Discussion in 'PC Industry' started by fellix, Oct 20, 2014.
How much is that?
Beating 5960x, 7900x, 6950x in Ashes and getting that #1 spot (just barely, but hey, i'll take it), not bad for a $300 CPU: http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/ladders/benchmark/overall/Medium_1080p
This is a CPU/memory benchmark for the most part, didn't expect to beat all the extreme i7s and i9s CPUs to be honest
At 1440P, on the 4770K with it would have drops to the mid 40's, now never below 60.
I guess I am assuming its the memory, and not Ryzen, have not tried lower speeds.
I think my PC components for 2018, in addition to a new GPU, will be a CLC for my Ryzen and some Samsung b-die C15 3600 RAM.
It would be worth a quick bench, methinks, but either way it's very interesting.
I was looking at Kyle's waterblock article for Threadripper, on the last page he has images of AM4 cooling with the same blocks.
I don't know if he is just trying to see how many watts he can push it to or what? I can run the same test and have a peak power draw of 133 watts on CPU core power, no where near the 222 he is getting.
EDIT: I am using an H110i for cooling
Dota 2 with Vulkan ram speed difference in fps:
2666 auto timings
3466 C14 optimized
I will join Clukos and show CS:GO at 2560x1440 max. on Vega56 with my Ryzen 1700 @4GHz
DDR2666 Auto 14-14-14-34-48 1T:
DDR3200 Optimized 14-14-14-28-42 1T:
As it was live game, FPS fluctuated, ranges were:
2666Auto: 160 to 250FPS (average 220FPS)
3200Optimized: 248-310FPS (average 275FPS)
Productivity app. gains:
3200 Optimized subtimings:
Just to show it is not only games which benefit from fast memory and tight subtimings
Even OpenGL apps like CEMU (emulator) which rely heavily on single threaded performance see gains:
Just tried at the same speed ram of my 4770K, which was only 1600 CAS9. The short time I played I saw dips as low as 50.
Also seems to be what causes stutter on the animation in the games main load screen.
As long as the CPUs are good value - who cares
At the same voltages? Strange, you'd be ~25% below TDP on full-core load with raised OC-voltages. Sure of that? I reach TR's TDP in non-OC'ed conditions already.
No, vcore at 1.356, llc at level 3
That was my point, is that voltage nesesary?
3.9Ghz at 1.440v? Not that I've seen, though he could have a really bad 1700, or he just isn't that familiar with Ryzen OC optimization.
True, I've seen far less volts for 3,8-3,9 GHz, also for TR.
Maybe he wanted to test the waterblocks instead of the CPUs and put artificially high voltage on the cores in order to create more of a challenge?
Putting Agner Fog's findings to the test: http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=838
1 core + 1 smt thread (in the same core), Cinebench + CPU-Z test run:
Same scores that a 7600K is getting at 5.2 GHz (without HT). I'm pretty sure it beats pretty much everything when 1 core + 1 smt thread is taken into account clock for clock.
Same benchmarks on i7-6800K @ 4GHz, single core + HT:
CB15 -- 331
CPUZ -- 340
Your CB15 score is too high and CPU-Z too low Are you sure you are doing this correctly? Setting up Cinebench R15 can be a pain because if you set it to 2 threads it selects two cores instead of 1 core and 1 smt thread. So you have to set affinity manually the moment cinebench starts. CPU-Z is easier to work with, just set core 0/1, or 2/3, 3/4 etc. before starting the benchmark and hit stress test.
I set the processor affinity manually for both applications.
CPUZ behaves weird and does produce lower result with two thread selected in the app, so I left it now by default (12 threads) and the result is 608 while still sticking to the CPU affinity mask.
Cinebench is resetting the affinity each time you press run (just a quirk of the program) so you have to set the affinity after you press run (I just have the windows open with affinity set and press ok after I hit run) 608 for CPU-Z is the expected result just a bit behind the 625 that I'm getting at 4.0 GHz
Re-run, this time without Chrome in the background, Core 0 + 1: