CINEBENCH R10 PATCH
CINEBENCH R10 SOFTWARE

The process checks and analyzes all the heavy-duty functions of your graphic cards and also makes sure they are up to date. This ensures that the benchmark you get is accurate. The test scene provided in Cinebench complies to your computer’s resolutions.

Test your graphics performance using the OpenGL feature. It finds the necessary data on your machine and tells you how powerful and useful it is in its current condition. This information sometimes eludes users due to them having purchased the device only for simple operations. Cinebench gives you a ranking of your system based on the test, so you get an idea of how good your computer is versus the standards. Your results get compared to the best hardware in the market.

CINEBENCH R10 SOFTWARE

The software analyzes your CPU and OpenGL and creates a benchmark on how smooth they run. Measuring overall performance that it offers users at stock is far more useful.Cinebench automatically detects your system and all of its hardware and organizes all the data in a simple chart.Įvaluate your device performance in all aspects. I can should you Piledriver having under half the IPC of Sandy, or having nearly 80%. It's established that AMD's IPC is noticably lower and can vary wildly from application to applications. Why you would care about anything besides absolute performance is beyond me. Big difference between 4.4 Ghz and 3.0/3.5 Ghz. Yes, things have gotten faster, but using stock clocks all over the place masks the massive clock differences between say, the 8350, and the Core 2 Duo or i3 4330. All of these architectures (save a few) can clock to roughly similar limits within a few generations. It's all about the end result, and how much faster CPU cores have become. Nobody buys a CPU and clocks it down to what his/her previous CPU ran at or disables turbo. I'm tracking per-thread overall performance, not per-thread IPC.

Turbo clocks and whatnot play havoc with this. Without normalizing these to some 'standard' clock speed, they're hard to interpret. I don't know if delivering ~80% of the 6700K's per-thread performance is enough to make AMD look good when Zen launches. More hopefully still, Zen will have higher than 40% IPC improvement and run at more than 4.0GHz, but at this point, based on what we know, I'm not counting on it. Doing the math, Zen will hopefully reach around 7,100 points 4.0GHz. Also note that the FX-8350 runs at 4.0GHz. These are all rough estimates based on just one benchmark, of course, but it's fun to speculate where Zen will end up. 1.4 is obviously the 40% jump from Excavator to Zen. Where 1.1 represents the 10% IPC improvement Steamroller has over Piledriver, and 1.05 represents Excavator's 5% IPC improvement over Steamroller. You may note that many CPUs in there were also my past CPUs based on my sig.Īlso, we can get a rough idea of where Zen's single thread performance will end up relative to Intel based on the FX-8350.

CINEBENCH R10 PATCH

Now I know Cinebench R10 is by no means the most reliable benchmark but it's pretty old and I don't think new instruction sets such as AVX inflate the scores of newer CPUs (a quick look at the FX-8150 review of Anandtech shows the FX-8150 trailing the Phenom II X6 1100T under this test) unless there's an AVX patch for R10 when the new CPUs were tested or the AVX implementation on Bulldozer was so bad that even with it the FX-8150 trails the 1100T which has no AVX support. Using Anandtech's Bench facility, I took the scores of a handful of CPUs from the the Pentium D all the way to the 6700K using DDR4 (since I think it's fair to base the 6700K's score with RAM that folks will typically want to use with it) and made a bar graph using Excel. Hey guys, just wanted to get an idea of how single thread performance has improved since the Pentium D days.

Cinebench r10