RapydMark CPU benchmark

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
8,903
5,247
106
managed to squeeze in under 110sec :)
I think this benchmark prefers Intel architecture (maybe compiled with Intel optimizations?)

1666546338595.png

The 12900KS is less than a second behind the 5950X despite being core deficient. I think the 13900K with DDR5-6400 CL32 could beat the 7950X. And if it doesn't, that would be a surprise.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
The 12900KS is less than a second behind the 5950X despite being core deficient. I think the 13900K with DDR5-6400 CL32 could beat the 7950X. And if it doesn't, that would be a surprise.
Here is my run with underclocked 13900KF at 5.2ghz on P cores and 4.3ghz on E cores with DDR5 7600 CL36 memory. I think something is wrong with the matrix multiplication test as it's much slower on ADL and RPL than it is on Zen, even though my CPU is underclocked.

Memory frequency doesn't seem to make much of a difference at all.

 

ZGR

Platinum Member
Oct 26, 2012
2,028
614
136
Here is my run with underclocked 13900KF at 5.2ghz on P cores and 4.3ghz on E cores with DDR5 7600 CL36 memory. I think something is wrong with the matrix multiplication test as it's much slower on ADL and RPL than it is on Zen, even though my CPU is underclocked.

Memory frequency doesn't seem to make much of a difference at all.

There is a lot of run to run variance on a few of the benchmarks which is a bummer. Fast and tight memory seemed to scale well on the 5800X3D since my XMP 3600 kit got wrecked by Det0x’s kit. Pretty cool that you are seeing different results with 7600.

I can’t get your picture to load for me, but it could be on my end.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
There is a lot of run to run variance on a few of the benchmarks which is a bummer. Fast and tight memory seemed to scale well on the 5800X3D since my XMP 3600 kit got wrecked by Det0x’s kit. Pretty cool that you are seeing different results with 7600.
Det0x is really good at tuning memory sub timings, but for matrix multiplication, that should be influenced primarily by the core microarchitecture and cache of the CPU I would think.

I can’t get your picture to load for me, but it could be on my end.
Weird, I checked on my phone and the picture was viewable. The score was 133.8s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek and ZGR

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,200
591
126
7700X and DDR5-6400 (Hynix IC)
1 RapydMark_Hynix.PNG

7700X and DDR5-6400 (Samsung IC)
2 RapydMark_Samsung.PNG

7700X and DDR5-6200 (64GB, Hynix + Samsung)
3 RapydMark_64GB_6200.PNG

Samsung dies BSOD'ed during the run, and upon reboot I ran it on Safe mode. With 4 sticks it won't boot at 6400 but it's stable-ish at 6200. Needs more testing but realistically a 24/7 setup with 4 sticks would be 6000. Voltages jump bigly from 6000 to 6200, and to 6400 (for 2 sticks).
 
  • Wow
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Det0x

Senior member
Sep 11, 2014
979
2,753
136
No idea how @Det0x is so much ahead of everyone else, even other Zen 4 owners o_O What is his secret?
I just spend alot of time optimizing and tweaking my system, and that's why I have multiple world #1 rankings on hwbot (if you know what that site is..)
I uploaded lots of new scores just yesterday, take a look if your interested ;) (i can see igor is here and i know he likes geekbench scores)
*edit*
Mistakenly mixed igor with nicalandia
 
Last edited:

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
24,366
13,461
136
I just spend alot of time optimizing and tweaking my system, and that's why I have multiple world #1 rankings on hwbot (if you know what that site is..)
I uploaded lots of new scores just yesterday, take a look if your interested ;) (i can see @igor_kavinski is here and i know he likes geekbench scores)
I am too lazy, and also need the most efficiency, so I set mine to CO = -25 and temp = 80 and it draws about 142 watts, and still has like 96% of the speed of the default setup at almost half the power.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Det0x

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
I just spend alot of time optimizing and tweaking my system, and that's why I have multiple world #1 rankings on hwbot (if you know what that site is..)
I uploaded lots of new scores just yesterday, take a look if your interested ;) (i can see igor is here and i know he likes geekbench scores)
*edit*
Mistakenly mixed igor with nicalandia
Yeah I've definitely heard of hwbot. I knew you were a skilled tweaker and optimizer based on what I saw you do with your memory benchmarks in the Zen 4 thread, but I didn't know you were that elite to where you are setting World records! Well, that explains it then :D

You should start a YouTube channel, as not many YouTubers offer specialized knowledge like that. The only one I can think of is der8auer.
 

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
8,903
5,247
106
Core i5-1235U on HP ProBook 450 15.6 inch G9 Notebook

From left to right:

Stock - Max DC performance BIOS option enabled - HT off with Max DC enabled

rapyd1.pngrapyd1 max dc.pngrapyd HT off.png

Max DC improved performance a tiny bit but turning off the supposedly "weakest" two HT threads tanks the performance by 33.1247% !!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

LightningZ71

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2017
1,564
1,813
136
Not that surprising when the benchmark is heavily influenced by memory performance as it's main constraint per thread in many of the sub-benches. HT has one big advantage in that it can keep a processor busy during memory stalls. It also doesn't help that the max boost clock of the E cores is so low (3.3Ghz on a good day). They're hardly bringing much to the table. This is all aside from the issues that this bench has with variance between nearly identical systems.
 

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
8,903
5,247
106
@Det0x @Carfax83

Guys, a request, if you don't mind please.

Could you run Rapydmark at different times of the day and note the variance in scores?

I'm trying to figure out if it's just my system (12700K+Z790) that performs inconsistently or if this is just how Rapydmark is (though, that would make all past scores kinda invalid if they could all be significantly higher or lower).

I've been getting times from 245 seconds to 216 seconds on different days and as far as I know, there hasn't been much fluctuation in the ambient temperature so it's not like the CPU should be boosting considerably higher due to lower ambient temps. In fact, I'm pretty sure that some of the worst scores were when it was particularly freakin' cold at night. Now it's daytime with 23C temp and I got less than 216 seconds on stress level High.

Any suggestions for a good easy to install and easy to run free memory intensive multicore benchmark other than CBR23 that performs consistently and finishes in less than 5 minutes?
 
Last edited:

Det0x

Senior member
Sep 11, 2014
979
2,753
136
@Det0x @Carfax83

Guys, a request, if you don't mind please.

Could you run Rapydmark at different times of the day and note the variance in scores?

I'm trying to figure out if it's just my system (12700K+Z790) that performs inconsistently or if this is just how Rapydmark is (though, that would make all past scores kinda invalid if they could all be significantly higher or lower).

I've been getting times from 245 seconds to 216 seconds on different days and as far as I know, there hasn't been much fluctuation in the ambient temperature so it's not like the CPU should be boosting considerably higher due to lower ambient temps. In fact, I'm pretty sure that some of the worst scores were when it was particularly freakin' cold at night. Now it's daytime with 23C temp and I got less than 216 seconds on stress level High.

Any suggestions for a good easy to install and easy to run free memory intensive multicore benchmark other than CBR23 that performs consistently and finishes in less than 5 minutes?
Try to run at static cpu clockspeed and/or reduce corecount to a minimum.
You could also try to disconnect from internet / check background windows prosess before running the benchmark
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY