• 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."

Post Your CineBench R11.5 Score

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
Grated the i7-920 was faster in games, and it came out in 2008 not 2010, but yeah I felt ok when I had my 1090T against what Intel had back then.

However when the i5-2500k came out and overclocked so high it completely changed the landscape. You no longer needed HT or the $300 chip from Intel to beat AMDs (at that time) $225 chip in MT and the gap in gaming just widened that much more.

I think I have my 1090T cinebench results around here, maybe I can find them.



Edit: Found some older scores:


555 @ 4GHz



965 @ 4.1GHz




1090T @ 4.5GHz




First i5-2500k @ 5GHz



Second i5-2500k @ 5,279MHz




T6500 Laptop OC @ 2,452MHz

 
Last edited:

LOL_Wut_Axel

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2011
4,310
8
81
True, true. But it seems AMD hasn't improved all that much. The FX-8150 was around 10% faster than the 1100T in multi-threaded and the 8350 10% faster than that, at least when you compare with the same ISA.
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,502
2,244
136
True, true. But it seems AMD hasn't improved all that much. The FX-8150 was around 10% faster than the 1100T in multi-threaded and the 8350 10% faster than that, at least when you compare with the same ISA.
Well some could say Intel is on the same pace....Granted they have a somewhat comfortable lead still.
 

justin4pack

Senior member
Jan 21, 2012
521
6
81
Im not feeling to bad, my last bench puts me right under the 3570k at the same clock speed.

 

aigomorla

Cases and Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
19,226
1,614
126
Not too many dual socket rigs here.
Nothing overclocked, all stock. Like at the track, there is no substitute for cubic inches! :biggrin:

:hmm: :\ :| D: :thumbsup:

^ there my comments in pictures..

This is where most of us are breaking our scouters going OVER 9000?!?!?!

lol...
 

crashtech

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2013
9,866
1,655
126
:hmm: :\ :| D: :thumbsup:

^ there my comments in pictures..

This is where most of us are breaking our scouters going OVER 9000?!?!?!

lol...
Sure, but let's see how wonderful the conspicuously missing single thread score is...
 

aigomorla

Cases and Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
19,226
1,614
126
Sure, but let's see how wonderful the conspicuously missing single thread score is...
^ this is how a poor man responds back..

:biggrin:
(sarcasm....)

its always about the bigger number.... :D

16cores 32thread beast is a beast anyway u look at it.
the lady (im assuming female minerva) broke 20 pts.... dont really care about single core performance.. the fact she smashed 20pts is Over 9000..
 
Last edited:

LOL_Wut_Axel

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2011
4,310
8
81
Well some could say Intel is on the same pace....Granted they have a somewhat comfortable lead still.
Yeah, but then Intel did make a six-core variant of the Core i7 and that is vastly faster in multi-threading than anything AMD has. And you also have to take into account that Intel has gotten their speed bumps via increasing single-threaded performance, something AMD had gone backwards on. Intel increased their ST performance, which aided their MT performance. AMD lowered their ST performance and compensated adding moar cores to get higher MT performance.
 

crashtech

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2013
9,866
1,655
126
<snipped mean stuff ;)>
16cores 32thread beast is a beast anyway u look at it.
the lady (im assuming female minerva) broke 20 pts.... dont really care about single core performance.. the fact she smashed 20pts is Over 9000..
Somewhat agree, however some might aspire to a high core count only to find it is not helpful with the vast majority of software being run on the desktop, which is what matters for the vast majority of users, and probably the vast majority of readers here as well. Not caring about single threaded performance doesn't actually mean it's an insignificant consideration...
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
998
126
AMD A6-3400M (quad core 1.4GHz, turbo to 2.3GHz)




I used K10 stat to bump up the turbo to 2.4GHz. Flexing those muscles! :D



I got an A8-3500M dirt cheap from Ebay. I'll get that installed in this laptop and run this again after I'm done playing around in K10 stat. I think the A8-3500M is the fastest 35 watt Llano CPU AMD made. My current A6-3400M is a 35 watt part, so I hope it is a straight swap.
 

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,907
31
91
AMD A6-3400M (quad core 1.4GHz, turbo to 2.3GHz)
I used K10 stat to bump up the turbo to 2.4GHz. Flexing those muscles! :D

I got an A8-3500M dirt cheap from Ebay. I'll get that installed in this laptop and run this again after I'm done playing around in K10 stat. I think the A8-3500M is the fastest 35 watt Llano CPU AMD made. My current A6-3400M is a 35 watt part, so I hope it is a straight swap.
That's really low. 4 core jaguar at 2 ghz is creaming you. Something might be wrong there.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
998
126
That's really low. 4 core jaguar at 2 ghz is creaming you. Something might be wrong there.

It might be worth mentioning that I'm using 1333 DDR3, so I might be losing a bit of performance compared to modern APU's with faster memory. From watching monitoring programs, it seems that only one core will reach turbo speeds at any one time. I wouldn't be surprised if Jaguar can have do better there also.

But, the laptop is a couple of years old now, I probably should clean out the heatsink/fan area. Maybe it is a heat problem holding back the cores a bit.
 

Torn Mind

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2012
6,325
810
126
@SlowSpyder
I think your score is right in the ballpark.
Consider the score of a higher-clock Llano. From the Anandtech bench, you can see that a 2.6 Ghz A6-3650 has a single thread performance of 0.8 and multithreaded score of 3.14.

Your A6 has a stock clock that is 1.2 Ghz lower. So, I wouldn't be surprised at such a low score. The behavior of Turbo is also something to further examine. If possible, try running the benchmark with Turbo disabled and see if discrepancies between the scores.
 

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,907
31
91
It might be worth mentioning that I'm using 1333 DDR3, so I might be losing a bit of performance compared to modern APU's with faster memory. From watching monitoring programs, it seems that only one core will reach turbo speeds at any one time. I wouldn't be surprised if Jaguar can have do better there also.

But, the laptop is a couple of years old now, I probably should clean out the heatsink/fan area. Maybe it is a heat problem holding back the cores a bit.
@SlowSpyder
I think your score is right in the ballpark.
Consider the score of a higher-clock Llano. From the Anandtech bench, you can see that a 2.6 Ghz A6-3650 has a single thread performance of 0.8 and multithreaded score of 3.14.

Your A6 has a stock clock that is 1.2 Ghz lower. So, I wouldn't be surprised at such a low score. The behavior of Turbo is also something to further examine. If possible, try running the benchmark with Turbo disabled and see if discrepancies between the scores.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-A-Series-A6-3400M-Notebook-Processor.55753.0.html

4 samples with very little deviation. Looks like you should have ~1.77 stock.
Ram has little effect on cinebench scores, especially given such a weak CPU.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
EVGA SR-2 with 2x Xeon L5639s. 16x185 for a base clock of 2960, max multi threaded turbo of 3330, max single threaded turbo of 3700. Six 4GB PC1600 DIMMs, 1 per channel.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 

mohit9206

Golden Member
Jul 2, 2013
1,380
508
136
I deleted Cinebench but my score is 2.04 for Intel Sandy Bridge G630@2.7Ghz while my previous CPU Athlon 64X2 4600 had a score of 0.96. How would you rate these scores ?
 

Edgemeal

Senior member
Dec 8, 2007
210
57
101
I deleted Cinebench but my score is 2.04 for Intel Sandy Bridge G630@2.7Ghz while my previous CPU Athlon 64X2 4600 had a score of 0.96. How would you rate these scores ?
Your score for the 4600+ could be a tad better I suppose. Was that on 32-bit OS?

My old 4200+ gained .06 points running the 64-bit bench on Win7-64 compared to the 32-bit bench on WinXP(32bit),

X2-4200+(2.2GHz/s939), DDR-400, all stock settings, CnQ enabled.
Score: 1.07
 
Last edited:

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,998
356
126
I've just built this PC with some parts I had with no use for a long time,
it's good enough for gmail at least, not so much for rendering



still, ST performance looks comparable to new low power CPUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lopri

mohit9206

Golden Member
Jul 2, 2013
1,380
508
136
Your score for the 4600+ could be a tad better I suppose. Was that on 32-bit OS?

My old 4200+ gained .06 points running the 64-bit bench on Win7-64 compared to the 32-bit bench on WinXP(32bit),

X2-4200+(2.2GHz/s939), DDR-400, all stock settings, CnQ enabled.
Score: 1.07
Yup it was on 32 bit OSwith 3gb ddr2 ram.The Pentium is on 64 bit OS with 8gb ddr3 ram

I've just built this PC with some parts I had with no use for a long time,
it's good enough for gmail at least, not so much for rendering



still, ST performance looks comparable to new low power CPUs.
OMG such a poor CPU.Only good enough for web surfing i suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY