GEEKBENCH

File: memepad.jpg (37KB, 861x229px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 861x229px

thinkpad t420

>>57033281
>t420
which cpu

File: GeekBench Cropped.png (43KB, 797x300px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 797x300px

2006 Mac Pro 1,1

>>57033408
>Dat multicore

File: >encryptbench.png (6KB, 866x140px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 866x140px

not terrible at least

>>57033289
2720qm

>>57033556
What cpu what clocks?

>>57033470
Yeah, I can increase it to ~5200-5300 single core and ~25000 multicore if I were to OC to my maximum stable OC of 4.7GHz.

File: 2016-10-11 17.49.39.png (49KB, 994x421px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 994x421px

>i5 6400 4.4ghz @1.32v

File: hangingself.jpg (161KB, 1281x889px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1281x889px

It's alright.

File: gpu.jpg (153KB, 1017x883px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1017x883px

>>57033859
Here's my GPU

>>57033893
>>57033859
well we know the bottleneck here.

File: 2680.png (25KB, 864x471px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 864x471px

Meh, I expected this to be higher.

File: 5850.png (26KB, 881x548px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 881x548px

>>57034163
This is straight garbage

>>57034163
well when your single core performance is half that or less than a high end desktop CPU, what do you expect? Even with 4-5x the cores you'll never scale exactly 100% especially on a multisocket system.

>>57034189
>well when your single core performance is half that or less than a high end desktop CPU, what do you expect?
Nothing, because Geekbench is bullshit anyway. The entire test was done at 2.7GHz, so there's a lot left on the table.

>>57034271
>there's a lot left on the table
ehhhh, there is SOME left on the table, but your max single core turbo boost is only 3.5Ghz, that still wont even come close to matching what a 4790k or 6700k would manage at 4.5GHz+

And multicore turbo boost is lower. Like 3GHz.

>>57034353
3.5GHz is another 800MHz and multicore turbo is 3.1GHz, which is 400MHz more across 16 cores. It's a noticeable amount. The 4790k and 6700k are significantly newer and what about when they aren't overclocked?

>>57034437
>what about when they aren't overclocked?
>buys K series CPU
>buys Z series chipset
>doesn't overclock

Lets be real here, the only people who do that are idiots who never should have bought a K series to begin with.

Especially when you can pay like $20 for the protection plan for the K series CPUs where even if you try to put 5GHz at 1.5v on it, they'll still replace the CPU if you destroy it for free.


You'd be a moron not to OC on a K series CPU if your motherboard supports it, it's just free performance you're leaving on the table otherwise.

File: Capture.png (8KB, 879x100px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 879x100px

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/717531

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/147658

I have no idea what these scores mean

>>57033135
jesus christ that font rendering must be bait

my screen is too small for a screen shot so i'll just post link.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/717556

>>57034483
Well my computer isn't overclocked, so you can't compare overclocked systems to it.

>>57034561
Maybe his monitor has subpixels in an unconventional order? It might look perfectly normal in person.

>>57034616
Because your system CAN'T be overclocked, don't complain to me about intel not support OCing on Xeon CPUs, that's just common sense for a server environment.

$20 says you dont even use half those cores 90% of the time and its just a dick waving machine.

>>57034523
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/717603

did my other computer for luls

>>57034640
>Because your system CAN'T be overclocked
Even if it could, you aren't guaranteed it, so comparing two architectures performance in that manner is completely stupid. Why are you so salty guy?

File: gaybench4.png (8KB, 860x143px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 860x143px

[email protected]

>>57034718
>you aren't guaranteed it
I love this argument, show me a single 4790k or 6700k that can't OC past stock clocks, I fucking dare you. Spend hours searching I dont give a fuck.

>>57034935
What argument? How do you not understand comparing things? What is your problem?

>>57034935
it seems you have no idea what custom Bios is or Xeons in general

yes most if not all Xeons i've come across on cumsumer second hand websites tell me most of Xeons are locked on bios mirco coded to be locked

they are NOT natively locked
its just these server versions are iGPU disabled consumer chips with bad yeilds for next gen consumer chips on the low end Xeons

this why we get the term "binned" from
the high end is never discussed anywhere
In detail nor is the coolers that get used on these systems
Even now there are no reviews on high end severs only the "low end locked cpu's"
the reason is not native locked down its locked down because of the mircocode

most people don't even know how bios/Cmos works in the lower level even in 30+ years later.

If you where to say wright a unlocked mircocode for a xeon for the Cmos or UEFI
that processer would overclock
but because of bad yeilds it possiably wount be stable hence is why most of the time the sever cpu's are locked down to prevent stupid people breaking things.

because severs don't have to do though the high level of testing that a consumer model needs to go though.

because severs are always many kilometers ahead of Xeon the first gen arch's for the next gen are always on them first.

I don't know if AMD or ARM do the same but i'm sure they do too.

>>57033135

You running 100 * 48? What settings you using?

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/717814

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/147725

4770k @ 4.4GHz 1.3v

>>57035134
>because severs are always many kilometers ahead of Xeon the first gen arch's for the next gen are always on them first.

I mean many years ahead of consumer products

File: 1474390082515.jpg (64KB, 552x528px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 552x528px

>>57035134
>because severs don't have to do though the high level of testing that a consumer model needs to go though.

>>57035134
>that spelling
holy keks...

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/717864

>>57035270
seriously what the fuck is that dude on about?

>>57035291
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/147739
>>57035295
>seriously what the fuck is that dude on about?
drugs

>>57035270
>>57035276
>>57035338

Seriously this is why I don't post anything useful on /g/
too many "home schooled Tech "experts" and Oldfags on /g/ thinking their age even matters.

Anyway as expected most of /g/ are just label readers
lol.

>>57035476
t. 16 year old with some tech knowledge

okay kid

>>57035476
>Seriously this is why I don't post anything useful on
If you think what you posted was considered "useful" then please, by all means stop posting