Something Seems Wrong Here

File: CPUZ AND SPECCY DUAL X5690s V2.png (125KB, 1174x812px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1174x812px

>>60117141
Hmmm I know they changed how the benchmark works somehow.

>>60117141
Not a single response despite the obvious bullshit going on.

>>60117141
we need a ryzen bro to run the older version and the newer one and compare against a reference cpu.

>>60117141
I don't get what I'm supposed to be looking at here. 6950X is overvalued?

>>60117435
The 6950X scores are definitely skewed. I've seen the test for Ryzen on older versions of CPU-Z and the 1700X crushed the 6950X.
>>60117428
Look at the second pic I posted.

File: bro.png (166KB, 1172x649px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1172x649px

>>60117428
>>60117141
>>60117428
>>60117450

>>60117546
>Multi Thread Ratio

version < 17 === [ ~NumberCores ]
version >= 17 === [ Randumb Values ]

File: p2.png (122KB, 1243x462px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1243x462px

>>60117528
>part 2

>>60117617
what did he mean by this

>>60117546
I don't get what they're doing here, I thought they were simply dividing the end results by 4 because the bars were outgrowing the fields. but that would make the sc/mc score for the 1800x
536/4704. I was just reading that cpu-z something cache something and Ryzen was getting inflated results. But doesn't ryzen bench better in real applications?

>>60117450
Older versions skewed results in favor of Ryzen. This is fixed in v1.79
https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/836214212301053952

>>60117157
3 optical drives?

>>60117625
>2.144v
nigga what are they doing to fuck up CPUz's readings so badly.

>>60117778
So now they're gimping Ryzen? wew I wonder who could be behind this

>>60117812
All I did was update CPU-Z
before
>>60117528

After
>>60117625

>>60117835
Ryzen scores were inflated. Do you really expect Ryzen to beat 7700K in single-threaded and 6950X in multi-threaded?

File: amyogid.jpg (45KB, 480x362px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x362px

>>60117141
Cpu-z was configured for 256mb cache and Ryzen was getting bloated scores. This is the true face of AMD

>>60117868
Ryzen's faster IPC wise than anything Intel (except for 256 bit SIMD instructions) and it beats the 7700K and 6950X in some real world workloads and in some benchmarks

>>60117868
And now the readings are so fucked that Ryzen is being said to run at 2.144v?

With readings like that, how is the benchmark result in anyway trustworthy or indicative.

Nowhere in the posted images am I seeing any Ryzen compared to a 7700k on either of the versions we are currently comparing.

File: qKhwq3T.png (52KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 960x540px

>>60117916
That's not true

>>60117953
Stilt's tests aren't nearly as extensive as Agner Fog's, he hasn't released his yet but he has said that it seems to be faster all around

>>60117953
Source on this?
I know a lot of Ryzen benchmarks were performed on the early BIOSes and were never retested.

I can understand why they weren't retested on grounds of time constraints, but at the same time, the increase provided by the newer BIOSes are not exactly insignificant.

>>60117800
I had a DVD ripping operation over the summer, never took them out.

>>60117778
Why does the 6950X beat my dual X5690s suddenly?
Look at OP pic and the first pic after that

Something fishy is going on.

>>60117546
>420*10.78=4527.6

>430*10.78=4635.4
wat

>>60118518
>>60117868
Yeh, I'ma go ahead and say that based off of some simple fucking math, that now Intel's results are inflated. A lot.

File: W3690.png (116KB, 432x427px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 432x427px

Is your X5690 underclocked? My W3690 is stock.

CPU-z was inaccurate for Ryzen and they fixed it.

>>60118835
Nope... That kinda pisses me off not going to lie. I wonder if there is anything I can do. I have turbo enabled, it's reaching the right clocks.

>>60118911
>just ignore how the 6950X now outdoes Intel processors that were doing better before dumb goy

>>60119607
Yeah I wonder why they would only inflate scores for their newer processors... Oh wait! So they don't compete with themselves. It's obvious what's going on here.

Hell used dual CPU Sandy Bridge workstations are the best bang for the buck you can get perf/price wise.

>>60119605
I am pretty sure that you're being gimped by 2 sockets.

File: 09560575.jpg (36KB, 362x367px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 362x367px

>Ryzen outperforms Intel in CPU-Z because it has bigger cache! The test was designed with smaller cache in mind. Igonre it!
>Ryzen has MORE CACHE
>RYZEN OUTPERFORMS
>BUT YOU NEED TO IGNORE IT.

>>60118518
10.78 is a specific number showing scalability quality. If there is no HT, it is close to core count. If there is HT, it is expected to be slightly more than physical core count.

>>60117778
If they just fixed the set size the numbers should go up for 256KB cache CPUs more than for Ryzen and the truth would be restored. This is not the case, scores changed almost tenfold.

IDGAF really but intedasting nonetheless.

>>60119684
For single core performance? The fuck?

>>60121155
Multiple sockets affect memory performance negatively if program isn't numa aware.

>>60121916
Would setting my BIOS to SMP do anything?

>>60117625
CPU-Z is shitting the bed pretty badly