Seriously, my prediction would be:Over 9000!!!!!
It's an excuse. That way they can sell you two laptops, one for Pro use and one for gaming.The use of a 60hz OLED for the Pro Art is a curious decision. They made the excuse of it being a “pro” rather than a “gamer” device. Someone should tell them pros dislike flicker as well.
As someone who would technically be in the audience of Asus' Pro Art lineup, I couldn't agree more and would also add mouse accuracy to the list of reasons 60Hz should be gone from premium devices. Anyone heavily using the mouse in their workflow should know by now that a moderately fast screen (90Hz+) and a moderately fast mouse polling rate (500Hz+) do wonders for mouse accuracy and responsiveness.The use of a 60hz OLED for the Pro Art is a curious decision. They made the excuse of it being a “pro” rather than a “gamer” device. Someone should tell them pros dislike flicker as well.
I think 5.1 GHz Strix could approach 3050 in David Huang's setup.The gains seems tangible, looking to beat 7950X scores with Strix 5.1G but in the current context not great either.
I think based on David Huangs assessment, some unknowns wrt DT in terms of halved SIMD throughput
There is also the case of the reduced op cache, additionally the compiler patches indicated reduced FADD cycles but seems David is saying increased FADD latencies.
Just scaling the clock would put the GB6 DT scores of ~3500@5.7G without any contributions from the elimination of reduced SIMD throughput.
There are even more.
ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ProArt P16 H7606WI_H7606WI_002009218 - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ProArt P16 H7606WI_H7606WI_002009218 with an AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 170 w/ Radeon 880M processor.browser.geekbench.comASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ASUS Zenbook S 16 UM5606WA_UM5606WA_00282220G - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ASUS Zenbook S 16 UM5606WA_UM5606WA_00282220G with an AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 170 w/ Radeon 880M processor.browser.geekbench.com
"processor_frequency": {
"frequencies": [
4444,
4445,
4449,
4439,
4447,
4442,
4327,
4451,
4458,
4449,
4448,
4458,
4457,
4458,
4461,
4455,
4460,
4334,
4248,
4449,
4444,
4451,
4445,
4457,
4447,
4445,
4444,
4454,
4444,
4448,
4450,
4454,
4444,
4448,
4444,
4453,
4443,
4453,
4444,
4442,
4454,
4463,
4440,
4441,
4449
]
},
"processor_frequency": {
"frequencies": [
3928,
3948,
3990,
3988,
3990,
3988,
3992,
3996,
3975,
3984,
3778,
3982,
3977,
3969,
3990,
3981,
3985,
3981,
3973,
3981,
3986,
3989,
3991,
3987,
3967,
3937,
3971,
3925,
3930,
3954,
3944,
3936,
3942,
3929,
3942,
3942,
3959,
3947,
3945,
3945
]
},
The first run is pretty decent if it's actually run at 4.5
Clock reporting seems completely random. We've got:
A 2554 ST score @ 3.7 GHz
And two 2.8k-ish runs at 4.5 and 4.85 GHz.
Yes, these two runs are the first that look pretty good while remaining plausible.Those both would be ~3250 single core score at 5.1 GHz. So maybe some evidence that retail units perform a little better than the ES samples we've seen. Still waiting on the official release though.
There are even more.
ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ProArt P16 H7606WI_H7606WI_002009218 - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ProArt P16 H7606WI_H7606WI_002009218 with an AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 170 w/ Radeon 880M processor.browser.geekbench.comASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ASUS Zenbook S 16 UM5606WA_UM5606WA_00282220G - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ASUS Zenbook S 16 UM5606WA_UM5606WA_00282220G with an AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 170 w/ Radeon 880M processor.browser.geekbench.com
"processor_frequency": {
"frequencies": [
4444,
4445,
4449,
4439,
4447,
4442,
4327,
4451,
4458,
4449,
4448,
4458,
4457,
4458,
4461,
4455,
4460,
4334,
4248,
4449,
4444,
4451,
4445,
4457,
4447,
4445,
4444,
4454,
4444,
4448,
4450,
4454,
4444,
4448,
4444,
4453,
4443,
4453,
4444,
4442,
4454,
4463,
4440,
4441,
4449
]
},
"processor_frequency": {
"frequencies": [
3928,
3948,
3990,
3988,
3990,
3988,
3992,
3996,
3975,
3984,
3778,
3982,
3977,
3969,
3990,
3981,
3985,
3981,
3973,
3981,
3986,
3989,
3991,
3987,
3967,
3937,
3971,
3925,
3930,
3954,
3944,
3936,
3942,
3929,
3942,
3942,
3959,
3947,
3945,
3945
]
},
The first run is pretty decent if it's actually run at 4.5
Clock reporting seems completely random. We've got:
A 2554 ST score @ 3.7 GHz
And two 2.8k-ish runs at 4.5 and 4.85 GHz.
| 7950X | 13900K | 7975WX |
AES | 45+ | 55+ | 11+ |
FP32 | 39+ | 60+ | -13 |
FP64 | 39+ | 60+ | -16 |
Above gflops score error can be fixed by just removing the checkbox in linx gui, then it'd run the next cycles (it's just a GUI limitaton, not real error)A benevolent ES sample user
Interesting, thanks for sharing.A benevolent ES sample user has allowed me to share some data.
Previous data I had:
Sample running at DDR5-8000 34-45-40-42.
These are percentage improvements.
And some updated screenshots with nothing running in background:
AES
View attachment 101788
FP32
View attachment 101789
FP64
View attachment 101792
Tuned 6400 MT/s 26-36-32-30Is this JEDEC/XMP/Tuned ? My score is for either 6400 CL30-37-37-36 DR a-die or 7800 34-45-45-44 SR a-die, don't remember exactly which one.
A benevolent ES sample user has allowed me to share some data.
GJ, Igor.A benevolent ES sample user has allowed me to share some data.
Previous data I had:
Sample running at DDR5-8000 34-45-40-42.
These are percentage improvements.
And some updated screenshots with nothing running in background:
AES
View attachment 101788
FP32
View attachment 101789
FP64
View attachment 101792
Come on, you can also share us the GB and CB scores or 7Zip scores.A benevolent ES sample user has allowed me to share some data.
What if the AVX-512 is gimped on this particular sample? Imagine an even higher score!I'm actually wondering - all these tests (as well as linpack if it is modded via usual 'reverse intel check' thing) actually use AVX-512, so this 40% uplift can be related to full-tempo AVX-512
I would if it were in my possessionCome on, you can also share us the GB and CB scores or 7Zip scores.
What's a few benchmarks between friends