Interesting result with my 4790k at 4.5Ghz and the 8600K at 4.8Ghz, thought the 8600K would have shat all over mine?
...and it runs fantastic on my rig. Love to drive the trucks with 90 fps and nearly everything on high.
Well that was even before I altered my Ram. see post, https://forum.sector3studios.com/in...cpu-benchmark-thread.13473/page-2#post-183416 It is just how my system is, did not do anything special. Only a little overclock on the CPU.
Im not entirely sure how accurate this benchmark is , it was reading my CPU temps quite low and GPU clocks too high ! I wonder what else was reading wrong ? There are a few CPU's @ 4.8GHz of similar IPC but quite large gap in performance ! Is that only IPC or is the thread count contributing or something else entirely ??
I had Steam and Uplay open before and did a reboot just to clear things and removed my GPU undervolt just to see if any GPU made a difference . CPU: Intel 7700k CPU OC: 4.8GHz Memory: 16GB DDR4-3000MHz Dual Memory timings: CL15-15-15-35 GPU: Galax GTX 1080TI EXOC
Small off-topic, thanks @Sebastien Brunier for convincing me to repaste my Asus Strix 1080ti after my temps got worse over time As amazingly good as the cooler is, they definitely cheaped out hard on the thermal compound. I don't even know how it was still alive, half the die wasn't even covered anymore and the remaining paste was basically solid... Spoiler: Warning: 'graphic' images
Your ram is listed at 3000 but you are running it at 2666 according to cpuz, any reason? Far ahead, no, 4% faster clock, 4.7% more fps, pretty much level if i drop mine or you raise yours.
This thread is kinda depressing for someone who only fairly recently got the Ryzen 2600 and his chances of updating to 3600 are pretty slim right now. Anyway, got some numbers for you: Default CPU and RAM clock CPU: Ryzen 5 2600 CPU OC: none, default clock (3.4 GHz base, 3.9 GHz single core boost, 3.75 all core boost) Memory: 16GB DDR4-3000 MHz Dual Memory timings: CL16-18-18-38 GPU: Nvidia Geforce GTX 1060Ti 6GB CPU OC to 3.9 GHz all core, default RAM clock CPU: Ryzen 5 2600 CPU OC: 3.9 GHz all core Memory: 16GB DDR4-3000 MHz Dual Memory timings: CL16-18-18-38 GPU: Nvidia Geforce GTX 1060Ti 6GB CPU OC to 3.9 GHz all core, SMT OFF, default RAM clock CPU: Ryzen 5 2600 CPU OC: 3.9 GHz all core Memory: 16GB DDR4-3000 MHz Dual Memory timings: CL16-18-18-38 GPU: Nvidia Geforce GTX 1060Ti 6GB CPU OC to 3.9 GHz all core, SMT ON, RAM OC to 3133 MHz CPU: Ryzen 5 2600 CPU OC: 3.9 GHz all core Memory: 16GB DDR4-3133 MHz Dual Memory timings: CL16-18-18-38 GPU: Nvidia Geforce GTX 1060Ti 6GB As you can see, I did actually gain a few fps by turning off SMT. Would I consider running without SMT? Absolutely not. The gain is marginal at best, bordering on margin of error, and this is a single threaded synthetic benchmark. As soon as more stuff is running in the background, I'm pretty sure the advantage would quickly disappear. Also, I did some additional tests because I was curious, all with my normal config (so all-core OC 3.9 GHz, SMT on, DDR4-3000): Running the test in fullscreen: FPS: 253.2 Score: 6378 Min FPS: 38.0 Max FPS: 466.9 Running in fullscreen with fullscreen optimizations disabled: FPS: 248.3 Score: 6256 Min FPS: 32.7 Max FPS: 485.6 Running in fullscreen without MSI Afterburner (which was active during all of my runs): FPS: 253.3 Score: 6380 Min FPS: 38.2 Max FPS: 480.0
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 1600x CPU OC: stock Memory: 16GB DDR4-2933 MHz Dual Memory timings: CL16-16-16-35 GPU: AMD R9 Nano
No it was set wrong. If you did read a couple of post ahead you could read that thomas pointed me to this. So I altered the settings in the Bios and the results you see on, https://forum.sector3studios.com/in...cpu-benchmark-thread.13473/page-2#post-183416
New result with G-sync disabled and CPU OC'ed CPU: Intel i7 9700K CPU OC: 5.0 GHz Memory: 16GB DDR4-3200 MHz Dual Memory timings: CL17-18-18-36 GPU: Asus ROG Strix RTX 2080Ti OC
Here's one to populate the lower end of the table: CPU: AMD FX-6300 CPU OC: Stock Memory: 8GB DDR3-1600 MHz Dual Memory timings: CL11-11-11-28 GPU: Nvidia Geforce GTX 1050 Interestingly, I'm getting much lower values than StepUnique with the same GFX card and a similar CPU(FX-6300 and i5-2500 get very similar benchmark results) in stock conditions. My RAM is slightly faster though but his overclocked CPU is making all the difference it seems...
I have i5-2500 (non K version), which cannot be overclocked. Technically I can add 100 Mhz in BIOS, but that's it, no interest really. The frequency variation from 3.3 to 3.6 Ghz here is the stock turboboost feature. Maybe I should've been more precise on that. UPD. Just looked your screens once more, you're on Win7, whereas I'm on Win10. That could also be the source of the difference.
GPU doesn't really matter in this test (or at least it shouldn't), and while the multithreaded performance of the two CPUs is kinda similar (with the FX possibly even being faster), the single-threaded performance of the i5 2500 is noticeably higher, and that's all that matters in this single-threaded test. It's the same story like with my R5 2600 - it would likely beat quite a few of the Intel CPUs tested here in a fully multi-threaded test, and yet look at the results in this specific test...
Im competitive so tried for 5.1Ghz that used to be stable on 1809 but could only get 5.0GHz on 1903, so here is my new score CPU: Intel 7700k CPU OC: 5.0 GHz Memory: 16GB DDR4 3000MHz Dual Memory timings: CL15-15-15-35 GPU: Galax GTX 1080Ti EXOC