Cinebench 11.5 Released

[Mir96TA]

 

[Tsavo]

Seems like it should be faster...my Celeron E3200 rates 1.65 at the same speed.

 

[n7]

Seems like it should be faster...my Celeron E3200 rates 1.65 at the same speed.

My guess is it's due to x86 vs. x64.

 

[Tsavo]

My guess is it's due to x86 vs. x64.

E3200 1.65 x64 vs E3200 1.62 x86.

 

[lopri]

E8400 + GTX 280

 

[Mir96TA]

My guess is it's due to x86 vs. x64.

E3200 1.65 x64 vs E3200 1.62 x86.

Video Performance took a dive

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

i7 920 @ 3.63 ghz
No record breaker but I'm happy.

 

[lopri]

1. Rubycon: 11.26
2. Aigomorla: 11.08

Come on, Aigo. I know you can do it.

 

[Rubycon]

1. Rubycon: 11.26
2. Aigomorla: 11.08

Come on, Aigo. I know you can do it.

Haha that was from a stock Dell. I individually tested those Xeons on a board that supports OC but only a single socket (Asus P6T7) and they all do 4.5GHz stable enough for a CB run. Imagine if the Dell mobo supported overclocking!

 

[wiretap]

CPU - 6.77
OpenGL - 38.32

Intel i7 920 @ 4GHz 1.35v (measured with multimeter)
XFX ATI Radeon HD 5870 @ Stock speed

 

[wiretap]

Turned off some shit running in the background and retested.. overclocked the GPU a bit.

CPU - 6.87
GPU - 40.40

Intel i7 920 @ 4GHz 1.35v
XFX ATI Radeon HD 5870 @ 900/1250MHz 1.225v

 

[aigomorla]

1. Rubycon: 11.26
2. Aigomorla: 11.08

Come on, Aigo. I know you can do it.

i could but i dont now how i feel about pushing north of 1.45v+ on a brand new 32nm.. ()

Also ruby would find some way to beat me!!
However she has more cores then i do. :\

 

[evolucion8]

95.37% OpenGL, but the OpenGL test showed an error appeared stating that the differences compared to the reference rasterizer were too great, and it showed the car scene in black with lots of red dots. So much for full Open GL 3.2 compliance ATi.

CPU: 4.63
CPU Single: 1.17pts
Ratio: 3.94x

 

[Kenmitch]

Hmm....Not sure if this is good or what as I thought it would be higher.

Guess Cinebench doesn't see the turbo multiplier ? This was 4.2ghz run

The temps and voltages in the images are with intel burn test running as I still have C1E and speedstep enabled

Gonna find my final OC tomorrow and finish tweaking it out.

Then I'm gonna have to kick in the 2 core turbo(24x) mode to see what's the best I can get at what voltages....I'm thinking it'll be something like 4core @3.8ghz 2core @4.3ghz. At similar voltages as above. But may be able to shave off some of the cpu vtt and vcore.

Hmm maybe even able to get 2core into the 4.4-4.5ghz range as the BCLK will be around the 180's so should give me some room on the cpu vtt

 

[MagickMan]

4.42 on a Q9550 @ 3.8GHz.
46.33 FPS on my GTX260 that's OCd to hell and back.

 

[spinejam]

cpu: 5.30
gpu: 38.82

http://i593.photobucket.com/albums/tt20/spinejam/Cinebench_R11_i575040.png

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

 

[marsspirit123]

open GL 31.21
CPU 3.77

Amd 720 BE unlocked @3.2 ghz
ATI 4870

http://i650.photobucket.com/albums/uu223/marsspirit123/cinebentch115.jpg

 

[Powermoloch]

open GL 31.71
CPU 3.79

Amd 955 BE stock
5770 CFX stock

 

[lopri]

There is something strange with this benchmark. I ran it with my new 1090T, and look what I have.



Single core score is somewhat lower than I expected yet the multi-processor speed up is over x6?! Anyone else with Thuban see a similar pattern?

 

[Rubycon]

Looks like turbo/step down or similar occurring. If there is a utility available (like i7 turbo for X58 boards) run that to log changes in multi-ht etc to see what is happening.

 

[GenerationV]

Hm, interesting. So the Ph2 on DDR2 is ALMOST as fast clock/clock (assuming CPU-NB is actually clocked at what it can handle) as the Penryns. I had 4.06 points.
Would love to see someone with a q6600 OC'd to 3.4Ghz chime in with pics.

I've just bought a new CPU COOLER. My Q6600 wasn't able to run at 3.2Ghz without blue screen and the heat was quite high with the Intel cooler : over 78C @ 3.2GHz -> Blue Screen, 74C @ 3.0GHz, 53C in idle .
So I bought only 2 days ago the Zalman CNPS 10x Performa, I get easily @ 3.42GHz and the temp is only 57C in full Burn and 38C in idle.
Room Ambient T 28-29C.
I'm very satisfied and I don't think I will change my computer until the CPU with more than 4 cores is really well exploited by applications. In fact, I'm waiting for GPGPU improvement.

So here's the Cinebench 11.5 results with my Q6600@3.42GHz
In Burn:

Result (idle) :


result cinebench 10

This is the same performance as a i7 870 stock

Configuration :
Asus P5K (P35)
CPU Q6600 @ 3.42GHz
Zalman CNPS 10X Performa
Ram GSKILL 4x2GB PC8500 Pk
GPU Radeon HD3870 512MB
HDD 80GB : OS Win7 Ult
HDD 2x1To
HDD 1x320 ext
Monitor : 2xSamsung F2380

 

[Thor86]

48 fps
6.87 cpu

Intel CoreI7 920 @ 4Ghz 4T
MSI 480GTX (default)

 

[bryanW1995]

6.13 CPU and 45.2 gpu on my main rig i7 920 @3.6. gtx 260 is @ the stock (oc) clocks.

this is weird. cpu-z reports I'm at 3.61 ghz, cinebench that I'm at 3.44. I'm using the 21x multiplier, cinebench thinks I'm at 20x. just check and my system screen is also reporting 3.44. Anybody seen this before?

ok, ran again after reboot @ 20x180, got 6.19 cpu and 45.91 gpu. I had a couple processes on in the back ground before, so I guess that cinebench just reads from the same file that the "system" reads from, while cpu-z must read from the bios.

weird, computer kept locking up when trying to upload image.

 

[zuffy]

48.85 fps
6.38 cpu

i7-975 @ 3.73Ghz
EVGA GTX 275