• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Post Your CineBench R11.5 Score

Page 6 - 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.
OK here is mine. Do the number of cores affect the score or is this test solely based on the overall performance of the CPU.Am sure the scores must not be indicative of real life gaming performance because my cpu while gets less than half the score of the phenom 965 is pretty comparable in games that do not take advantage of 2 extra cores of the phenom.

900x900px-LL-3cabd3e0_cinebenchtest.png
 
the score is indicative of multi threaded performance in terms of rendering on windows platform.

So yes cores do matter a lot... which is why none of us can touch minerva's score on her beastly 16c/32t machine
 
mohit9206 said:
OK here is mine. Do the number of cores affect the score or is this test solely based on the overall performance of the CPU.Am sure the scores must not be indicative of real life gaming performance because my cpu while gets less than half the score of the phenom 965 is pretty comparable in games that do not take advantage of 2 extra cores of the phenom.
Click to expand...

Your score per core is a bit better than stock (3.4GHz) phenom 965. Note that 4,0 GHz is 17% overclock
 
Bootstrap finally works with new bios v1.4... Not bad for $30 shell shocker ram 2500MHz 😀

cine_zps717f350d.png~original


Edit: Shout out to MSI 😉

lulz_zps428940b0.png~original
 
Last edited:
my 4300 mhz E8400 dual-core wolfdale single threaded score: 1.29, multi: 2.55

AMD users be warned: the Cinebench benchmark program is built using Intel's compiler and Intel development tools - which (if my information is not entirely outdated) deliberately cripples the performance of the application on AMD processors - because Intel's development tools use a runtime CPU check to test which optimized routines to use based on the processor's vendor name, stored in the MSR's of the CPU, that value on Intel processors is "GenuineIntel" and the value on AMD processors is "AuthenticAMD", that being said you should be able to substitute the GenuineIntel with AuthenticAMD in the application and it's libraries using a tool named AuthenticAMD-patch using the -a parameter, problem is that the tool is a Linux application, hopefully someone here will be willing to patch the program and upload the modified version 🙂
 
Here's my 4930K that boost to 4.4Ghz. As you can see, I ran it twice and turbo boost seems to have quite a bit of variability for benchmarks.
bwx7.png
 
Last edited:
Tralalak said:
A little bit exotic... 🙄
Click to expand...


that's quite exotic indeed, considering it's only 1.2GHz I guess is not to bad, also if the IGP is based on Chrome 4xx/5xx it should be OK (much better than the older VIA IGPs at least), to bad VIA simply can't compete with products like this with Intel and AMD, they just can't sell them cheaply enough I guess.

Durvelle27 said:
Was a experiment I was doing to try to see what it performs like when clocked like a Jaguar Chip
Click to expand...

I think that's the exact same score as an i3 3220 (3.3GHz dual core IB with HT)
Jaguar with 8 cores at 2GHz would probably be faster, if you look here
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2343102

2GHz Jaguar scores 0.50 ST compared to your 0.52, but Jaguar have no CMT penalty, so a 2GHz 8 core jaguar would score around 3.7 points probably
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top