Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 160 CPUs in 52 tests

  1. #1
    Senior Member Bonebreaker777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Herts, UK
    Posts
    2,035
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked
    203 times in 186 posts
    • Bonebreaker777's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI H97I AC
      • CPU:
      • Xeon 1225 v3 + Freezer 11 L
      • Memory:
      • 2 x 4GB 1600Mhz 1T-8-8-8-20 1.35V Crucial BallistiX Tactical VLP
      • Storage:
      • 128GB CRUCIAL MX100///XPEnology server + 3 x WD Purple 3TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD 4600
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! L8 300W PSU BN220
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master Elite 120
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung SyncMaster 226BW
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100Mb

    160 CPUs in 52 tests

    AMD vs. Intel. 160 units in 52 tests. Which CPU is the fastest?

    Big test or what? Surely took them months to do all this. This could be used as a new database to compare performance

  2. Received thanks from:

    grayg1 (11-02-2013)

  3. #2
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    32,042
    Thanks
    3,909
    Thanked
    5,213 times in 4,005 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: 160 CPUs in 52 tests

    Thats one big review!!

    However,I would not use only one review site as my only source of information to compare CPUs though,as running different tests with the same software, can lead to different reviews indicating very different relative performance. You only have to look at something like HandBrake for example.

    The results for Adobe CS6 differ from those Toms Hardware saw for example.

    Its best to look at what multiple sites generally see with peformance in an application,then get a rough idea of general performance.
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 03-02-2013 at 03:52 PM.

  4. #3
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    13,009
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked
    1,568 times in 1,325 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: 160 CPUs in 52 tests

    Amusing to see that one of the tests is Blender. These days, quite a low end Nvidia GPU can beat the most expensive i7 quite soundly so that should be a GPU test

  5. #4
    Senior Member Bonebreaker777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Herts, UK
    Posts
    2,035
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked
    203 times in 186 posts
    • Bonebreaker777's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI H97I AC
      • CPU:
      • Xeon 1225 v3 + Freezer 11 L
      • Memory:
      • 2 x 4GB 1600Mhz 1T-8-8-8-20 1.35V Crucial BallistiX Tactical VLP
      • Storage:
      • 128GB CRUCIAL MX100///XPEnology server + 3 x WD Purple 3TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD 4600
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! L8 300W PSU BN220
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master Elite 120
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung SyncMaster 226BW
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100Mb

    Re: 160 CPUs in 52 tests

    Maybe in Poland they have different preferences? I myself never used Blender. Would say it was included for comparison only.

  6. #5
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    13,009
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked
    1,568 times in 1,325 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: 160 CPUs in 52 tests

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonebreaker777 View Post
    Maybe in Poland they have different preferences? I myself never used Blender. Would say it was included for comparison only.
    Just amuses me that this still gets used as a CPU benchmark. At least they used an up to date version, Anandtech are still using some ancient version that just isn't useful for choosing a CPU to run Blender any more!

    Last time I looked the AMD OpenCL drivers were still too unstable for Blender though, so sadly it isn't a useful graphics benchmark yet.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •