*NEW UPDATED* Post Your Cinebench R11.5 Score

[crashtech]

Please do not post any more scores to this thread! Post them here!

I've decided to make a new thread, since the OP, Durvelle27, is no longer able to maintain the score list on the old thread. Please post your Cinebench R11.5 scores here in this new thread.

Post a screenshot of your score and of CPU-Z if possible, showing clockspeed and CPU type. Scores without this information may not be included in the list, or may be included with information omitted. Also, scores from other versions of Cinebench will not be included in this list. One score for each unique system per user will be recorded, updates will be allowed.
Download link for Cinebench 11.5:

http://http.maxon.net/pub/benchmarks/CINEBENCH_11.529.zip

CineBench Scores

_________________________________________________________


Multiprocessor:

6+ cores

4C/8T, 4M/8T

1. crashtech | i7-4790K | 5.0GHz | 10.97
2. APU_Fusion | i7-4790K | ???GHz | 10.65
3. Udgnim | i7-4770K | 4.8GHz | 10.55
4. ElaphSK | i7-4790K | 4.7GHz | 10.28
5. RaistlinZ | i7-4770K | 4.55GHz | 10.00
6. Slomo4shO | i7-4770K | 4.6GHz | 9.97
7. crashtech | i7-4770K | 4.5GHz | 9.82
8. JimmiG | i7-4770K | 4.5GHz | 9.75
9. John Tauwhare | i7-2700K | 5.1GHz | 9.71
10. crashtech | i7-2700K | 4.8GHz | 9.41
11. mallebabbe | i7-3820 | 4.8GHz | 9.29
12. Tequila | i7-4770K | 4.2GHz | 9.11
13. PhIlLy ChEeSe| i7-3770K | 4.42GHz | 9.05
14. jj109 | i7-4770K | ???GHz | 9.03
15. evilwhitey | i7-3770K | 4.4GHz| 9.02
16. ozzy702 | i7-3770K | 4.4GHz | 9.02
17. SlowSpyder | FX-9370 | 5.34GHz | 8.94
18. justin4pack | i7-2600K | 4.5GHz | 8.84
19. Essence_of_War | i7-3770K | 4.4GHz | 8.78
20. Durvelle27 | FX-8350 | 5.09 GHz | 8.70
21. thebigbolgna | i7-4770K | 4.2 | 8.62
22. popobearr | i7-4770K | 3.7GHz | 8.59
23. unixwizzard | i7-3770 | 3.7GHz | 8.23
24. aigomorla | Xeon L5520 | ???GHz | 7.73
25. dufus | i7-4700MQ | 3.4GHz | 7.62
26. Edgemeal | i7-3770K | 3.71GHz | 7.61
27. YBS1 | Xeon W3520 | 4.4GHz | 7.46
28. Scholzpdx | FX-8350 | 4.2GHz | 7.08
29. ZGR | i7-3720QM | 3.4GHz | 6.5
30. justin4pack | i7-920 | 4.01GHz | 6.47
31. ThatsABigOne | i7-960 | 3.21GHz | 5.67

4C/4T

1. Kenmitch | i5-2550K | 5.4GHz | 8.42
2. BallaTheFeared | i5-4670K | 4.88GHz | 8.41
3. Face2Face| i5-3570K | 5GHz | 8.29
4. Yuriman | i5-3570K | 4.8GHz | 7.73
5. Sable | i5-2500K | 4.99GHz | 7.66
6. ZGR | i5-4690K | 4.6GHz | 7.5
7. Bubbleawsome | i5-4670K | 4.4GHz | 7.37
8. CuriousMike | i5-2500K| 4.6GHz | 7.20
9. Rakehellion | i5-3570K | 4.2GHz | 6.84
10. CHADBOGA | i5-3570K| 4GHz | 6.65
11. crashtech | i5-4670 | 3.6GHz | 6.16
12. Lil Frier | i5-4670K | 3.6GHz | 6.13
13. Conroe | Xeon E5450 | 4.27GHz | 5.19
14. T_Yamamoto | i5-4430 | 3GHz | 5.14
15. SmOger | Xeon X5470 | 4.31GHz | 5.12
16. BallaTheFeared | Phenom II X4 965 | 4.1GHz | 4.72
17. Erenhardt | Phenom II X4 965 | 4GHz | 4.66
18. Tequila | i5-760 |3.67GHz | 4.50
19. DrMrLordX | A10-7700K | 4.7GHz | 4.47
20. shady28 | i5-2500S | 2.8GHz | 4.45
21. Durvelle27 | A10-6800K | 5.01GHz | 4.21
22. Erenhardt | Phenom II X4 965 | 3.4GHz | 4.01
23. crashtech | Phenom II X4 940 | 3.0GHz | 3.51
24. crashtech | Athlon II X4 630 | 3.08GHz | 3.49
25. SPBHM | Xeon E5420 | 2.5GHz | 3.01
26. Tequila | Core2 Quad Q6600 | 2.4GHz | 2.72
27. SlowSpyder | A6-3400M | 1.8GHz | 2.15
28. Tralalak | Athlon 5350 | 2.05GHz | 2.02
29. Conroe | Atom Z3775 | 2.27GHz | 1.45
30. Tralalak | VIA QuadCore 4700E | 1.21GHz | 1.08
31. 996GT2 | Atom Z3740D | 1.34GHz | 1.08
32. Tralalak | VIA QuadCore U4650E | 1.01GHz | 0.90

1-3 cores

1. crashtech | i3-4370 | 3.79GHz | 4.17
2. crashtech | Pentium G3258 | 4.9GHz | 4.04
3. crashtech | i3-4360 | 3.7GHz | 4.00
4. Flapdrol1337 | Pentium G3258 | 4.8GHz | 4.00
5. justin4pack | Pentium G3258 | 4.5GHz | 3.67
6. crashtech | i5-4300M | 2.9GHz | 3.47
7. Dufus | i7-5500U |2.9GHz | 3.32
8. crashtech | i3-3220 | 3.3GHz | 3.32
9. crashtech | i3-4130T | 2.9GHz | 3.18
10. SPBHM | i3-2100 | 3.1GHz | 3.01
11. crashtech | i5-3230M | 2.6 GHz | 2.98
12. crashtech | i5-3210M | 2.5 GHz | 2.69
13. CHADBOGA | Pentium G3220 | 3.0 GHz | 2.53
14. Rakehellion | i5-2415M | 2.6GHz | 2.49
15. Conroe | i3-3120M | 2.5GHz | 2.46
16. crashtech | Celeron G1840 | 2.8GHz | 2.40
17. crashtech | i5-2430M | 2.4 GHz | 2.35
18. BallaTheFeared | Phenom II X2 555 | 4GHz| 2.30
19. crashtech | i5-520M | 2.4GHz | 2.15
20. crashtech | Celeron G1620 | 2.7GHz | 2.14
21. pw257008 | i5-2410M | 2.3GHz | 2.11
22. mohit9206 | Pentium G630 | 2.7GHz | 2.10
23. Scholzpdx | Core2 Duo P8700 | 2.5GHz | 1.48
24. crashtech | Core2 Duo T9400 | 2.5GHz | 1.47
25. crashtech | Turion II P540 | 2.4GHz | 1.38
26. Rakehellion | Core2 Duo P8600 | 2.4GHz | 1.36
27. Conroe | Core2 Duo E6600 | 2.4GHz | 1.29
28. BallaTheFeared | Pentium E2200| 2.2GHz| 1.14
29. SPBHM | Athlon64 x2 4000+ | 2.42GHz | 1.10
30. ThatsABigOne | Celeron 877 | 1.4GHz | 1.08
31. postmortemIA | Core2 Duo T2400 | 1.83GHz | 0.85
32. SPBHM | Pentium T2080 | 1.73GHz | 0.77
33. Bardock | Turion 64 X2 TL-52 | 1.6GHz | 0.76
34. Tralalak | VIA Nano X2 L4350E | 1.6GHz | 0.74
35. Fred B | Pentium 4 HT | 3.2GHz | 0.60|
36. Fred B | Atom N450 | 1.67GHz | 0.24

 

[Essence_of_War]

I don't think there is a CPU-Z for Mac, but does this work?
Mac Pro 3,1 (Early 2008) 2x Xeon E5462 @ 2.8 GHz
6.42
.84

 

[crashtech]

Sure, looks consistent with other results.

I might make a single-thread list if there are more submissions. If anyone who has posted their multi-threaded score already and is interested in seeing ST results, please resubmit your score here with the ST result.

 

[Geforce man]

2700k @ 4.6Ghz memory 1866 9-9-9-24-1t - 9.04

I don't have a good upload site atm, so no real good way to do a SS.

After seeing some of the newer processors, I've determined i'm basically never going to upgrade. haha.

 

[crashtech]

2700k @ 4.6Ghz memory 1866 9-9-9-24-1t - 9.04

I don't have a good upload site atm, so no real good way to do a SS.

After seeing some of the newer processors, I've determined i'm basically never going to upgrade. haha.

If you want to email me a screencap, I'll post it up for you, but I really want the submissions to stay within the rules, call me OCD or whatever, haha.

 

[MongGrel]

KK


*edit* Sorry, ya all ready got me thanks

I'm tempted to do like Terry and buy a second L5639 and a board to push it and put my old 920 D0 in this Mobo.

 

[zer0gravity]

I think I'm # 10 now



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[jj109]

 

[GRAFiZ]

Just getting started... puts me in at number 2 though.

 

[ThatsABigOne]

Core i7 960 stock clocks(3.2ghz)

Intel Celeron 877 stock clocks(1.4ghz)

More reasons why VIA shouldn't exist. Look at their appalling performance....

 

[SPBHM]

 

[SPBHM]

 

[Blitzvogel]

I've never used Cinebench before. Which test or settings provides a decimal score? I have yet to find one that does.

 

[crashtech]

I don't believe Cinebench 11.5 is available from the Maxon site anymore. You could try CNET: (won't let me post link) Or, search Google for "Cinebench 11.5," it is still available for download from a variety of sites. I think I got mine at Guru3D.com.

I would like it if someone would host it for me, then I could edit the OP with a link to the download!

 

[SPBHM]

I don't believe Cinebench 11.5 is available from the Maxon site anymore. You could try CNET: (won't let me post link) Or, search Google for "Cinebench 11.5," it is still available for download from a variety of sites. I think I got mine at Guru3D.com.

I would like it if someone would host it for me, then I could edit the OP with a link to the download!

this should work

http://http.maxon.net/pub/benchmarks/CINEBENCH_11.529.zip

 

[crashtech]

this should work

http://http.maxon.net/pub/benchmarks/CINEBENCH_11.529.zip

Thanks, I will edit the OP to reflect this information.

 

[Ferzerp]

Cinebench won't use more than 32 threads which makes it kind of sucky

Otherwise, I'd beat you all

Quite a few quad E5-4650's currently awaiting deployment.

 

[JoeRambo]

Cinebench won't use more than 32 threads which makes it kind of sucky

Otherwise, I'd beat you all

Quite a few quad E5-4650's currently awaiting deployment.

Quad E5-4650 should beat everything with little trouble. 32 real cores clocked @ 2.7Ghz should beat dually E5-2687W with its 32 HT threads at 3.1Ghz+. HT is ~1.3-1.4 scaling with CB11.5, so you should still beat it with ease even after accounting for quad socket overhead. (just set proper affinity on physical CPUs, Windows will loose it's head after seeing so many threads)

Where line starts to blur is the new 10 and 12 core CPUs, dual 20-24 real IVB cores have some advantage per core, some in clock and that could be enough to beat quad E5-4650. (I might test it on our dual E5-2690v2 if i get a chance).

 

[GRAFiZ]

Quad E5-4650 should beat everything with little trouble. 32 real cores clocked @ 2.7Ghz should beat dually E5-2687W with its 32 HT threads at 3.1Ghz+. HT is ~1.3-1.4 scaling with CB11.5, so you should still beat it with ease even after accounting for quad socket overhead. (just set proper affinity on physical CPUs, Windows will loose it's head after seeing so many threads)

Where line starts to blur is the new 10 and 12 core CPUs, dual 20-24 real IVB cores have some advantage per core, some in clock and that could be enough to beat quad E5-4650. (I might test it on our dual E5-2690v2 if i get a chance).

Good points... he could just disable HT via BIOS and then not have to worry at all. CB should see his four procs 8 individual cores.

 

[crashtech]

I don't think 32 real Xeon cores would have much trouble taking top honors!

 

[Ferzerp]

See here for an older E7 example. This was 40 real cores 80 logical at 2.4Ghz, but cinebench claims it is 16 real 32 logical. That was Westemere, now the E5's are better/similar with higher clocked 8/16's and newer architecture. It isn't just a display error either. This was less than half load on the system when I ran it a few years ago. I haven't put it on anything more recent, and that particular box is now production, so I can't muck with it for stuff like this anymore.

 

[JoeRambo]

See here for an older E7 example. This was 40 real cores 80 logical at 2.4Ghz, but cinebench claims it is 16 real 32 logical. That was Westemere, now the E5's are better/similar with higher clocked 8/16's and newer architecture.

Score is interesting actually, I doubt that CB was actually running on first 32 CPUs in Windows ( 10+10 from 1st socket + 6+6 from second one). 16 Westmere cores on 2.4Ghz.

If Xeon L5639| 3.2GHz| scores 8.29, the 2.4 westmere should score ~5,5 for 6 real cores. So ~13,75 total would be expected out of 16 real + 16HT on that system.

So that was probably a "proper" run, with CB making use of all resources, just reporting cpu cores/ht was borked.

In ideal scaling with 32 cores, it would have ~29 pts score (vs 19 measured). I think nearly 50% scaling penalty is hard to explain from technical side ( 4S, Numa, slower memory), but windows scheduling can hurt a lot if it was not making use of cores and instead scheduling on hyperthreads.

What do you guys think?

 

[Ferzerp]

Score is interesting actually, I doubt that CB was actually running on first 32 CPUs in Windows ( 10+10 from 1st socket + 6+6 from second one). 16 Westmere cores on 2.4Ghz.

If Xeon L5639| 3.2GHz| scores 8.29, the 2.4 westmere should score ~5,5 for 6 real cores. So ~13,75 total would be expected out of 16 real + 16HT on that system.

So that was probably a "proper" run, with CB making use of all resources, just reporting cpu cores/ht was borked.

In ideal scaling with 32 cores, it would have ~29 pts score (vs 19 measured). I think nearly 50% scaling penalty is hard to explain from technical side ( 4S, Numa, slower memory), but windows scheduling can hurt a lot if it was not making use of cores and instead scheduling on hyperthreads.

What do you guys think?

Yes, the problem is, that system has 40 cores, not 16

 

[Makaveli]

Yes, the problem is, that system has 40 cores, not 16

Ferzerp was it you or someone else that ran this on a server with 20+ cores and it wasn't able to see all the cores. I know this application has problems scaling once you get up to that many cores.

 

[Ferzerp]

Ferzerp was it you or someone else that ran this on a server with 20+ cores and it wasn't able to see all the cores. I know this application has problems scaling once you get up to that many cores.

That was me.