Question Geekbench 6 released and calibrated against Core i7-12700

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Sort by date Sort by votes
K

Kocicak

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2019
1,177
1,232
136
Hitman928 said:
... After another quick test where I upped my polling rate, I take back this statement somewhat. Most tests seem to use ~12 threads on my CPU with Clang using ~20
Click to expand...
12 threads help AMD CPUs with all cores strong, while Intel needs to run 4 or even 6 of these threads on weaker E cores. In this particular thread number advantage of the AMD CPUs is substantial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: controlflow and scineram
Upvote 0 Downvote
inf64

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,884
4,691
136
Kocicak said:
Lightly multithreaded loads favor AMD, because they have all cores large, fewer threads hit weaker E cores on Intel CPUs, but not that many of them to reap the full benefits of them.

And in spite of this 13600K at stock has 88% ST and 77% MT performance of the 7950X at half the price. Impressive value.
Click to expand...

Hmm
13900K : https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/409
13900KS: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/545

I can play that game too, this time comapring to intel's top of the line parts:

"And in spite of this 13600K at stock has 86% ST and 76% MT performance of the 13900K/13900KS at half the price. Impressive value."
 
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: MangoX, therealmongo, Tlh97 and 5 others
Upvote 0 Downvote
K

Kocicak

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2019
1,177
1,232
136
inf64 said:
Hmm
13900K : https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/409
13900KS: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/545

I can play that game too, this time comparing to intel's top of the line parts:

"And in spite of this 13600K at stock has 86% ST and 76% MT performance of the 13900K/13900KS at half the price. Impressive value."
Click to expand...
No problem, I am proud of myself of resisting to pick up the 13900KS I ordered and going instead with the rational solution... :) Although this benchmark forced me down to 5400 MHz, which seems sooo slooow compared to 6 GHz of the 13900KS. They still have it in the shop. Ready for sale.... Oh no, it is still tempting me.


Markfw said:
128 threads is almost useless ?????
Click to expand...
Yeah. For me. And for another 7 999 900 000 people on this planet 128 threads are useless.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
K

Kocicak

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2019
1,177
1,232
136
nicalandia said:
No Doubt MT scores have taken a huge hit.
Click to expand...
This new benchmark is apparently useless for comparing server CPUs... Is this a problem? I believe that servers can be specialized and somebody building these servers and wanting to compare the CPUs for them needs to run specific benchmarks which correspond to what the server is going to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikegg
Upvote 0 Downvote
C

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
My scores with 13900KF at stock clocks with DDR5 7600 CL34:

Sk6h7k.jpg


gAE4dC.jpg


Ibg3T4.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Elfear, Tlh97, lightmanek and 2 others
Upvote 0 Downvote
K

Kocicak

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2019
1,177
1,232
136
nicalandia said:
Not only Servers, but **** as well
Click to expand...
No, it is dead, do not mention it. Forget about it. Think WORKSTATIONS now!

gdansk said:
On one hand it makes GB6 useless for servers/workstations. But it does make it even better for normal consumers. Really these many core CPUs do only provide minimal gains for most people.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is no problem in having one benchmark useful for normal PCs only.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I

igor_kavinski

Lifer
Jul 27, 2020
24,389
16,974
146
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Elfear and lightmanek
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,814
2,105
136
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Elfear, Tlh97, lightmanek and 3 others
Upvote 0 Downvote
C

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
JoeRambo said:
Kinda interesting to compare it with DDR4 4000C18 13900KS 8C8T, undervolted stock:
Click to expand...

Nice score. I think my single score clock speed was limited to 5.5ghz because of how I configured my BIOS.

I don't really care about single core performance that much. I'll probably let it boost to 5.8ghz and let it run again and see if my single score increases.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
H

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,626
12,167
136
igor_kavinski said:
Coz heavy multithreaded would favor AMD!

WOW. Are they being paid off by Intel?
Click to expand...

Geekbench was originally designed as a test to be used to compare smart phones and tablets. They've gone through some iterations and in GB4 and 5 it seemed like they tried to adjust to a more general test across lots of different systems. It seems with GB6 that they are kind of reverting the focus to be back more on portable type systems. I don't think that's evidence that they are biased towards Intel, just that it's probably not a great test for modern desktops and is useless for workstation/server class systems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: controlflow, Lodix, Mopetar and 1 other person
Upvote 0 Downvote
E

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,337
4,909
136
Markfw said:
From the TR PRO comparison runs, its clearly not a good MT run benchmark. 128 threads is almost useless ?????
Click to expand...
They changed the way multicore works to be more in line with how it actually works for desktop workloads.

I wouldn’t say it doesn’t scale, I bet 16 < 32 < 64 cores if all other things are equal (uarch, clocks)

I may play with it later.
JoeRambo said:
Kinda interesting to compare it with DDR4 4000C18 13900KS 8C8T, undervolted stock:

Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7D25 - Geekbench Browser

View attachment 76484


I think B-Die stuff would perform even better, this system needs 64GB unfortunately, was suprised it actually ran 4000.
View attachment 76485
Click to expand...

You should consider going for a DDR5 setup. 64gb of low latency DDR5 working at 6000-6200 in my AMD system, and I am sure Intel users have even faster stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Exist50
Upvote 0 Downvote
C

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
@JoeRambo, does your KS boost to 6ghz during the run? I checked the clock speeds on my CPU and it maxed out at 5.5ghz. I guess I must be thermally limited since I'm on air cooling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Markfw

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
27,015
15,958
136
Kocicak said:
This new benchmark is apparently useless for comparing server CPUs... Is this a problem? I believe that servers can be specialized and somebody building these servers and wanting to compare the CPUs for them needs to run specific benchmarks which correspond to what the server is going to do.
Click to expand...
Its useless for almost anything with more than 12 threads. Thats like 13900k, 7950x, ALL HEDT and workstation CPUs, and all servers. Its leaves just mid end desktop and below is all that its good for.

So to me, its totally workhless for anything.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Markfw

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
27,015
15,958
136
eek2121 said:
They changed the way multicore works to be more in line with how it actually works for desktop workloads.

I wouldn’t say it doesn’t scale, I bet 16 < 32 < 64 cores if all other things are equal (uarch, clocks)

I may play with it later.


You should consider going for a DDR5 setup. 64gb of low latency DDR5 working at 6000-6200 in my AMD system, and I am sure Intel users have even faster stuff.
Click to expand...
and my 2 256 thread systems ? I can't compare them. If what it does only works for middle of the line desktop workloads, what good is it ?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom