Post Your Cinebench R20 Scores Here

[scarface]

If you want, you can post your Cinebench R20 score here.

The program can be downloaded here: http://http.maxon.net/pub/cinebench/CinebenchR20.zip


i7 6700hq:


i5 9300h:


Cpu Z - i5 900h:

[Shadow.97]

Not going to attempt to run it on my laptop as it would take two life times.. But here's my desktop and server perf.

1700x@3.75



4570 stock

[scarface]

I'm posting some benchmark results for the i7 10870h:

cinebench 20 - i7 10870h:

According to cinebench, It's twice as fast as the i5 9300h.
After looking at the results of shadow.97, I suspect him/her of having overclocked the AmD ryzen 7.

cpu-z - i7 10870h:

Here you can see the results of cpu-z. It's 18% faster in the single core test and 112% faster in the multi core test than the i5 9300h. It's not surprising since the i7 has 8 cores (16 threads) while the i5 has 4 cores.

[humbert]

I clicked on the download link and noticed this thing is 222 MB in size. Why is a simple benchmark program so big? Is it available as a portable program or must you install it?

[Shadow.97]

The reason it is so big, is to my understanding that it's an actual software more or less that was remade into a benchmark.
https://www.maxon.net/en/cinema-4d would be the full software I believe.

Ended up running the benchmark on my laptop, and did another one of my desktop. Upgraded to 3700x since last time.
And yes, my 1700x was overclocked to 3.75 ghz. Unfortunately it was still chugging in games that required singlecore performance which was why I decided to upgrade. My 1700x was a horrendous scam in terms of overclocking. I knew so many who saved and got a 1700 and it clocked 4+ghz. Mine hit a brick wall at 3.8, I could 3.85 at uncomfortable voltages. It also ran louder than it had to, because there was a temperature reporting offset of +20c.

[humbert]

Ended up running the benchmark on my laptop, and did another one of my desktop. Upgraded to 3700x since last time.
And yes, my 1700x was overclocked to 3.75 ghz. Unfortunately it was still chugging in games that required singlecore performance which was why I decided to upgrade. My 1700x was a horrendous scam in terms of overclocking.

You're the expert on this so let me ask. AFAIK overclocking is not a good idea unless you have some very strong cooling. Even then it might create instability. What's your take on this?

[Shadow.97]

Ended up running the benchmark on my laptop, and did another one of my desktop. Upgraded to 3700x since last time.
And yes, my 1700x was overclocked to 3.75 ghz. Unfortunately it was still chugging in games that required singlecore performance which was why I decided to upgrade. My 1700x was a horrendous scam in terms of overclocking.

You're the expert on this so let me ask. AFAIK overclocking is not a good idea unless you have some very strong cooling. Even then it might create instability. What's your take on this?

Yes and no. Here's a very sloppy wall of text.

Certain parts are extremely good to underpowerlimit/overclock with nearly no loss(degradation) or extra heat generation. (or performance loss with underpowerlimit it)

The thing that primarily raises power usage and heat is not the overclocking itself but the voltage increase and the usage% of the chip. If you set a static voltage, you will likely see a higher idle power than needed. But the chip will still not draw a lot of amps when it's not under stress. Meaning that the actual waste is not as high as one might think. If you draw 20% more power at 20 watts, it's still 25w which is okay. A chip normally running 100w that you overclock to make it use 150w is a lot. But thats around the same as new chips output.

If you want to save power you should look into C-state overclocking, where you overclock the different powersaving modes. And you likely want to use a voltage offset instead of static voltage. (+0.05v) instead of static 1.3v or such. Voltage droop(dip) also comes into play. But there may be voltage spikes due to delayed voltage response causing extreme unsafe voltages. Never use high vdroop setting. That setting is a curse. Some list the low setting as strong vdroop compensation and some list high setting as strong vdroop compensation.



Another thing to think about is, is it the power generated that is causing you to need a beefy cooler or is it ineffective thermal conductivity?

Lets take my old i5 3570k i got for free as an example.

On stock cpu setting with stock fan it was not very happy to be overclocked. It did around 4ghz.
On stock fan with a delid and liquid metal it did around 4.5ghz
On delid and watercooling it did 5.3ghz before becoming problematic.
But at the top end of the overclock(5.3ghz) it became unreasonably hot. I settled on 5.1ghz for medium term usage. It's a super good chip. In nearly all games it outperformed my 1700x, especially in frame-to-frame delay.

On a chip that was rated for 3.4 and boost to 3.8, 5ghz is an enormous leap.
I paid €50 for that entire system late 2017, including watercooling.



On newer chips, for example 9900k. I would not consider overclocking, but I would consider voltage tuning.
-0.1v offset and then see if it is stable. If it is stable, I would run cinebench to see if it generates around the same points. Then lower offset until unstable/giving too few points.

If you are lucky, you will gain points from the chip running on less power, and therefor being able to boost higher.
Boosts nowdays built into the chips are usually not superior to manual overclocking, but they are usually good enough for it to be a complete waste of time for even experienced users.

The reason I overclocked my 1700x but not my 3700x is because my 3700x has good enough boost algorithms so I do not consider it needed.

However I have tweaked my RAM slightly to have better timings, on both 1700x and 3700x. Which is to be considered an "overclock". Tighter timings = faster ram. MHZ is not all that matters on ram Neither is primary timings on RAM everything. RAM tuning is the biggest waste of time you can do. Bad ram can corrupt your entire windows install without you noticing. With often low gains and very time consuming process of validating a stable tune.


Due to the last few years of stagnation, both intel and AMD has gone head first into tuning and squeezing every little mhz out of their processors. To the point of absurdity.
If you want to lose a little performance and gain a lot of powersavings, a voltage negative offset could well be worth it.

I've been tempted to do try to see how low power i can get my 3700x or 1700x to run. But in the end. It is a waste of time to try and get it to run at 2ghz on 1v
You should do it as a hobby, not because it is easy or will net you a lot of performance on new chips.

I do still recommend overclocking intel 2***, 3***, 4***, 6***, 7*** because they are just so easy to overclock and can give you a noticable performance jump. 3*** and 6*** are my favorites to overclock.


One of the things I've been the most happy with for day to day use, was when I delidded my i5 4570 (non k)and it went from peak 95c to around 75c max. Meaning it could now permanently boost without hitting thermal limit. I could not get a replacement cooler due to it being an OEM tower server from Dell. It became much more quiet and performed better under load.

Tuning GPU's nowdays is often the same. If you set powertarget to 90% you will likely not notice a performance drop unless it is a triple-A game, but you likely will notice a difference in how loud it gets and how hot it runs. 90% powertarget might mean 97% performance. Most games that utilize 100% gpu does not need 100% gpu anyway. I put my gpu to use 80% power unless I play one of those "really demanding games", then I put it on 100% or 110%.
If I put it below 75% it gets stuck on around 700mhz, which is a bit too low. 80% allows it to still run at around 1500mhz.
Overclocking the memory of a gpu will often give decent performance in an easy way. But it's easy to  strain the memory causing long-term damage. I dont consider it worth the risk if you care about the gpu.
Core is often locked or only allows you a few hundred mhz, factory boost/overclock is usually more than fine. My 2080 ti evga black was advertised as the "lowest clock" of all of the ones sold (1350mhz) but I dont remember seeing it that low. On 100% it often goes to 1800+ mhz.

You can use a curve tuner for a gpu which is the recommended way nowdays to do it. But again. I just dont find it worth my time .. 


Edit:
Using  InSpectre on my 5005u laptop nets an absolute huge performance boost. It's to disable security patching from Windows. Strongly suggested if you want to squeeze performance of an older intel system and dont plan on doing shady stuff on it.