• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Cinebench R15 Benchmark Thread

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
128
106
PC in signature. Didnt optimzie the run. All stock.

No AVX, FMA or AVX2 in R15. Pretty odd.

 

Rakehellion

Lifer
Jan 15, 2013
12,177
34
91
What does r15 add over r11?

I actually use Cinema 4D and I thought r14 was the latest.
 

eyeofcore

Member
Oct 1, 2013
50
0
0
PC in signature. Didnt optimzie the run. All stock.

No AVX, FMA or AVX2 in R15. Pretty odd.

I have a question, since it does not use FMA or AVX2 then would it make a more fair comparison between AMD's and Intel's CPU's since we all know that in Cinebench 11.5 and other benchmarking tools have code that is primarily supplied by Intel and that in some cases literally cripple AMD CPU's.

I have sent to Maxon of Japan the email about the problem with Intel's compilers since I don't trust other subsidies of Maxon...
 
Last edited:

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
128
106
I have a question, since it does not use FMA or AVX2 then would it make a more fair comparison between AMD's and Intel's CPU's since we all know that in Cinebench 11.5 and other benchmarking tools have code that is primarily supplied by Intel and that in some cases literally cripple AMD CPU's.

I have sent to Maxon of Japan the email about the problem with Intel's compilers since I don't trust other subsidies of Maxon...
I assume this is a benchmark of their Cinema 4D engine. And it seems to top out with SSE2 support.

And you dont want FMA and AVX2, because its "unfair". You dont want ICC even tho its the best compiler for AMD as well.

So whats left, a crippled product that wont let you utilize the hardware you got to its full potential.

Also perhaps you should replace AMD with VIA in your case. Since this "cripples" AMD as well due to the lack of SSE3/4 and AVX support.

And Intel code in Cinebench? Please provide edvidence. :hmm:
 

gx_saurav

Senior member
Dec 5, 2012
247
61
101
about.me
AMD FX 6300 at stock speed with Radeon HD 7850 GPU at 900 MHz factory overclock.

Also, any thoughts on temperatures?

 

eyeofcore

Member
Oct 1, 2013
50
0
0
I assume this is a benchmark of their Cinema 4D engine. And it seems to top out with SSE2 support.

And you dont want FMA and AVX2, because its "unfair". You dont want ICC even tho its the best compiler for AMD as well.

So whats left, a crippled product that wont let you utilize the hardware you got to its full potential.

Also perhaps you should replace AMD with VIA in your case. Since this "cripples" AMD as well due to the lack of SSE3/4 and AVX support.

And Intel code in Cinebench? Please provide edvidence. :hmm:
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49 - one of sources, one of overclock net members is doing research involving Intel's code and he found code that "rigs" the score and cripples AMD chips. Please, your denial is obvious and you are playing a card of a disguise and all forum members in here already saw trough your guise.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
128
106
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49 - one of sources, one of overclock net members is doing research involving Intel's code and he found code that "rigs" the score and cripples AMD chips. Please, your denial is obvious and you are playing a card of a disguise and all forum members in here already saw trough your guise.
So you cant supply the edvidence that there is Intel code in Cinebench? What a surprise. :hmm:

Not to mention, Intels compiler is still the fastest one for AMD on Windows.

But maybe AMD should develop and distribute their own compiler...
 
Last edited:

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,139
2,148
136
750K@ 4.3Ghz,8GB DDR3 1600Mhz
MT score: 304pts
ST score: 94pts
MP speedup: 3.23pts
 

eyeofcore

Member
Oct 1, 2013
50
0
0
So you cant supply the edvidence that there is Intel code in Cinebench? What a surprise. :hmm:

Not to mention, Intels compiler is still the fastest one for AMD on Windows.

But maybe AMD should develop and distribute their own compiler...
So you are not denying that there is a bias in Cinebench since it uses Intel's compiler. People seem to forget how bobcat literally chocke's on those crippling compilers from Intel. :ninja:

It aids performance on both sides though compared without the compiler though you seem to twist and turn like a maniac. There will be code in Intel's compiler that will aid AMD since both are x86-64. Can't you comprehend that, having a brain damage or in denial? In the end Intel's compiler cripples AMD's CPU's.

You can be in denial, but we all know. We are not tricked by Intel's "ninja smoke" like it is not there. There is a code and an user at overclock.net found the code so you can go to the bank and bet all your money on it that he did not and lose all of it. ():)

edit; This is the user that is doing the research, he has found evidence;
http://www.overclock.net/t/1430288/maxon-cinebench-r15/40#post_20894831
http://www.overclock.net/t/1430288/maxon-cinebench-r15/50#post_20895153
something else;
http://www.overclock.net/t/1430288/maxon-cinebench-r15/50#post_20895153
 
Last edited:

monstercameron

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2013
3,818
1
0
@shintai cant wait for your optimzed run, that i5 is a beast when oc'd.

also that oc'd fx-6 just matched your stock i5...what would an fx-8 or space heater fx-9 do to it...en garde!

p.s. please dont derail this thread with compiler non-sense!
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
So you cant supply the edvidence that there is Intel code in Cinebench? What a surprise. :hmm:

Not to mention, Intels compiler is still the fastest one for AMD on Windows.

But maybe AMD should develop and distribute their own compiler...
Maybe they should. And maybe Intel should develop their own x86-64?

Your head is deep in the sand, friend, if you believe ICC doesn't penalize AMD. Intel has to provide a disclaimer that it does so.
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,139
2,148
136
I'd like to know how 2M/4T SR would fare in this one. I'd guess that 390pts at stock 4T 4Ghz SR is possible. AMD would need that 3M/6T part sometime in 2014 in order to have a decent APU that can keep up with 4T i5 haswell in modern workloads(read next gen games and threaded CPU intensive workloads). They can do solid with current 83xx parts but the platform is a dead end unfortunately so they need FM2+ part to replace that whole range (and it would need to be SR with 3 modules).
 

eyeofcore

Member
Oct 1, 2013
50
0
0
Maybe they should. And maybe Intel should develop their own x86-64?

Your head is deep in the sand, friend, if you believe ICC doesn't penalize AMD. Intel has to provide a disclaimer that it does so.
Intel did make its own x86-64, its the Itanium that sank like titanic... :twisted:
 

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,159
967
136

fixbsod

Senior member
Jan 25, 2012
415
0
0
How is it that intel can use x86-64 without kicking down massive royalties / licensing fees to AMD? AMD should be RAKING it in as they created the x86-64 platform which is a MASSIVE success while intel's itanium is often lumped in with Titanic type jokes.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
How is it that intel can use x86-64 without kicking down massive royalties / licensing fees to AMD? AMD should be RAKING it in as they created the x86-64 platform which is a MASSIVE success while intel's itanium is often lumped in with Titanic type jokes.
Cross licensing, same way AMD makes X86 chips without licensing fees.
 

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
4.7 @ 1.195v // 3.8GHz cpuNB stock 1600MHz ram




136w~ at the wall, clearly no advanced instructions up in dis witch.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY