CPUZ 1.73 Benchmark Thread

[Edgemeal]

Windows 7 - i7-3770 @ 4012 (100.3 x 40) / 8GB DDR3-1600 @ 8-8-8-24-32-2T
ST:1469 MT:5614

Windows 10 - i5-3570K @ 3610MHz(Stock) / DDR3-1600 @ 9-9-9-28-36-2T
ST:1385 MT:3899

Windows 7 - X2-550 @ STOCK / 4GB DDR3-1333
ST:460 MT:447

 

[dark zero]

VIA QuadCore U4650E 1.0+GHz @ 1.2GHz PMON

Can you make the stress test?
That score... Maybe it can beat the monocore AMD E1 2100 or the Atom family (every one defeats them)

Also.. Do you have a Nano X2?

 

[Burpo]

$15 used Xeon E5640 (value leader)

 

[BUnit1701]

VIA QuadCore U4650E 1.0+GHz @ 1.2GHz PMON

Can you make the stress test?
That score... Maybe it can beat the monocore AMD E1 2100 or the Atom family (every one defeats them)

Also.. Do you have a Nano X2?

For comparison, I have an old Phenom II 940 clocked down to 1Ghz, popped it up to 1.2Ghz to see.

PII 940 @ 1Ghz, DDR2-800 5-5-5-15 ST: 148 MT: 404
@1.2Ghz, ST: 179 MT: 496

 

[soccerballtux]

this bench looks pretty screwey. wonder if they'll update. start new thread when do

 

[MongGrel]

1317 8341 @ 4.6

Not bad for a 6 year old computer.

I'm not digging pics out

I'll figure it out yet, just sharing cut photos is a PITA in WIN X to me atm.

 

[MongGrel]

$15 used Xeon E5640 (value leader)

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

Have tweaked my old X5680 slightly.

 

[kami]

Showing my 3770k @ 4.4 as roughly equal to a 4790k @ 4.0. That seems about right, I guess?

 

[SPBHM]

stock 4790K is 4.2GHz for MT and a little higher for ST, not 4.0 unless their test was made with turbo off? which would be wrong.

 

[lord_emperor]

 

[dark zero]

For comparison, I have an old Phenom II 940 clocked down to 1Ghz, popped it up to 1.2Ghz to see.

PII 940 @ 1Ghz, DDR2-800 5-5-5-15 ST: 148 MT: 404
@1.2Ghz, ST: 179 MT: 496

So, VIA if has the correct tech and with good scaling they can compete against AMD?

 

[soccerballtux]

finally, we see AMD true potential reflected in benchmarks. great hardware

 

[inf64]

ST:1647
MT:4621

4690K@4.3Ghz

It is so broken that when I run the test more than once it gives me ever so lower MT score . I dip below 4000 after 3rd or 4th run

 

[RaistlinZ]

5820K @ 4.4GHz.

 

[VirtualLarry]

haha SUCK IT G3258 TROLLS!!!!! YOUR DAY HAS COME!!! Someone inform VirtualLarry his investment is worthless

LOL. Because of some flaky new synthetic benchmark, my G3258 is worthless?

Anyways, I may be selling off my ATX gaming rigs. Got some MeegoPad T02 Compute Sticks coming my way.

 

[MongGrel]

finally, we see AMD true potential reflected in benchmarks. great hardware

Where ?


()

 

[Yuriman]

LOL. Because of some flaky new synthetic benchmark, my G3258 is worthless?

Anyways, I may be selling off my ATX gaming rigs. Got some MeegoPad T02 Compute Sticks coming my way.

I've pretty much abandoned ATX, too. ITX is the biggest I'll take these days, and even then it camps my style a bit.

 

[SPBHM]

yes... it seems to be broken with 2 threads CPUs, on my X2 2.4Ghz ST was 258 and MT the same (on the second run, on the first run MT was lower)...

edit: same with the pentium e5400.

 

[TeknoBug]

I've pretty much abandoned ATX, too. ITX is the biggest I'll take these days, and even then it camps my style a bit.

When we get more powerful NUCs then that's the way I will go.

 

[StrangerGuy]

I've pretty much abandoned ATX, too. ITX is the biggest I'll take these days, and even then it camps my style a bit.

I hate full ATX with a huge passion. mATX is by far has the best balance and cheapest in pricing, ITX doesn't save that much space with a standard ATX PSU and video card and is far more cramped to work with.

 

[YBS1]

 

[DrMrLordX]

A10-7700k 3.4 GHz, 1800 mhz NB, DDR3-1600

ST: 786
MT: 2356

Damn, compare that to BUnit's K10.5 chip . . . maybe he's being held back by that slow RAM.

 

[LTC8K6]

1715 / 6261

4790K 4.4 2133 ram

 

[Burpo]

$15 Xeon E5640 vs. $329 i7-4790K..

 

[StrangerGuy]

$15 Xeon E5640 vs. $329 i7-4790K..

X58 is the true successor to the 440BX in longevity!