Hi Cekim did you try some render benchmark for the 2696 v3 on 3.1ghz all core turbo? Would you be kind to try the Corona benchmark if you haven't with the 2696 v3? >
https://corona-renderer.com/benchmark/?cpu-type=2686+v3&submit=Search
I am interested in buying this cpu but would like to know if the 3.1ghz turbo can be sustainted or the AVX will actually lower it down to 2.8 default in the render benchmark. Jann told me that his 2686 even though clocked at 2.8ghz all core turbo actually goes down to 2.4ghz in the corona benchmark.
I bricked my windows drive playing around this weekend and that box is busy crunching numbers in linux during the day, but I can re-image windows later and try this evening.
I can already tell you that you should definitely expect AVX to down-clock, but it was doing to do that even more so before the mod, so the real question is to what you are comparing this chip?
With some more use I am finding this BIOS mod essentially brings the v3 up to near v4 performance and with faster memory timings (only possible on x99 not C6xx/dual systems) can exceed v4 performance in some instances. So, avx down-clocking is all relative to what the alternative would do.
BTW: that's for "high-core-count" loads. The 2696's 3.8GHz means it out-performs the 2690v4 in low-core-count/single threaded loads:
ex: sqlite select avg(some_col) from some_table - walk an unindexed table with 40,804,545 rows (in an even bigger DB):
2690v4:
Run Time: real 45.000 user 42.030330 sys 4.638871
2696v3 (mod w/standard CAS15 memory):
Run Time: real 40.000 user 36.964254 sys 3.522384
Both of those runs were on the same NFS mount over 10GbE to a mount that can deliver sustained 800-900MB/s throughput (and a warm nfsd cache in both cases).