# (RETIRED) Sticky: Official CPU-Z Benchmark Thread



## Darren

* CPU-Z Benchmark Thread*​
This thread is dedicated to the CPU-Z benchmark to encourage some friendly competition among our members. Anyone may share their results, but to be included in the leaderboard you must have at least 50 posts. I've included a leaderboard of overall results as well as being broken down into desktops and laptops. I know other CPU benchmark threads exist on here but they're somewhat out of date at this point.

I've opted for CPU-Z as my benchmarking tool because it's extremely quick to run, seems to scale well, and is built into software most of us already have. It is my benchmark and stress test of choice for overclocking as I can test stability quickly and easily. It's not the most hardcore benchmark around, but definitely the most usable for getting quick results.

*7/4/18 Update: These results are using CPU-Z Benchmark Version 17.01.64
Please ensure you are on this version of the benchmark. If you're not the latest CPU-Z version should have it. Since I only have results for Desktops currently I will only post that. Once I get a few laptop runs I will make a graph for that as well as a combined one. *

Grab CPU-Z from here. http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html

*Note: CPU-Z scores are noticeably impacted by programs running in the background like Steam, Skype, etc. Please shut down anything non essential when benching to ensure maximum results. *

To post your results please include the following in a screenshot. Open multiple instances of CPU-Z to make this easier.

Example:

 

CPU-Z benchmark results
CPU-Z CPU tab
Notepad with your CoFo username, date, and system info (if you want) beyond what CPU-Z already shows.


Rules

Anyone may submit their results but only members with 50 posts or more will be listed in the leaderboard. I will do my best to keep it up to date and accurate.
Please do not post multiple results of the same machine at the same clocks. Run it a few times and save your best. Multiple runs at different clock speeds is fine.
There are no requirements on stability/temperatures. If CPU-Z runs, you're good. I have noticed that CPU-Z dips pretty hard if you're not stable. That said, please don't melt your computer on my account. 
Clock speeds noted on the leaderboards are for manually overclocked chips. If a clock speed isn't listed it's the default clocks for that chip. 
For simplicity I've rounded off the decimals on the scores. 


*Results

 

*
Happy benching!


----------



## beers

Someone is excited about new overclocking heights


----------



## Darren

beers said:


> Someone is excited about new overclocking heights


I've felt we needed a new CPU bench thread for a while anyway. *shrug*

But yeah. Woo H100.


----------



## Laquer Head

I'm not even running an OC right now, but maybe I'll juice er and post up tomorrow


----------



## beers

Darren said:


> CPU-Z CPU tab
> 
> CPU-Z Memory tab


I don't see your memory tab, sir


----------



## beers

Seems pretty integer specific, still slightly behind at the same clocks:


----------



## Intel_man

I remember doing that benchmark test awhile back. I get around the 10k score on the multithread section @ 4.5ghz. Perks of having 12 threads. 

I'll run my cpu at those frequencies later.


----------



## Darren

beers said:


> Seems pretty integer specific, still slightly behind at the same clocks:


I'm curious how our chips stack up in other multi-threaded benches. I'd definitely expect you to blow me out of the water.


beers said:


> I don't see your memory tab, sir


Balls. Forgot to change the tab. Worst OP ever.


----------



## beers

Darren said:


> I'm curious how our chips stack up in other multi-threaded benches.


Any suggestions?  Cinebench would be a bad choice for you


----------



## beers

Check out this completely oversubscribed server at Cloudatcost  =\


----------



## Intel_man

Get on my laptop's level!


----------



## _Glitch

Didn't know that CPU-Z had a benchmark feature. That must be new.
I'll try that when i get home. Mine is currently not overclocked, but i think i'll apply my old overclock, just for this test.


----------



## _Glitch

I see we have a laptop result here.
Maybe we can have both a laptop leaderboard and a desktop leaderboard .
Here is my work Laptop. I beat you Intel_Man 

I'll benchmark my Gaming Rig when i get home.


----------



## beers

_Glitch said:


> Here is my work Laptop. I beat you Intel_Man


A laptop throwdown, eh?  Waiting for the HQ ones to lay down the rape


----------



## _Glitch

Damnit Beers.


----------



## _Glitch

Ok. Here is my desktop computer.
I have the same CPU as you beers (I7-4770k), but the score is still a little bit lower. I can't get it stable at 4,6ghz. Keeps reaching CPU termal limit. So i had to settled at 4,5ghz (Wound't trust this OC for a gaming session though)
My CPU cooler isn't a high performing one. I prioritize low noise over cooling performance.


----------



## Darren

Looks like I better get crackin' on a leaderboard after work.


----------



## Intel_man

First past the 10k line!


----------



## Shlouski

I tried using cpu-z to measure performance gains, but I abandoned it for being unreliable and inconstant, due to irregular results. I have tried cpu-z on a few different platforms and I have found large fluctuations in scores while ensuring that all variables remained the same.  

Both test were done with no other programs open or running and at 0% cpu activity when they were started:


----------



## beers

Shlouski said:


> I tried using cpu-z to measure performance gains, but I abandoned it for being unreliable and inconstant, due to irregular results.


What's more scary is you using a 7870K with single channel, 1600 CL11 RAM


----------



## Shlouski

beers said:


> What's more scary is you using a 7870K with single channel, 1600 CL11 RAM



Well I am using a dedicated GPU. I had the ram at 1866 CL11 for some comparison benchmarks and it only made a miniscule difference and it also did have 2x 8gb sticks, but one was removed for another build, this stick has not been replaced because running on one stick has had little to no effect on any of my benchmark scores.


----------



## Intel_man

_Glitch said:


> I can't get it stable at 4,6ghz. Keeps reaching CPU termal limit.


Try disabling C states when doing high overclocks. You might get a bit more stability out of that.


----------



## _Glitch

Thanks. But will that help with the tempratures? 
Might try it if i need another benchmark run. For now i am happy with my pathetic 100mzh overclock 
My cooler isn't up for overclocking. But damn, is it quiet.


----------



## beers

_Glitch said:


> Thanks. But will that help with the tempratures?


I think the TIM is a larger factor in heat for these.  You get instant spikes up to 70-80+ C within a second or two so it doesn't propagate to the cooler effectively.


----------



## beers

BEHOLD! Here's a Win10 VM inside of an AM1 5350 ESXi 5.5 host:


----------



## Darren

I've removed the memory tab requirement since you guys are a bunch of rebels. Let me know if there are any changes or suggestions for the leaderboards. My Excel skills are rough at best. Keep 'em coming guys, I'll do my best to stay on top of it.


----------



## Darren

As dead as this, I'd like to submit for sticky approval. @johnb35 I've adjusted the rules slightly.


----------



## Darren

Ran my 8320 at bone stock settings. Reset BIOS to defaults and ran with it. Pretty amazing how much my overclock has an impact on my multi score.

 

Edit: And this is the best I've gotten yet. I did run it at 4.8GHz and scored 9100ish but kept crashing before I could screenshot. This is 4.7GHz and an even higher score.

*cough* @beers multi *cough*


----------



## beers

Tried doing a suicide run with this Sempron 145.  Couldn't even eke out another 50 MHz even with 1.75v.  Seems about the limit:


----------



## Calin

4.7 for now, 4.8 takes too much voltage


----------



## Darren

Couldn't crop that could ya?


----------



## Calin

Darren said:


> Couldn't crop that could ya?


Happy?


----------



## Deadpool

There! How did you get such high scores on that 8320?


----------



## Darren

Deadpool said:


> There! How did you get such high scores on that 8320?



You should definitely be scoring higher than that. Likely my power settings and RAM settings have an effect. Power settings hit your scores pretty hard. I have absolutely everything I can off. That voltage seems kinda low for that speed too, might be throttling due to VCore droop.


----------



## Deadpool

Darren said:


> You should definitely be scoring higher than that. Likely my power settings and RAM settings have an effect. Power settings hit your scores pretty hard. I have absolutely everything I can off. That voltage seems kinda low for that speed too, might be throttling due to VCore droop.



Tried disabling power saving features and didn´t change a bit. Going to up the Voltage and see what happens!


----------



## Calin

@Deadpool Are you running any programs in the background?
BTW, here's my secondary rig's FX 8350. All stock settings in the BIOS. Shows 4.2 because of the turbo mode. 




And @Darren , mind updating the leaderboards if you have time?


----------



## Darren

Yeah it's on my to do list.


----------



## WeatherMan




----------



## Darren

Updated, anyone else got some scores?


----------



## Intel_man

Darren said:


> Updated, anyone else got some scores?


Not until I get dethroned in the multi-thread category.


----------



## Darren

Intel_man said:


> Not until I get dethroned in the multi-thread category.


@Calin probably could scrape by you, don't encourage him.


----------



## Intel_man

Its ok, it turns out my zalman cooler was in quiet mode all along. If I remove the transistor regulating the speed and allow it to run at max speed, my proc can run higher than 4.6 without blowing up.


----------



## Calin

Darren said:


> @Calin probably could scrape by you, don't encourage him.


There you go. He might overtake me again but that will change when I get my hands on a 8c/16t Ryzen chip  And thanks for updating. Can't run at 4.8 24/7 because of temps


----------



## YourDigitalJester

i seriously need to overclock this deal, inside my VM im close to the leaderboard, i need to find a linux benchmarker or quit being a lazy ass and install windows 10 on my second hard drive


----------



## Darren

Updated, @Calin takes the Multithreaded lead.


----------



## _Glitch

I am a lucky guy. I get a new laptop every year from work. I have worked at this school for 4 years, and i have had 4 different laptops.
When we get a new shipment of laptops i try to get the new laptops out to the teachers and swap their older laptops and use them as student laptops.
But i am the first one to get one of the new laptops. I am the tech-supporter after all. So that's a perk i have.
Anyway. This time the upgrade isn't very huge. It's just going from the Dell Latitude E5550 to the E5570.
But still, that did result in a better benchmark score. So here it is:



adult image


----------



## Laquer Head

Darren said:


> Updated, @Calin takes the Multithreaded lead.


HAHA @Intel_man


----------



## Intel_man

Don't worry, I'll get back up there. Been busy with school.


----------



## YourDigitalJester

Ive got the worse of beers' two beat. Intel i7 960 Quad Core @ Stock
ill be pushing a lot higher, my cooling is holding me back > : )


----------



## Intel_man

Annddd just like that I'm back on top.


----------



## Calin

@Intel_man


----------



## Intel_man




----------



## Darren

In B4 explosions from trying to 1 up each other.


----------



## Calin

Intel_man said:


>


You got me, I can't get 5GHz stable enough. If I manage to get into Windows it thermal throttles, if I bump up the voltage I get over voltage warnings from my motherboard, not willing to take the risk.


----------



## C4C

2335 & 8846 at 4.6GHz https://i.gyazo.com/eccf72e48a971d4cc2e0d21665c928b4.png
2386 & 9278 at 4.7GHz https://i.gyazo.com/6675755f42828f025d1765f08149ef01.png

_I'm itching to try for 4.8GHz but.... _I won't. Never done it, doubt it will post. I mean at 4.7GHz stress testing with Prime95 was failing after 15 mins..

Edit 1: Just hit 9312 on the multi-thread right after posting these results. About to try 4.8GHz and see if it posts at 1.45V.

Edit 2: *2435 & 9485 @4.8GHz*

I think that's a single-threaded winner isn't it?  @Intel_man @Calin


----------



## Darren

Ya'll in for a world of hurt on Thursday.

https://www.computerforum.com/threa...ased-items-thread.70124/page-929#post-2034247


----------



## beers

Do you break the meter if you go over 20k?


----------



## Intel_man

Apparently not. Dual xeon setup. It just max'd the bar.


----------



## C4C

Darren said:


> Ya'll in for a world of hurt on Thursday.
> 
> https://www.computerforum.com/threa...ased-items-thread.70124/page-929#post-2034247



But will it take over the single-threaded title?


----------



## Darren

C4C said:


> But will it take over the single-threaded title?


Lol nope.


----------



## Darren

beers said:


> Do you break the meter if you go over 20k?


Can confirm the bar just maxes out. This is just my first boot, didn't even reinstall Windows and haven't updated BIOS or anything. Gawddd damn that multi.


----------



## Deadpool

Darren said:


> Can confirm the bar just maxes out. This is just my first boot, didn't even reinstall Windows and haven't updated BIOS or anything. Gawddd damn that multi.
> 
> View attachment 8029



That´s double the results from an 8350. I´d say AMD improved quite a bit. What the hell is that Voltage tho?


----------



## Darren

I'm just running at stock so that's all the random power saving stuff kicking it. Highest voltage I'm seeing is 1.272 at stock. I don't seem to have a CPU specific temp sensor in HWMonitor but it looks like I'm only hitting 31oC on my socket temp, and if the other temp sensor I see is the CPU it's hitting 41oC under full load.


----------



## Calin

Darren said:


> Can confirm the bar just maxes out. This is just my first boot, didn't even reinstall Windows and haven't updated BIOS or anything. Gawddd damn that multi.
> 
> View attachment 8029


Your Ryzen chip blows the doors off my 6700k in the multithreaded test and doesn't lose by that much in the single threaded test and people give me shit for wanting to upgrade to Ryzen...


----------



## Darren

Calin said:


> Your Ryzen chip blows the doors off my 6700k in the multithreaded test and doesn't lose by that much in the single threaded test and people give me shit for wanting to upgrade to Ryzen...



I really wonder what it'll be once I bump up to 3.9-4.0GHz. At work right now and my BIOS update wasn't working earlier so I haven't done anything but all stock yet.


----------



## Intel_man

Darren said:


> I really wonder what it'll be once I bump up to 3.9-4.0GHz.


Perhaps it'll be space heater 2.0?


----------



## Darren

Intel_man said:


> Perhaps it'll be space heater 2.0?


Its TDP is half my 8320...? I've not cracked 40oC on the 1700 yet if I'm interpreting HWMonitor correctly.I've seen people get to 3.9GHz on the Wraith cooler even, although running pretty warm. If my H100 can keep my 8320 under control this chip should be no problem whatsoever.

My 390 has that department covered anyway.

Of note, it did crack 16K on multi just running as a stress, so there's definitely some overhead I can work with yet.


----------



## Intel_man

Darren said:


> My 390 has that department covered anyway


Time to upgrade that as well to the 1080ti.


----------



## Darren

Intel_man said:


> Time to upgrade that as well to the 1080ti.


I don't ever see myself buying an Nvidia product honestly.

Besides my bank account is smarting still.


----------



## Intel_man

Darren said:


> I don't ever see myself buying an Nvidia product honestly.
> 
> Besides my bank account is smarting still.


But the 1080ti is an absolute monster.


----------



## Darren

Intel_man said:


> But the 1080ti is an absolute monster.


Hell yeah it is but I don't need it even remotely.


----------



## Intel_man

Darren said:


> Hell yeah it is but I don't need it even remotely.


There is never too much performance. never.


----------



## beers

Intel_man said:


> There is never too much performance. never.


When you have to live in a cardboard box to afford it, these are the too much performance scenarios.


----------



## Intel_man

beers said:


> When you have to live in a cardboard box to afford it, these are the too much performance scenarios.


----------



## _Glitch

The OP graph needs a new edit soon.


----------



## Darren

_Glitch said:


> The OP graph needs a new edit soon.


Yes it's on my list. Been working a lot, off the next 2 days.


----------



## Calin

_Glitch said:


> The OP graph needs a new edit soon.


I think @Darren want to OC his Ryzen chip first then update it


----------



## lucasbytegenius

Darren said:


> Can confirm the bar just maxes out. This is just my first boot, didn't even reinstall Windows and haven't updated BIOS or anything. Gawddd damn that multi.
> 
> View attachment 8029


Here's my 8320 for comparison.








Man I can't wait for my cooler to get here Tuesday so I can complete my Ryzen build.


----------



## Deadpool

Boom. Beat that


----------



## JLuchinski

Why not....


----------



## Darren

Will update tonight.


----------



## Darren

Fresh install of Win10 and BIOS update bumped me up considerably, CPU-Z was out of date too it looks like. Running at lower RAM, about to try overclock.


----------



## beers

Ramp up the RAM you vagina.


----------



## Darren

One thing at a time. Definitely gonna break 4.0GHz and 20K points but this is what I got to tonight. Stock voltage, doesn't run stable and probably will bench higher with better voltage but HWMonitor doesn't give me good readings. I'll fine tune it tomorrow and try my RAM but just goes to show that these chips clock easily within a couple hundred MHz of the 1700/1800X's and bench like crazy. I don't have Office installed so graphs will come tomorrow. Looks like there's going to be some shuffling near the top. 





C4C said:


> But will it take over the single-threaded title?





Darren said:


> Lol nope.



Maybe...


----------



## C4C

Darren said:


> Maybe...



Oh please don't I wanna be #1


----------



## Darren

C4C said:


> Oh please don't I wanna be #1


I did up the graphs but didn't have time to post them before work. You're at the top right now.


----------



## Darren

Updated.

RIP Intel.


----------



## Laquer Head

Darren said:


> Updated.
> 
> RIP Intel.



:/


----------



## beers

Laquer Head said:


> :/


If you had someone's 4770k you could laugh at his small gaming-performance wiener.


----------



## Intel_man

beers said:


> If you had someone's 4770k you could laugh at his small gaming-performance wiener.


I'm pretty sure he's still laughing at @Darren's R9 390 with his 1080.


----------



## beers

10k FX anyone?


----------



## Laquer Head

beers said:


> If you had someone's 4770k you could laugh at his small gaming-performance wiener.


Bad influence...


Intel_man said:


> I'm pretty sure he's still laughing at @Darren's R9 390 with his 1080.


Trying to get me in shit...


----------



## Intel_man

Laquer Head said:


> Trying to get me in shit...


Always. That's what I do best.


----------



## Darren

Laquer Head said:


> Bad influence...
> 
> Trying to get me in shit...


Yeah dude I'm gonna get you in trouble for having a better GPU.

If I had a 1080 I'd be laughing at 390 owners too.


----------



## Laquer Head

I got my 4K settings dialed in for GTA Online and it looks and plays tremendously well..


----------



## Intel_man

Darren said:


> Yeah dude I'm gonna get you in trouble for having a better GPU.


Bwuahaha... BAN HIM! 


Darren said:


> If I had a 1080 I'd be laughing at 390 owners too.


More reason to buy a 1080 ti right?


----------



## Laquer Head

Intel_man said:


> Bwuahaha... BAN HIM!
> 
> More reason to buy a 1080 ti right?



Already on it....


----------



## Intel_man

Laquer Head said:


> Already on it....


on buying the 1080 ti? 

Are you going to buy 2 to fill up the empty space in your case?


----------



## Laquer Head

Yeah, I know someone that needs a vid card so, Santa Laquer is bringing xmas early..

Waiting on some 3rd party vendor cards obviously..


----------



## Intel_man

Laquer Head said:


> Yeah, I know someone that needs a vid card so, Santa Laquer is bringing xmas early..


I need a video card too...


----------



## Laquer Head

You already have that toastser of a 1080 though...

no sympathy, you all shit on me for wanting to upgrade mobo and stuff..so f - it I'm going to get a new GPU.


----------



## Intel_man

Laquer Head said:


> You already have that toastser of a 1080 though...


Meh, it turns out the cause of the fires on the ACX cards were due to a bad batch of caps. 



Laquer Head said:


> no sympathy, you all shit on me for wanting to upgrade mobo and stuff..so f - it I'm going to get a new GPU.


LOL.... but I need to fill the empty space in my case.


----------



## Darren

Yo. CPU-Z thread, not 1080 thread. <3


----------



## C4C

Darren said:


> You're at the top right now.



Let's disregard the fact that my computer almost destroyed itself. If you're not first, you're last. 

That being said I've previously been an AMD fan and this was my first Intel build. New respect for Intel tbh... Ryzen seems to be doing VERY well from what AMD has promised, and I really wanna see these Ryzen R5's hit the market for some real Core i5 competition...


----------



## Darren

C4C said:


> Let's disregard the fact that my computer almost destroyed itself. If you're not first, you're last.
> 
> That being said I've previously been an AMD fan and this was my first Intel build. New respect for Intel tbh... Ryzen seems to be doing VERY well from what AMD has promised, and I really wanna see these Ryzen R5's hit the market for some real Core i5 competition...


The R7's are awesome for their price/performance in multithreaded stuff but the R5's are going to be the true test. Priced to compete with i5's while offering the same or 50% more cores and also multithreading. I'm just afraid they're going to hit a clock speed wall pretty hard like the R7's did. Since i5's are usually gaming focused they likely will still win in this department.


----------



## Intel_man

It's going to be interesting to see how Cannonlake performs. It's a die shrink of Kaby Lake, so I suspect that the clock speeds are going to be even higher.


----------



## Darren

Intel_man said:


> It's going to be interesting to see how Cannonlake performs. It's a die shrink of Kaby Lake, so I suspect that the clock speeds are going to be even higher.


I miss my 4.6GHz sometimes... I love this new CPU but I can't say I'm not a little disappointed in overclocking potential. If Kaby Lake is hitting 5.0GHz pretty regularly CannonLake is gonna be crazy.


----------



## Laquer Head

Darren said:


> I miss my 4.6GHz sometimes... I love this new CPU but I can't say I'm not a little disappointed in overclocking potential. If Kaby Lake is hitting 5.0GHz pretty regularly CannonLake is gonna be crazy.



Are the Ryzen cpu with the X designation better overclockers? I think I saw 1700X and 1800X??


----------



## C4C

Darren said:


> I miss my 4.6GHz sometimes... I love this new CPU but I can't say I'm not a little disappointed in overclocking potential. If Kaby Lake is hitting 5.0GHz pretty regularly CannonLake is gonna be crazy.



I mean my Skylake will run 4.6-4.7GHz stable, and there's quite a few people running 4.8GHz+ in the winning chip lotto..

I really can't wait to see what the future holds. My little brother is running a FX-6300 build right now. I'm _actually_ getting a real job too so I should be able to upgrade later this year to satisfy my want of a micro-atx build. Might give him my current rig if that happens.


----------



## Darren

Laquer Head said:


> Are the Ryzen cpu with the X designation better overclockers? I think I saw 1700X and 1800X??


In theory the more expensive chips should clock better from binning. The 1700X and 1800X are 95w TDP and the 1700 is 65w. From what I've seen and the general consensus is that all 3 can usually hit 4.0 without much trouble. The 1800x in particular can clock 1-200MHz higher than the other 2 but you're basically just paying for better odds in the silicon lottery. Pretty much all 3 are guaranteed to hit 3.8GHz minimum and the 1800X usually can do 4.1 or so. This is the exact reason I didn't wait for R5 as it seemed pointless to sacrifice cores with no major uptick in clock speed. 

Now if only I could overclock the damn thing without my memory noping out.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

1700X stock, RAM 2933Mhz.


----------



## beers

> Core Voltage 1.504


Hopefully that's a bug


----------



## Intel_man

Seems like there's a bunch of bugs on how any of the values are being read right now.


----------



## Darren

beers said:


> Hopefully that's a bug


Dear God I hope so. CPU-Z still tells me I'm at .6ish for my VCore, think it's reading half it's actual value. HWMonitor reports the same.


----------



## beers

Intel_man said:


> Seems like there's a bunch of bugs on how any of the values are being read right now.


It might explain his 50-60C idle though lol


----------



## lucasbytegenius

OC'd it to 4 GHz.







Idk what's up with my voltage. Motherboard says the same and it came configured like that. Going to try lowering the voltage.


----------



## Calin

Looks like there is a typo in the leaderboards. It says I have an i6


----------



## Darren

Calin said:


> Looks like there is a typo in the leaderboards. It says I have an i6


Yeah I saw that right after but figured I'd fix it next update.

@lucasbytegenius I'm coming for ya tomorrow.


----------



## Darren

Could do with some tweaks but looks like 4.0 is doable on my 1700.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

@Darren So close yet so far


----------



## Darren

lucasbytegenius said:


> @Darren So close yet so far


I tried 4.1 and it couldn't even boot into Windows and then kept crashing the BIOS so fast I couldn't change it back. Had to CMOS reset. 

Think I'll stick with 4.0 for now.


----------



## C4C

Darren said:


> I tried 4.1 and it couldn't even boot into Windows and then kept crashing the BIOS so fast I couldn't change it back. Had to CMOS reset.
> 
> Think I'll stick with 4.0 for now.



YESSSSS. My record is safe!

That's awesome that it's pushing out that performance at that clock speed. Surprised that even your 1700 doesn't wanna clock up any more..


----------



## Deadpool

Well it did better than I expected... Still a lot worse than the average bench. Should be 1150 (s) and 3600(m). That thing is way too old.


----------



## MisterEd

lucasbytegenius said:


> 1700X stock, RAM 2933Mhz.


You said 1700X stock. I have 1700X stock but my Core Speed is lower. What's the difference?
Also, RAM 16GB (2x8GB) 2600 MHz @2133 MHz.


image hosting site


----------



## lucasbytegenius

MisterEd said:


> You said 1700X stock. I have 1700X stock but my Core Speed is lower. What's the difference?
> Also, RAM 16GB (2x8GB) 2600 MHz @2133 MHz.


I think XFR (enabled by default) was kicking in in my tests, giving me 300Mhz above the stock speed. I see it affecting your clock too, you're at 100Mhz above stock speed of 3400Mhz.

New score, 4.1GHz stable, crashed if I tried anything even 25Mhz above that. I don't want to run it at 1.515v all the time though even though XFR kicks it up there sometimes in the default state. Probably going to stick with 4.0GHz and under 1.4v if I can make it work.


----------



## MisterEd

lucasbytegenius said:


> I think XFR (enabled by default) was kicking in in my tests, giving me 300Mhz above the stock speed. I see it affecting your clock too, you're at 100Mhz above stock speed of 3400Mhz....


1700X specs: Base  3.4GHz, Turbo 3.8GHz, XFR 3.8GHz+. At the default system configuration XFR allows the 1700X will go higher than 3.8GHz if it thinks it can safely do so. 

Normally my 1700X bounces between 2195.55 MHz (x22) and 3492.92 MHz (x35). That is because of the "balanced" power setting I am using. Occasionally it will jump up to 3892.11 MHz (x39).

I think your 1700X is clocking a little higher than mine because you have a better cooler. You have a H110i while I only have a H60.


----------



## Darren

MisterEd said:


> 1700X specs: Base  3.4GHz, Turbo 3.8GHz, XFR 3.8GHz+. At the default system configuration XFR allows the 1700X will go higher than 3.8GHz if it thinks it can safely do so.
> 
> Normally my 1700X bounces between 2195.55 MHz (x22) and 3492.92 MHz (x35). That is because of the "balanced" power setting I am using. Occasionally it will jump up to 3892.11 MHz (x39).
> 
> I think your 1700X is clocking a little higher than mine because you have a better cooler. You have a H110i while I only have a H60.



You should definitely be doing better than that. Your scoring lower than me at stock clocks, which just flat isn't right. Are you on a clean install of Windows, basically a requirement for new motherboard and CPU platforms.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

MisterEd said:


> 1700X specs: Base  3.4GHz, Turbo 3.8GHz, XFR 3.8GHz+. At the default system configuration XFR allows the 1700X will go higher than 3.8GHz if it thinks it can safely do so.
> 
> Normally my 1700X bounces between 2195.55 MHz (x22) and 3492.92 MHz (x35). That is because of the "balanced" power setting I am using. Occasionally it will jump up to 3892.11 MHz (x39).
> 
> I think your 1700X is clocking a little higher than mine because you have a better cooler. You have a H110i while I only have a H60.


Don't use Balanced, use High Performance. Balanced parks your cores.

And yeah I bet my cooler has a small part to play in it  I had to buy a new case to fit this massive thing, and it barely fits in my new case (S340). that's what she said


----------



## MisterEd

Darren said:


> You should definitely be doing better than that. Your scoring lower than me at stock clocks, which just flat isn't right. Are you on a clean install of Windows, basically a requirement for new motherboard and CPU platforms.


I installed Windows 10 Pro from a USB flash drive to a SSD drive (NVME M.2). This is my first Windows 10 build.

I experimented with setting the multiplier manually and then letting TPU configure things. Using TPU resulted in a lower clock speed but I got a higher Bench score with CPU-Z. I noticed that my Single Thread score (2393 vs 2367) is similar to yours but my Multi Thread is lower 16180 vs 20427). Also my Multi Thread Ratio is lower ( 7.76 vs 8.63). Do you think your better cooling is making a difference? Your RAM is faster but I would not think that would make a difference with a CPU test. 
=======================
Set in BIOS
Custom CPU Core Ratio: Manual
TPU: Keep Current Settings
CPU Core Ratio: 40.0X
CPU Speed: 4000 MHz
-----------------------
CPU-Z CPU
Multiplier: 40X
Core Speed: 3992 MHz
CPU-Z Bench
CPU Single Thread: 2231
CPU Multi Thread: 15244
=======================
Set in BIOS
Custom CPU Core Ratio: Auto
TPU: TPU II
CPU Core Ratio: 38.25X
CPU Speed: 3825 MHz
-----------------------
CPU-Z CPU
Multiplier: 38.25
Core Speed: 3817 MHz
CPU-Z Bench
CPU Single Thread: 2393
CPU Multi Thread: 16180
=======================


----------



## MisterEd

I have a AMD Ryzen 1700X. After I ran the ran the Bench I selected Submit and Compare. The web browser opened with the results shown. Unfortunately this caused a hard crash on my computer. It took me several minutes to get the computer to boot again. Is the problem caused by CPU-Z being not fully compatible with Ryzen yet?


----------



## beers

Probably from this part:


> AMD Ryzen 1700X (@4.0GHz)


----------



## MisterEd

beers said:


> Probably from this part:


Could be but in my case no. It crashed even if I set the Ryzen 1700X to its default speed of of 3.4GHz.
It turned out that my default browser Firefox doesn't like the upload results page for CPU-Z. If I change the default browser to Internet Explorer then I have no problems opening that page with CPU-Z and viewing the results.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

beers said:


> Probably from this part:


I run my 1700X at 4GHz stable.


MisterEd said:


> my default browser Firefox


Here's your problem. Use Chrome.


----------



## Darren

Now that I have some stable RAM I got up to 3.9GHz at 20K points. Runs exact same voltage and temps from 3.6GHz to 3.9GHz, very odd scaling with these chips. Will update leaderboard within a day or two.


----------



## MisterEd

Darren said:


> Now that I have some stable RAM I got up to 3.9GHz at 20K points. Runs exact same voltage and temps from 3.6GHz to 3.9GHz, very odd scaling with these chips. Will update leaderboard within a day or two. View attachment 8130


I don't know if your 1700 will go any higher than 3.9GHz but my 1700X highest stable speed is 4.0GHz. It hard crashes 4.05GHz.

In your first post you said that "only members with 50 posts or more will be listed in the leaderboard". Does that mean a person has to upload a benchmark result 50 times before they are eligible to be on the leaderboard? If so then that would explain why my results have not shown up. BTW, why haven't any Ryzen results shown up on the CPU-Z leaderboard yet?


----------



## C4C

MisterEd said:


> I don't know if your 1700 will go any higher than 3.9GHz but my 1700X highest stable speed is 4.0GHz. It hard crashes 4.05GHz.
> 
> In your first post you said that "only members with 50 posts or more will be listed in the leaderboard". Does that mean a person has to upload a benchmark result 50 times before they are eligible to be on the leaderboard? If so then that would explain why my results have not shown up. BTW, why haven't any Ryzen results shown up on the CPU-Z leaderboard yet?



Darren has to manually update the leaderboards by making a new chart. You have 73 posts aka "Messages" so you are eligible to be posted when he updates it.


----------



## Darren

I'm just behind on it. It'll be up likely later tonight.


----------



## Richard200100




----------



## _Glitch

Ehhh.... ok. I see some of your specs, but you haven't completed the CPU-Z benchmark. You know, what this hole tread is about.

I can see this is your first post.  I'll say welcome to the forum. Glad to have you. But how about introducing yourself first.


----------



## MisterEd

Darren said:


> I'm just behind on it. It'll be up likely later tonight.


Still no Ryzen benchmark scores


----------



## beers

MisterEd said:


> Still no Ryzen benchmark scores


You're a ryzen benchmark score


----------



## Darren

It will be up TODAY, sorry for the delay. Might see if I can push into 4.0GHz territory before I post it but I am working on it right now. Been putting it off since my computer was pretty unstable on that other RAM I had. 

@MisterEd I don't seem to have a very good score from you (relative to other Ryzens) and your highest score isn't screenshotted. I'm going to put in your highest screenshot score from this post. Feel free to get an updated score posted as you should definitely score better than that.

https://www.computerforum.com/threa...z-benchmark-thread.240218/page-7#post-2035851


----------



## Darren

Updated, not much in the way of changes really. Anybody else got scores?


@lucasbytegenius

Sorry...

Actually who am I kidding no I'm not.  I seem to have gotten a REALLY good 1700 if I'm able to do 4.0GHz under 1.3 volts. The automatic voltage even goes up to 1.35 at stock settings.

I'm still using a borrowed RAM kit but did receive a new BIOS this week. Going to try my old sticks on this BIOS and if I still have trouble I'm selling them and getting something faster.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

@Darren Nice job, I think you got a really good chip. My automatic voltage goes up to 1.5+ and my overclocks aren't stable on anything below 1.38v. Maybe a new BIOS would help but 0504 for my ASUS Prime x370 Pro has some issues, so I'm stuck on 0502.


----------



## Darren

lucasbytegenius said:


> @Darren Nice job, I think you got a really good chip. My automatic voltage goes up to 1.5+ and my overclocks aren't stable on anything below 1.38v. Maybe a new BIOS would help but 0504 for my ASUS Prime x370 Pro has some issues, so I'm stuck on 0502.


How are your temps? Seems that regardless of my settings (except auto/stock), my CPU will get right up to 60oC. That 4.0 clock isn't totally stable but has zero issue running CPU-Z several times through. 3.9GHz is definitely rock solid at 1.275 though since I've been running that over a week now. 

Might need to reseat my H100 again, it has some metal gunk on the block that the previous owner decided not to clean off and it doesn't sit flat sometimes. *cough* @beers *cough*


----------



## beers

Darren said:


> *cough* @beers *cough*


I actually found a brillo pad that was included with the cooler.  Scrubbed the FX8350 with it, not only did it take off the metal chunks but also all of the stamped information on the heatspreader, leaving a nice mirror finish


----------



## lucasbytegenius

Darren said:


> How are your temps? Seems that regardless of my settings (except auto/stock), my CPU will get right up to 60oC. That 4.0 clock isn't totally stable but has zero issue running CPU-Z several times through. 3.9GHz is definitely rock solid at 1.275 though since I've been running that over a week now.


As far as I can tell with the offset I think the max they reach is 60c as well with my h110i, but they idle around 25c. Perfectly stable at 4.0GHz, but anything higher like 4.05GHz, even with insanely high voltages like 1.5v, is very unstable.


----------



## Darren

New CPU-Z version is out with an updated benchmark that has completely changed scoring. Sooo....


Guess this whole thread is now null and void until we get updated submissions. Looks like they scaled scores down a lot.


----------



## beers

Darren said:


> Looks like they scaled scores down a lot.


Eat it nerds:


----------



## Darren

Probably can do better. My RAM is stable at 2133MHz for sure and 2400MHz seems ok. Also spent way too much time organizing HWInfo's graphs but worth.


----------



## Intel_man

beers said:


> Eat it nerds:


Ok, I'll bite.


----------



## Darren

I feel like we're competing for the wrong thing here @Intel_man and @beers ...


----------



## MisterEd

I was running the 1700X at 4.0GHz. It was stable but the idle temps were 50-55C. If I had a better CPU cooler I would have stayed there so I compromised and settled on 3.8GHz. Now the idle temps are 40-45C.




upload photo
certificity.com



image hosting free no registrationcertificity.com


----------



## Calin

Finally got my hands on the 1800X today. Everything is at stock, I will try overclocking tomorrow because I spent the last 9 hours redoing my watercooling and stuff so I'm tired.


----------



## Darren

Calin said:


> Finally got my hands on the 1800X today. Everything is at stock, I will try overclocking tomorrow because I spent the last 9 hours redoing my watercooling and stuff so I'm tired.



If you have any questions about stuff let me know. I've been researching and tinkering pretty heavily the past several days and there's a lot of quirks and things I wish I'd known and didn't . 

My H100 pump is dying, rattling pretty bad now and temps don't seem to be as good as they used to be. Also still not 100% clear on what temp is the one I should be using for CPU and if the max is 75 or something else. Nice to see my 1700 locked at 3.8GHz can hang with an 1800x out of the box no problem. Pretty sure I can run 3.9GHz with some tweaks and 4.0GHz might be doable if I can keep it cool.


----------



## beers

Darren said:


> My H100 pump is dying, rattling pretty bad now and temps don't seem to be as good as they used to be




Have you straight molex'd the pump header?


----------



## Darren

beers said:


> Have you straight molex'd the pump header?


I completely redid that wiring setup as it quickly got to the point tapping on it only stopped it for a second. I originally just had the pump in the CPU fan header and 2 rad fans plugged into the block but the fans were usually maxed out anyway and couldn't control them. Rattling kept getting worse so I yanked the Molex for the pump that was directly to the PSU. Ended up piggy backing it off my side fan that's running from the board via 3 pin and had an extra Molex on it. Not sure if that's safe per say but seems to work. Side fan just stays maxed out and I can now control the radiator speed by adjusting that fan header. Interestingly it now pumps faster than before and if it starts to rattle I just need to change the speed within Windows and it'll quit. No idea how long this set up will work but it is for now.

Also my BIOS/fan software thinks my CPU temp is the socket temp so none of my fan curves were working as that reads 45 while my CPU is pushing 65. Tried to adjust them but it doesn't react fast enough and still jumps up there. Sometimes get random temp spikes at idle or a single click from the pump. Guessing it's got too much air in it. Wraith cooler to the rescue until I can afford a replacement.


----------



## Calin

Thanks @Darren
All I was able to get out of it was 3.9, a bit disappointed I admit, but it still blows my 6700k away. I also updated to the latest BIOS and I was able to get XMP to work and the RAM to run at 3000MHz


----------



## Virssagòn

Darren said:


> Probably can do better. My RAM is stable at 2133MHz for sure and 2400MHz seems ok. Also spent way too much time organizing HWInfo's graphs but worth.


Post

CPU-Z core voltage looks legit


----------



## Calin

Virssagòn said:


> CPU-Z core voltage looks legit


Yeah sometimes CPU-Z shows voltage readings that can't be true. For example, when I first booted up with the 1800x it showed 1.5v even though it was actually running somewhere around 1.25 in the BIOS.


----------



## Virssagòn

Here you go:






It's my 2-3 year old laptop, still not complaining..


----------



## Calin

I put the old 6700k in my secondary rig, so since the CPU-Z scoring has changed here's the score so that you have more submissions.
It's at stock but turbos up to 4.2. No further OC because 5$ cooler


----------



## Intel_man




----------



## Darren

Intel_man said:


>



Image only shows up when I quote it...?

I'll see if I have time this weekend to get it up to date, got finals next week though so might have to wait till after that.


----------



## Virssagòn

Ryzen 7 1700X @ 4.1GHz. I feel like I've still some headroom left as I'm running 60°c max without the T offset


----------



## Darren

This will get updated once I have my tower back up and running.


----------



## beers

Darren said:


> This will get updated once I have my tower back up and running.


The classic stall-until-you-can-get-#1 tactic I see


----------



## Darren

beers said:


> The classic stall-until-you-can-get-#1 tactic I see



Nah just don't feel like messing with spreadsheets on this dinky little 768p screen. I need my 1440p display to get good screenshots of the leaderboards. 

I don't think I'll ever beat that 1700X score @Virssagòn just threw down.


----------



## beers

Darren said:


> I don't think I'll ever beat that 1700X score @Virssagòn just threw down.


Just buy a dual socket Epyc, 64c/128t should get you there.


----------



## Virssagòn

Darren said:


> Nah just don't feel like messing with spreadsheets on this dinky little 768p screen. I need my 1440p display to get good screenshots of the leaderboards.
> 
> I don't think I'll ever beat that 1700X score @Virssagòn just threw down.



Seems like 4.15GHz is the golden number for me. I need more then 1.48V to run the chip stable at 4.2GHz; which is not a risk I want to take with a full 8core and just watercooling.


----------



## Intel_man

Dat single core performance though... holy.


----------



## beers

Intel_man said:


> Dat single core performance though... holy.


Wouldn't nearly all of that be attributed to the clock speed increase?


----------



## Darren

I hope that voltage isn't right or they're running LN2. Also thanks for the bump, desperately need to update this.


----------



## Intel_man

I'm not sure about the voltage. 4.4ghz shouldn't even be under LN2 scenarios. Turbo boost is suppose to go to 4.5 anyways.


----------



## Darren

Intel_man said:


> I'm not sure about the voltage. 4.4ghz shouldn't even be under LN2 scenarios. Turbo boost is suppose to go to 4.5 anyways.



CPU-Z has been doubling my CPU voltage the last couple versions so meh. I don't put much stock in it.


----------



## beers

Laquer Head said:


> And editing posts... nice glad you have the power to do what you feel like..


I edited out your f bombs, not sure why that would be remotely anything to be butt hurt about.

Enjoying the new rig?


----------



## Laquer Head

beers said:


> I edited out your f bombs, not sure why that would be remotely anything to be butt hurt about.
> 
> Enjoying the new rig?



Yeah its good thanks!


----------



## beers

Laquer Head said:


> Yeah its good thanks!


Have you tried anything beyond 5ghz?


----------



## Laquer Head

beers said:


> Have you tried anything beyond 5ghz?



Yup was running it at 5.2 for a bit last evening.. temps went up to the 80's  but I also need to play around with it more..this week is hell so I'm gonna have fun this weekend with the wife and play some games, overclock, and tweak some more settings..


----------



## beers

What's this look like these days for you fools?

I was excited that this new BIOS could push my RAM to 3200 so here's at 3.8 GHz:


----------



## Darren

Oh yeah this thread. 

I should update this...


----------



## _Glitch

Cool. Is this thread still alive. I got a new laptop.... again. I get a new one about every year from work.
Ill post my new laptop numbers soon. My PC is still the same. Just with a new graphic card and new ram. So no need to update that.


----------



## Calin

Darren said:


> Oh yeah this thread.
> 
> I should update this...


Yes please, I don't see my 1800x in the leaderboards...


----------



## beers

y u no update?  I want to flaunt my completely unnecessary purchase.


----------



## _Kyle_

beers said:


> y u no update?  I want to flaunt my completely unnecessary purchase



All's necessary in the PC world...


----------



## Darren

Probably should... I'll probably get around to it once school is out in a few weeks.


----------



## OmniDyne




----------



## Darren

I'm going to update this today. If you want to have your score on the leaderboard you need to have used CPUID Benchmark version 17.01.64. Surprised to see it's been the same for a while so should have a good amount of scores.

Latest version.

https://www.cpuid.com/downloads/cpu-z/cpu-z_1.85-en.exe

Edit: Updated.


----------



## OmniDyne

Would be cool to see @johnb35 and @Laquer Head 8700K scores.


----------



## Calin

OmniDyne said:


> Would be cool to see @johnb35 and @Laquer Head 8700K scores.


Agreed. Really wanna see how it compares to my 1800x in the multi thread test. I already know it's gonna beat it in single core


----------



## johnb35

OmniDyne said:


> Would be cool to see @johnb35 and @Laquer Head 8700K scores.


----------



## Intel_man

You still have posted pics of your PC @johnb35 ....


----------



## Shlouski




----------



## Shlouski

I will try to break the 600 mark on the single thread benchmark, but temps are going to be a problem. My 2133mhz ram is running at 3000mhz, I could try upping it a little more, but its already on the edge. I will max out my ac unit and vent it straight to the pc and i see how much voltage I can go, hopefully I don't get any condensation. If I can get 5.2 and a little more on the ram, it might be just enough to get me over 600. 
I might see how my last two gaming pc's compare to my current build, my 2008 q9550 build and my 2012 i7 3770k build.


----------



## Darren

Shlouski said:


> I will try to break the 600 mark on the single thread benchmark, but temps are going to be a problem. My 2133mhz ram is running at 3000mhz, I could try upping it a little more, but its already on the edge. I will max out my ac unit and vent it straight to the pc and i see how much voltage I can go, hopefully I don't get any condensation. If I can get 5.2 and a little more on the ram, it might be just enough to get me over 600.
> I might see how my last two gaming pc's compare to my current build, my 2008 q9550 build and my 2012 i7 3770k build.


In B4 explosions.


----------



## Shlouski

Darren said:


> In B4 explosions.




Is it cheating if I run only 1 core, to reduce temps?


----------



## Darren

Shlouski said:


> Is it cheating if I run only 1 core, to reduce temps?


Well the benchmark does single and multi at the same time so your multi will suck lol. Suppose you could, I'd just make a note of that in the scores.


----------



## Shlouski

Darren said:


> Well the benchmark does single and multi at the same time so your multi will suck lol. Suppose you could, I'd just make a note of that in the scores.



Yeah my multi would suck, I will see if I can break it with all cores first. I hope to post soon with my 600 .


----------



## Shlouski

I can get close, but it looks like 5.2ghz would need some crazy voltage to be stable and it also becomes unstable with just another 66mhz on the ram, so I think 600 isn't possible . I will see what I can do with the 3770k.


----------



## Shlouski




----------



## beers

Who's going to fight me for the #1 spot?


----------



## Darren

beers said:


> Who's going to fight me for the #1 spot?


I can always cheat.


----------



## beers

Darren said:


> I can always cheat.


Haha I found an exploit in CPUZ back in the day where you could publish/validate any clock speed you wanted to by pausing the process, editing the memory contents and then resuming.  The creator of CPU-Z Franck hit me up on MSN and is apparently a fairly douchey individual


----------



## Shlouski

beers said:


> Who's going to fight me for the #1 spot?



I already trashed you in single core speed with my i7 8700k and you only JUST beat my 6 year old i7 3770k by 8 points, embarrassing . I could buy a threadripper tomorrow and win so easily, but what is the fun in that, for me getting the best IPC is the #1 spot. Now I'm getting the feeling that maybe I will try and better your IPC with a 6 year old cpu .


----------



## beers

Shlouski said:


> I already trashed you in single core speed with my i7 8700k and you only JUST beat my 6 year old i7 3770k by 8 points,


Ha you'll still retain that 

Unless you can roll some 9k multi you're losing that tier however


----------



## Shlouski

beers said:


> Ha you'll still retain that
> 
> Unless you can roll some 9k multi you're losing that tier however



Sure, but still I want my 3770k to beat you, just got a 486.1 and I haven't touched memory yet


----------



## Shlouski

Looks like a tie, I have a couple of better sticks of ram I could pop in, luck for you I'm too lazy .


----------



## beers

2x L5640 come at me bro


----------



## beers

That #1 multi tho


----------



## beers

Oh lawd it's even lower now at 2.8 with the new benchmark version


----------



## Darren

beers said:


> Oh lawd it's even lower now at 2.8 with the new benchmark version



I wonder how my phone would compare to that.


----------



## gillmanjr

My new system.  Haven't really played around with the clocks yet but this is nice and stable and stays very cool.  I have no need to push it any further atm..

i7-9700k @4.8GHz and 1.25V
16GB DDR4 @ 3200MHz


----------



## gillmanjr

Someone needs to update the charts on the first page.  Looks like I'm number 2 on the single threaded results behind Shlouski's 8700k but I could take that crown if I pushed mine to 5.1GHz, which I could.


----------



## Shlouski

gillmanjr said:


> Someone needs to update the charts on the first page.  Looks like I'm number 2 on the single threaded results behind Shlouski's 8700k but I could take that crown if I pushed mine to 5.1GHz, which I could.



Then do it, but I will be back .

Anything over 5.1 my cpu didn't want to know, no matter how much voltage I gave it and temps weren't a problem.


----------



## G80FTW

I havent posted here in a few years, but my i7 970 from 2012 is still trolling along with my 680. Here is what it can do at 4.367GHz





Single: 364.4
Multi:  2905.0

Overall, and over the course of the last 7 years I have come to the conclusion that the 1366 is a horrible platform haha, but with some OCing my 970 might still be able to hang in there a little longer.

This is at 4.5ghz. I could probably push this processor above this, but not with the cooling I have. At 4.5ghz I am seeing load temps of near 90c. Its stable at 4.5ghz, but wayyy too hot for me to run daily.






Single:  393.3
Multi:   3119.4


----------



## Calin

This chip is fast as hell, but it does run at very high voltages


----------



## spit




----------



## Shlouski

spit said:


>



Nice, just a small OC and you could beat my leading 8700k single core performance


----------



## spit




----------



## Shlouski

spit said:


>



Nice, but remember to upload a screenshot of the cpu-z cpu tab also


----------



## C4C

Using my backup CPU while I wait another couple days for my new mobo/ram... This thing is sad to say the least.

I'm not sure if this scoring is the same as in 2017 when I did 2435 & 9485 on my i5-6600K.. if it is, it explains clearly why I can barely run Rocket League at 30FPS on Low.







EDIT: new motherboard and RAM are installed, i5-6600K @4.5GHz is back. 

I think 537.8 on the Single Thread Test puts me at #4 on an updated leaderboard!


----------



## Intel_man




----------



## Darren

I should probably update this.


----------



## beers

Darren said:


> I should probably update this.


With the 3950x you just ordered?  Awesome!


----------



## Shlouski

Darren said:


> I should probably update this.



Damn you, I had the number 1 position for single thread for over a year and now I've be beaten you decide to update it


----------



## Shlouski

Intel_man said:


>



You and spit are too late for this update, you will have to wait a year for the next one


----------



## OmniDyne

Work PC


----------



## OmniDyne




----------



## beers

Any revival for this thread?


----------



## Darren

Oh baby that score.

Honestly no, I'm kinda over all this. If somebody else wants to take it over they're welcome to. I have the files still knocking around somewhere....


----------



## beers

Darren said:


> I'm kinda over all this


That's just a thing people with slow computers say


----------



## Darren

beers said:


> That's just a thing people with slow computers say


Or those burnt out on computer stuff since it's now their source of income and they just want to go outside now.


----------



## Storm-Chaser

Daily driver mode is 5.4GHz
Ram at 15-15-15-35 @ 4300MHz


----------



## Storm-Chaser

Update


----------



## C4C

Have no complaints returning to AMD with this new rig... Paired with the 3060Ti, I'm finally able to record gameplay in 1080p 60FPS 

Definitely slaps my i5-6600K in the face with the multi-thread performance.


----------

