So you are not denying that there is a bias in Cinebench since it uses Intel's compiler. People seem to forget how bobcat literally chocke's on those crippling compilers from Intel. :ninja:
It aids performance on both sides though compared without the compiler though you seem to twist and turn like a maniac. There will be code in Intel's compiler that will aid AMD since both are x86-64. Can't you comprehend that, having a brain damage or in denial? In the end Intel's compiler cripples AMD's CPU's.
You can be in denial, but we all know. We are not tricked by Intel's "ninja smoke" like it is not there. There is a code and an user at overclock.net found the code so you can go to the bank and bet all your money on it that he did not and lose all of it. ()
edit; This is the user that is doing the research, he has found evidence;
http://www.overclock.net/t/1430288/maxon-cinebench-r15/40#post_20894831
http://www.overclock.net/t/1430288/maxon-cinebench-r15/50#post_20895153
something else;
http://www.overclock.net/t/1430288/maxon-cinebench-r15/50#post_20895153
So you cant supply the edvidence that there is Intel code in Cinebench? What a surprise. :hmm:
Not to mention, Intels compiler is still the fastest one for AMD on Windows.
But maybe AMD should develop and distribute their own compiler...
see bottom graph here:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/07/atom-nano-review/6/
CB has the genuineintel+authenticamd footprint in the binaries representative of the ICC cheat which gives a good 35% boost to non-Intel CPUs when masked.
Just a few remarks regarding CineBench as some people seem to draw their conclusions from conspiration theories instead of facts:
1. CineBench 11.5 is based on CINEMA 4D (a professional 3D software package, consisting of several million lines of code). There is no special code tuned for benchmark purposes (or for a specific vendor), there are no special benchmark libraries; to be more precise: Except of the ability to save scene data, this is the production code.
2. CineBench 11.5 requires SSE2 compatible cpus. There is no differentiation between Intel or AMD cpus (the compilers are set to create SSE2 code without creating jump code for different cpus or cpu vendors).
3. The CineBench 11.5 Windows version uses ICC (the OS X version GCC 4.2), as these have been the compilers creating the fastest code at that time (end of 2009) for these platforms - independent of the cpu vendor.
To be more specific: With the (SSE2) compiler setting used in CINEMA 4D and CineBench 11.5, the speed advantage of ICC over MSVC (roughly 15-20%) has been slightly bigger on AMD cpus than it was on Intel cpus.
4. While OpenMP is used on Windows in some parts of the app, there is no use of it in the rendering (that 's benchmarked and that people refer to when comparing results).
5. People who still think that CineBench prefers a specific vendor, might check what happened when the first Bulldozer CineBench results leaked. Despite of what some fanboys said before the launch (of this cpu), the
CineBench results have been pretty accurate in picturing the strengths and weaknesses of this cpu.
Best regards,
Wilfried
We are not in 2008 or before anymore. Its time to move on.
wow very interesting!
also can you fix 3rd link it's the same as the 2nd link.
To my understanding Cinebench is a fpu heavy tool. The FX series of processors come with 2 Integer Cores and only 1 FPU Core per Module. Thus your "8 Core" FX processor only has 4 FPU cores to compete with Intel's 4 FPU cores.I have a question, since it does not use FMA or AVX2 then would it make a more fair comparison between AMD's and Intel's CPU's since we all know that in Cinebench 11.5 and other benchmarking tools have code that is primarily supplied by Intel and that in some cases literally cripple AMD CPU's.
CPU score of 93 on 1.4ghz dual core Intel Celeron 877.
If anyone is going to create a graph for these scores I think they should seperate the server scores from the standard desktop processors.