here, so it would be nice to see!

It's always easy to throw Win10 onto an SSD to swap it out for testing. Do it! :D
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,325
8,020
136
OK, odd. Not sure what that post provided to the thread. Would rather see how it actually performs. Not a lot of people have dual EPYC cpus here, so it would be nice to see!

It's always easy to throw Win10 onto an SSD to swap it out for testing. Do it! :D
I don't think it will even run windows 10 with more than 32 cpus.

What it provided to this thread was the power of the new Rome CPUs. The just "imagine part". If windows was able to run it,.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
79,591
7,072
126
I don't think it will even run windows 10 with more than 32 cpus.

What it provided to this thread was the power of the new Rome CPUs. The just "imagine part". If windows was able to run it,.
even if it does, you won't be able to afford Server 2016 licence...
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,325
8,020
136
even if it does, you won't be able to afford Server 2016 licence...
Oh, server 2016 will run it, and I have a trial version of server 2012 r2. Its just a lot of work to prove a point,. My server is busy working.....
 

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
10,653
249
106
I don't think it will even run windows 10 with more than 32 cpus.

What it provided to this thread was the power of the new Rome CPUs. The just "imagine part". If windows was able to run it,.
Windows 10 Server will run up to 256 cores (64 bit). They have an 180 day trial version that you can even re-activate up to 4-5 times.

As far as it showing the thread the "power" of the Rome CPU, is a bit odd because it provided nothing in regards to performance. It was a simple photo?
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
79,591
7,072
126
Oh, server 2016 will run it, and I have a trial version of server 2012 r2. Its just a lot of work to prove a point,. My server is busy working.....
did you cost the licence? that is what I am talking about, it will cost more than the hardware. It is by core count.
 

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
10,653
249
106
Oh, server 2016 will run it, and I have a trial version of server 2012 r2. Its just a lot of work to prove a point,. My server is busy working.....
What is your server running? Is it mission critical? The Windows Server install is less than an hour. It would just be very nice to see the actual results.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,325
8,020
136
OK, I tried to install server 2019 eval, and it said loading files, then I saw the windows 10 "window" for a few seconds, then it rebooted. Sorry, not spending any more time on this.
 

Hitman928

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2012
2,590
1,819
136
OK, I tried to install server 2019 eval, and it said loading files, then I saw the windows 10 "window" for a few seconds, then it rebooted. Sorry, not spending any more time on this.
Wouldn't matter anyway, Handbrake doesn't scale to anywhere near that many cores/threads. You start to have severely diminishing returns after about 12 cores and plateau somewhere around 16 - 20 at best.

You could, however, run multiple transcodes at the same time which would make batch processing go pretty darn fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makaveli

Bavor

Member
Nov 11, 2001
80
16
81
HandBrake 1.1.0 (2018040700) - 64bit
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.18363.0 - 64bit
CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor
Ram: 32685 MB,
GPU Information:
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 - 26.21.14.4187

encoded 1806 frames in 169.73s (10.64 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09

3950X PBO+200
32GB DDR4 3600 MHz
WIndows 10 Pro
Files were on a 2TB Micron SATA III SSD if that matters

Same test on the latest version of Handbrake(1.3):
encoded 1806 frames in 180.53s (10.00 fps), 16285.42 kb/s, Avg QP:28.61
 
Last edited:

Junky228

Junior Member
Nov 24, 2013
5
1
66
My original test was actually with 1.3 I'll copy them here for reference :>
encoded 1806 frames in 886.67s (2.04 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09

I tested just now with 1.1.0 like I should have from the beginning and got :>encoded 1806 frames in 902.22s (2.00 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09

So at least in my case 1.3 was slightly faster. running xeon w3670 @ oc'd 4GHz turbo with 24GB 1600mhz ddr3 9-9-9-24

I don't have a spare ssd to test if drive speed makes a difference in encoding times, but this was done on a 2.5" hdd in my system

***or there could just be a fair bit of variance between tests...I wonder if it might improve too if I lock my CPU to 4GHz rather than letting it turbo up to 4GHz under load and drop below baseclock when idle...
 

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,624
55
91
Had some time waiting on my car today.

RankUserCPUGHzsecondsfpsGHz/fpsArchitecture
1DaPoets3960X 24/48?
123.66​
14.60​
Zen+
2Bavor3950x 16/32?
169.73​
10.64​
Zen 2
3KjboughtonE5-2696 2x18 36/72
3.99​
174.06​
10.38​
0.385​
Broadwell
4KjboughtonE5-2696 2x16 32/32 (no HT)
3.99​
192.66​
9.37​
0.426​
Broadwell
5DrMrLordX3900x 12/24
4.1​
198.75​
9.09​
0.451​
Zen 2
6rvborghQuad Opteron (48xK10)
3​
200​
9.03​
0.332​
?
7Cata407840xe 18/36
3.4​
211​
8.56​
0.397​
Skylake
8Fir2990WX 32/64
4.1​
216.35​
8.35​
0.491​
Zen+
9Markfw1950x 16/32
3.8​
242.49​
7.45​
0.510​
Zen
10mrpiggyE5-2699 18/36
3.7​
253.41​
7.13​
0.519​
Haswell
11eek21211950x 16/32
4.1​
254.04​
7.11​
0.577​
Zen
12LexingtonianQuad Opteron 6386
3.5​
275.66​
6.55​
0.534​
Piledriver
13CricketSP9900k 8/16
4.9​
281.8​
6.41​
0.765​
Coffee Lake
14kmm00009900k 8/16
3.6​
290.96​
6.21​
0.580​
Coffee Lake
15CricketSP9900k 8/16
4.7​
291.87​
6.19​
0.760​
Coffee Lake
16TillausHamburgXeon ES QL1L 20/40
2​
297.54​
6.07​
0.330​
Skylake SP
17sdifox3700x 8/16?
306.52​
5.89​
Zen 2
18Chaotic429700k 8/8
5​
311.03​
5.81​
0.861​
Coffee Lake
19Makaveli3800x 8/16?
313.61​
5.76​
Zen 2
20XabanakFanatik5960x 8/16
4.7​
319.84​
5.65​
0.832​
Haswell
21DooKey7820X 8/16
4.5​
320.75​
5.63​
0.799​
Skylake
22epsilon 848700K 8/16 (5/4.9)
5​
340.42​
5.31​
0.942​
Coffee Lake
23JoeRambo8700k 8/16 (4.8/4.4)
4.8​
342.38​
5.27​
0.910​
Coffee Lake
24mjdupuis8700k 8/16 (4.8/4.8)
4.8​
347.5​
5.20​
0.924​
Coffee Lake
25IEC8700K 8/16 (4.7/4.7)
4.7​
359.41​
5.02​
0.935​
Coffee Lake
26CakeMonster8700k 8/16 (4.9/4.6)
4.9​
379.09​
4.76​
1.029​
Coffee Lake
27cmdrdredd8700K 8/16 (4.7/4.5)
4.7​
386.65​
4.67​
1.006​
Coffee Lake
28rgba8700 8/16
4.3​
387.57​
4.66​
0.923​
Coffee Lake
29MarkfwE5-2696v3 14/28
2.5​
394.29​
4.58​
0.546​
Broadwell
30Markfw2700x 8/16
4.1​
404.44​
4.47​
0.918​
Zen+
31Dan057Ryzen 2700 8/16?
410.08​
4.40​
Zen+
32lightmanekRyzen 7 2700x 8/16
4​
414.34​
4.36​
0.918​
Zen+
33.vodkaRyzen 1700 6/12
3.95​
416.04​
4.34​
0.910​
Zen
34pjmssnDual Xeon E5-2690 16/32
2.9​
416.47​
4.34​
0.669​
Sandy Bridge EP
35Bburninatortech42700x 8/16?
423.9​
4.26​
Zen+
36Franz3162700x 8/16
3.8​
429.95​
4.20​
0.905​
Zen+
37.vodkaRyzen 1700 6/12
3.8​
430.69​
4.19​
0.906​
Zen
38AnnoyedGruntRyzen 7 2700x 8/16
4.1​
430.94​
4.19​
0.978​
Zen+
39richaronRyzen 1700 6/12 (Ubuntu 18.04)
3.7​
434.68​
4.15​
0.891​
Zen
40CrackRabbit2700x 8/16
3.8​
440.29​
4.10​
0.926​
Zen+
41DespoilerRyzen 1700 6/12
3.9​
444.03​
4.07​
0.959​
Zen
42dfentonRyzen 1700 6/12
3.7​
476.9​
3.79​
0.977​
Zen
43William GaatjesRyzen 2600 6/12 (memory 3200)
3.6​
519.91​
3.47​
1.036​
Zen
44mjdupuisRyzen 2600x 6/12
4.2​
520.3​
3.47​
1.210​
Zen+
45ChippyUKi5-8400 6/6
4​
558.91​
3.23​
1.238​
Coffee Lake
46ywasmdi5 8400 6/6
4​
562.68​
3.21​
1.246​
Coffee Lake
47William GaatjesRyzen 2600 6/12 (memory 2933)
3.6​
577.26​
3.13​
1.151​
Zen
48gamervivekRyzen 1600 6/12
3.5​
593.1​
3.05​
1.149​
Zen
49CronoReverse4790k 4/8
4.5​
644.52​
2.80​
1.606​
Haswell
50jones3774770K 4/8 core
3.9​
768.63​
2.35​
1.660​
Haswell
51Nathan Gall4770K 4/8 core
3.5​
775.24​
2.33​
1.502​
Haswell
52Hulk4770K 4/8 core
3.9​
788.6463​
2.29​
1.703​
Haswell
53Junky228Xeon w3690 6/12
4​
886.67​
2.04​
1.964​
Westmere EP
54Imported_stryfe2600k 4/8
4.5​
951.72​
1.90​
2.371​
Sandy Bridge
55Bubbleawsomei5-7300HQ (laptop) 4/4
3.2​
1022.42​
1.77​
1.812​
Kaby Lake
56NickatNight1980FX8320 4/8
4.16​
1117.63​
1.62​
2.574​
Piledriver
57mylesromi5-3570 4/4
3.8​
1399.56​
1.29​
2.945​
Ivy Bridge
58dfentoni5-3570s 4/4
3.6​
1586.81​
1.14​
3.163​
Ivy Bridge
59Imported_stryfei5-750 4/4
2.8​
2012.8​
0.90​
3.121​
Lynnfield
60Slim FanPentium Silver J5005 (NUK) 4/4
2.8​
2631.13​
0.69​
4.079​
Goldmont Plus
61PeterScottCore 2 Quad Q9400 4/4
3.2​
2655.1​
0.68​
4.704​
Yorkfield
62ywasmdi5 3210 (Macbook Pro) 2/4
3.1​
3144.79​
0.57​
5.398​
Ivy Bridge
63Fanatical MeatQ9650 4/4
3​
3439.2​
0.53​
5.713​
Yorkfield
64dfentonCeleron N3450 (laptop) 4/4
2.2​
5099.43​
0.35​
6.212​
Apollo Lake
65dfentonCeleron 2957U 2/2
1.4​
6027.14​
0.30​
4.672​
Haswell
 

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,624
55
91
Here's the chart sorted with a metric I think is interesting. Sorted from most efficient by cores and frequency to least efficient. You'll notice that generally similar architectures are grouped together. It starts to fall apart past 12 or so cores because Handbrake isn't scaling linearly.
There are some outliers. I don't think some people reported frequency that their CPU was actually running at during the test. If corrections are posted I'll update the data.

The Zen core is very good with this test.

UserCPUGHzsecondsfpsGHz/fps x #coresArchitecture
kmm00009900k 8/16
3.6​
290.96​
6.21​
4.640​
Coffee Lake
richaronRyzen 1700 6/12 (Ubuntu 18.04)
3.7​
434.68​
4.15​
5.343​
Zen
DrMrLordX3900x 12/24
4.1​
198.75​
9.09​
5.414​
Zen 2
.vodkaRyzen 1700 6/12
3.8​
430.69​
4.19​
5.437​
Zen
.vodkaRyzen 1700 6/12
3.95​
416.04​
4.34​
5.460​
Zen
lightmanekRyzen 7 2700x 8/16
4​
414.34​
4.36​
5.506​
Zen+
DespoilerRyzen 1700 6/12
3.9​
444.03​
4.07​
5.753​
Zen
dfentonRyzen 1700 6/12
3.7​
476.9​
3.79​
5.862​
Zen
Nathan Gall4770K 4/8 core
3.5​
775.24​
2.33​
6.010​
Haswell
CricketSP9900k 8/16
4.7​
291.87​
6.19​
6.077​
Coffee Lake
CricketSP9900k 8/16
4.9​
281.8​
6.41​
6.117​
Coffee Lake
William GaatjesRyzen 2600 6/12 (memory 3200)
3.6​
519.91​
3.47​
6.218​
Zen
DooKey7820X 8/16
4.5​
320.75​
5.63​
6.394​
Skylake
CronoReverse4790k 4/8
4.5​
644.52​
2.80​
6.424​
Haswell
TillausHamburgXeon ES QL1L 20/40
2​
297.54​
6.07​
6.590​
Skylake SP
jones3774770K 4/8 core
3.9​
768.63​
2.35​
6.639​
Haswell
XabanakFanatik5960x 8/16
4.7​
319.84​
5.65​
6.659​
Haswell
Hulk4770K 4/8 core
3.9​
788.6463​
2.29​
6.812​
Haswell
Chaotic429700k 8/8
5​
311.03​
5.81​
6.889​
Coffee Lake
gamervivekRyzen 1600 6/12
3.5​
593.1​
3.05​
6.897​
Zen
William GaatjesRyzen 2600 6/12 (memory 2933)
3.6​
577.26​
3.13​
6.904​
Zen
Cata407840xe 18/36
3.4​
211​
8.56​
7.150​
Skylake
Franz3162700x 8/16
3.8​
429.95​
4.20​
7.237​
Zen+
Bubbleawsomei5-7300HQ (laptop) 4/4
3.2​
1022.42​
1.77​
7.246​
Kaby Lake
mjdupuisRyzen 2600x 6/12
4.2​
520.3​
3.47​
7.260​
Zen+
JoeRambo8700k 8/16 (4.8/4.4)
4.8​
342.38​
5.27​
7.280​
Coffee Lake
Markfw2700x 8/16
4.1​
404.44​
4.47​
7.345​
Zen+
rgba8700 8/16
4.3​
387.57​
4.66​
7.382​
Coffee Lake
mjdupuis8700k 8/16 (4.8/4.8)
4.8​
347.5​
5.20​
7.389​
Coffee Lake
CrackRabbit2700x 8/16
3.8​
440.29​
4.10​
7.411​
Zen+
ChippyUKi5-8400 6/6
4​
558.91​
3.23​
7.427​
Coffee Lake
ywasmdi5 8400 6/6
4​
562.68​
3.21​
7.477​
Coffee Lake
IEC8700K 8/16 (4.7/4.7)
4.7​
359.41​
5.02​
7.483​
Coffee Lake
epsilon 848700K 8/16 (5/4.9)
5​
340.42​
5.31​
7.540​
Coffee Lake
MarkfwE5-2696v3 14/28
2.5​
394.29​
4.58​
7.641​
Broadwell
AnnoyedGruntRyzen 7 2700x 8/16
4.1​
430.94​
4.19​
7.827​
Zen+
cmdrdredd8700K 8/16 (4.7/4.5)
4.7​
386.65​
4.67​
8.050​
Coffee Lake
Markfw1950x 16/32
3.8​
242.49​
7.45​
8.164​
Zen
CakeMonster8700k 8/16 (4.9/4.6)
4.9​
379.09​
4.76​
8.228​
Coffee Lake
eek21211950x 16/32
4.1​
254.04​
7.11​
9.228​
Zen
dfentonCeleron 2957U 2/2
1.4​
6027.14​
0.30​
9.344​
Haswell
mrpiggyE5-2699 18/36
3.7​
253.41​
7.13​
9.345​
Haswell
Imported_stryfe2600k 4/8
4.5​
951.72​
1.90​
9.486​
Sandy Bridge
pjmssnDual Xeon E5-2690 16/32
2.9​
416.47​
4.34​
10.700​
Sandy Bridge EP
ywasmdi5 3210 (Macbook Pro) 2/4
3.1​
3144.79​
0.57​
10.796​
Ivy Bridge
mylesromi5-3570 4/4
3.8​
1399.56​
1.29​
11.779​
Ivy Bridge
Junky228Xeon w3690 6/12
4​
886.67​
2.04​
11.783​
Westmere EP
Imported_stryfei5-750 4/4
2.8​
2012.8​
0.90​
12.482​
Lynnfield
dfentoni5-3570s 4/4
3.6​
1586.81​
1.14​
12.652​
Ivy Bridge
KjboughtonE5-2696 2x16 32/32 (no HT)
3.99​
192.66​
9.37​
13.621​
Broadwell
KjboughtonE5-2696 2x18 36/72
3.99​
174.06​
10.38​
13.844​
Broadwell
Fir2990WX 32/64
4.1​
216.35​
8.35​
15.717​
Zen+
Slim FanPentium Silver J5005 (NUK) 4/4
2.8​
2631.13​
0.69​
16.317​
Goldmont Plus
LexingtonianQuad Opteron 6386
3.5​
275.66​
6.55​
17.095​
Piledriver
PeterScottCore 2 Quad Q9400 4/4
3.2​
2655.1​
0.68​
18.818​
Yorkfield
NickatNight1980FX8320 4/8
4.16​
1117.63​
1.62​
20.595​
Piledriver
Fanatical MeatQ9650 4/4
3​
3439.2​
0.53​
22.852​
Yorkfield
dfentonCeleron N3450 (laptop) 4/4
2.2​
5099.43​
0.35​
24.848​
Apollo Lake
 

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,624
55
91
Would be kind of interesting if someone with a 16 or more core CPU could run the test with 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 cores and plot the results so we can see how Handbrake scales.
It's quite a bit of work though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junky228

Makaveli

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,065
130
106
My original test was actually with 1.3 I'll copy them here for reference :>
encoded 1806 frames in 886.67s (2.04 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09

I tested just now with 1.1.0 like I should have from the beginning and got :>encoded 1806 frames in 902.22s (2.00 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09

So at least in my case 1.3 was slightly faster. running xeon w3670 @ oc'd 4GHz turbo with 24GB 1600mhz ddr3 9-9-9-24

I don't have a spare ssd to test if drive speed makes a difference in encoding times, but this was done on a 2.5" hdd in my system

***or there could just be a fair bit of variance between tests...I wonder if it might improve too if I lock my CPU to 4GHz rather than letting it turbo up to 4GHz under load and drop below baseclock when idle...
The newest version is faster for me also.

1.1.0
encoded 1806 frames in 296.09s (6.10 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09

1.3
encoded 1806 frames in 292.40s (6.18 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09



 
  • Like
Reactions: Junky228

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,624
55
91
RankUserCPUGHzsecondsfpsGHz/fpsArchitectureGHz/fps x #cores
1DaPoets3960X 24/48?
123.66​
14.60​
Zen 2
2Bavor3950x 16/32?
169.73​
10.64​
Zen 2
3KjboughtonE5-2696 2x18 36/72
3.99​
174.06​
10.38​
0.385​
Broadwell
13.844​
4KjboughtonE5-2696 2x16 32/32 (no HT)
3.99​
192.66​
9.37​
0.426​
Broadwell
13.621​
5DrMrLordX3900x 12/24
4.1​
198.75​
9.09​
0.451​
Zen 2
5.414​
6rvborghQuad Opteron (48xK10)
3​
200​
9.03​
0.332​
?
15.947​
7Cata407840xe 18/36
3.4​
211​
8.56​
0.397​
Skylake
7.150​
8Fir2990WX 32/64
4.1​
216.35​
8.35​
0.491​
Zen+
15.717​
9Markfw1950x 16/32
3.8​
242.49​
7.45​
0.510​
Zen
8.164​
10mrpiggyE5-2699 18/36
3.7​
253.41​
7.13​
0.519​
Haswell
9.345​
11eek21211950x 16/32
4.1​
254.04​
7.11​
0.577​
Zen
9.228​
12LexingtonianQuad Opteron 6386
3.5​
275.66​
6.55​
0.534​
Piledriver
17.095​
13CricketSP9900k 8/16
4.9​
281.8​
6.41​
0.765​
Coffee Lake
6.117​
14kmm00009900k 8/16
3.6​
290.96​
6.21​
0.580​
Coffee Lake
4.640​
15CricketSP9900k 8/16
4.7​
291.87​
6.19​
0.760​
Coffee Lake
6.077​
19Makaveli3800x 8/164.9
292.4​
6.18​
0.793​
Zen 2
6.347​
16TillausHamburgXeon ES QL1L 20/40
2​
297.54​
6.07​
0.330​
Skylake SP
6.590​
17sdifox3700x 8/16?
306.52​
5.89​
Zen 2
18Chaotic429700k 8/8
5​
311.03​
5.81​
0.861​
Coffee Lake
6.889​
20XabanakFanatik5960x 8/16
4.7​
319.84​
5.65​
0.832​
Haswell
6.659​
21DooKey7820X 8/16
4.5​
320.75​
5.63​
0.799​
Skylake
6.394​
22epsilon 848700K 8/16 (5/4.9)
5​
340.42​
5.31​
0.942​
Coffee Lake
7.540​
23JoeRambo8700k 8/16 (4.8/4.4)
4.8​
342.38​
5.27​
0.910​
Coffee Lake
7.280​
24mjdupuis8700k 8/16 (4.8/4.8)
4.8​
347.5​
5.20​
0.924​
Coffee Lake
7.389​
25IEC8700K 8/16 (4.7/4.7)
4.7​
359.41​
5.02​
0.935​
Coffee Lake
7.483​
26CakeMonster8700k 8/16 (4.9/4.6)
4.9​
379.09​
4.76​
1.029​
Coffee Lake
8.228​
27cmdrdredd8700K 8/16 (4.7/4.5)
4.7​
386.65​
4.67​
1.006​
Coffee Lake
8.050​
28rgba8700 8/16
4.3​
387.57​
4.66​
0.923​
Coffee Lake
7.382​
29MarkfwE5-2696v3 14/28
2.5​
394.29​
4.58​
0.546​
Broadwell
7.641​
30Markfw2700x 8/16
4.1​
404.44​
4.47​
0.918​
Zen+
7.345​
31Dan057Ryzen 2700 8/16?
410.08​
4.40​
Zen+
32lightmanekRyzen 7 2700x 8/16
4​
414.34​
4.36​
0.918​
Zen+
5.506​
33.vodkaRyzen 1700 6/12
3.95​
416.04​
4.34​
0.910​
Zen
5.460​
34pjmssnDual Xeon E5-2690 16/32
2.9​
416.47​
4.34​
0.669​
Sandy Bridge EP
10.700​
35Bburninatortech42700x 8/16?
423.9​
4.26​
Zen+
36Franz3162700x 8/16
3.8​
429.95​
4.20​
0.905​
Zen+
7.237​
37.vodkaRyzen 1700 6/12
3.8​
430.69​
4.19​
0.906​
Zen
5.437​
38AnnoyedGruntRyzen 7 2700x 8/16
4.1​
430.94​
4.19​
0.978​
Zen+
7.827​
39richaronRyzen 1700 6/12 (Ubuntu 18.04)
3.7​
434.68​
4.15​
0.891​
Zen
5.343​
40CrackRabbit2700x 8/16
3.8​
440.29​
4.10​
0.926​
Zen+
7.411​
41DespoilerRyzen 1700 6/12
3.9​
444.03​
4.07​
0.959​
Zen
5.753​
42dfentonRyzen 1700 6/12
3.7​
476.9​
3.79​
0.977​
Zen
5.862​
43William GaatjesRyzen 2600 6/12 (memory 3200)
3.6​
519.91​
3.47​
1.036​
Zen
6.218​
44mjdupuisRyzen 2600x 6/12
4.2​
520.3​
3.47​
1.210​
Zen+
7.260​
45ChippyUKi5-8400 6/6
4​
558.91​
3.23​
1.238​
Coffee Lake
7.427​
46ywasmdi5 8400 6/6
4​
562.68​
3.21​
1.246​
Coffee Lake
7.477​
47William GaatjesRyzen 2600 6/12 (memory 2933)
3.6​
577.26​
3.13​
1.151​
Zen
6.904​
48gamervivekRyzen 1600 6/12
3.5​
593.1​
3.05​
1.149​
Zen
6.897​
49CronoReverse4790k 4/8
4.5​
644.52​
2.80​
1.606​
Haswell
6.424​
50jones3774770K 4/8 core
3.9​
768.63​
2.35​
1.660​
Haswell
6.639​
51Nathan Gall4770K 4/8 core
3.5​
775.24​
2.33​
1.502​
Haswell
6.010​
52Hulk4770K 4/8 core
3.9​
788.6463​
2.29​
1.703​
Haswell
6.812​
53Junky228Xeon w3690 6/12
4​
886.67​
2.04​
1.964​
Westmere EP
11.783​
54Imported_stryfe2600k 4/8
4.5​
951.72​
1.90​
2.371​
Sandy Bridge
9.486​
55Bubbleawsomei5-7300HQ (laptop) 4/4
3.2​
1022.42​
1.77​
1.812​
Kaby Lake
7.246​
56Hulk8250u 4/8 (Surface 2 laptop)
2.5​
1067.13​
1.69​
1.477​
Kaby Lake R
5.909​
57NickatNight1980FX8320 4/8
4.16​
1117.63​
1.62​
2.574​
Piledriver
20.595​
58mylesromi5-3570 4/4
3.8​
1399.56​
1.29​
2.945​
Ivy Bridge
11.779​
59dfentoni5-3570s 4/4
3.6​
1586.81​
1.14​
3.163​
Ivy Bridge
12.652​
60Imported_stryfei5-750 4/4
2.8​
2012.8​
0.90​
3.121​
Lynnfield
12.482​
61Slim FanPentium Silver J5005 (NUK) 4/4
2.8​
2631.13​
0.69​
4.079​
Goldmont Plus
16.317​
62PeterScottCore 2 Quad Q9400 4/4
3.2​
2655.1​
0.68​
4.704​
Yorkfield
18.818​
63ywasmdi5 3210 (Macbook Pro) 2/4
3.1​
3144.79​
0.57​
5.398​
Ivy Bridge
10.796​
64Fanatical MeatQ9650 4/4
3​
3439.2​
0.53​
5.713​
Yorkfield
22.852​
65dfentonCeleron N3450 (laptop) 4/4
2.2​
5099.43​
0.35​
6.212​
Apollo Lake
24.848​
66dfentonCeleron 2957U 2/2
1.4​
6027.14​
0.30​
4.672​
Haswell
9.344​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junky228

ASK THE COMMUNITY