F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Score of 9700K on Low Cinebench r20

Score of 9700K on Low Cinebench r20

Score of 9700K on Low Cinebench r20

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next
B
Barnesy28
Junior Member
47
05-12-2018, 02:15 AM
#1
Hello! Your i7 9700K at 5.2 GHz seems to run smoothly, but you're seeing a lower multi-core score in Cinebench. That could be due to various factors like cooling, workload distribution, or system load. People often report higher scores with the same hardware under different conditions. Let me know if you want tips on improving performance! Thanks for sharing.
B
Barnesy28
05-12-2018, 02:15 AM #1

Hello! Your i7 9700K at 5.2 GHz seems to run smoothly, but you're seeing a lower multi-core score in Cinebench. That could be due to various factors like cooling, workload distribution, or system load. People often report higher scores with the same hardware under different conditions. Let me know if you want tips on improving performance! Thanks for sharing.

F
fmflame
Junior Member
13
05-14-2018, 02:59 PM
#2
Are you certain the system is at 5.2 GHz? Cinebench appears to show 3.6.
F
fmflame
05-14-2018, 02:59 PM #2

Are you certain the system is at 5.2 GHz? Cinebench appears to show 3.6.

S
skyplaysYT
Member
70
05-14-2018, 04:46 PM
#3
Cinebench shows the processor speed as 3.6 GHz, while HWMonitor records 5.2 GHz during the complete test
S
skyplaysYT
05-14-2018, 04:46 PM #3

Cinebench shows the processor speed as 3.6 GHz, while HWMonitor records 5.2 GHz during the complete test

Y
YourBoo
Junior Member
12
05-18-2018, 07:34 PM
#4
Use monitoring tools together to check performance issues like throttling. This was my test last night aiming for 4.2ghz; I think Cine should also review the changes. Note: don't rely solely on your score—consider CPU stability with OC and ram usage. The best result was 3956, and SS is recommended.
Y
YourBoo
05-18-2018, 07:34 PM #4

Use monitoring tools together to check performance issues like throttling. This was my test last night aiming for 4.2ghz; I think Cine should also review the changes. Note: don't rely solely on your score—consider CPU stability with OC and ram usage. The best result was 3956, and SS is recommended.

J
Jelmerro
Member
202
05-20-2018, 09:43 AM
#5
Cinebench 15 clearly displays system clocks...
J
Jelmerro
05-20-2018, 09:43 AM #5

Cinebench 15 clearly displays system clocks...

S
Siberian02
Member
157
06-03-2018, 04:25 PM
#6
I usually check with HwMonitor and CPU-Z while testing. There’s no throttling; it maintains a steady 5.2GHz throughout and the temperature never goes above 88°C.
S
Siberian02
06-03-2018, 04:25 PM #6

I usually check with HwMonitor and CPU-Z while testing. There’s no throttling; it maintains a steady 5.2GHz throughout and the temperature never goes above 88°C.

V
ViShuMyName
Member
74
06-14-2018, 09:41 AM
#7
From what I understand, you're not seeing version 5.2 from the screenshot. CINEBENCH 20 has handled this before too, just ensure it displays 5.2 in the Windows control panel at least. Your 3156 on an R52600 @4.2 should perform better than that.
V
ViShuMyName
06-14-2018, 09:41 AM #7

From what I understand, you're not seeing version 5.2 from the screenshot. CINEBENCH 20 has handled this before too, just ensure it displays 5.2 in the Windows control panel at least. Your 3156 on an R52600 @4.2 should perform better than that.

C
CaptanJim
Member
160
06-18-2018, 03:39 PM
#8
I noticed this conversation happened yesterday. CineR15 and R20 consistently display my OCs. @OP, if you're not getting the same results others are, check Task Manager—ensure no other processes are active. End any startup programs. You might also adjust the affinity in Task Manager to Real Time for a few more benefits (just discovered this last night) and consider moving most of the screen off-screen for additional gains (still not tried those tips).
C
CaptanJim
06-18-2018, 03:39 PM #8

I noticed this conversation happened yesterday. CineR15 and R20 consistently display my OCs. @OP, if you're not getting the same results others are, check Task Manager—ensure no other processes are active. End any startup programs. You might also adjust the affinity in Task Manager to Real Time for a few more benefits (just discovered this last night) and consider moving most of the screen off-screen for additional gains (still not tried those tips).

E
EnderDrawer
Junior Member
7
06-18-2018, 11:52 PM
#9
You're referring to Task Manager, correct? I'll be there after my workout and will review the data within two hours.
E
EnderDrawer
06-18-2018, 11:52 PM #9

You're referring to Task Manager, correct? I'll be there after my workout and will review the data within two hours.

X
226
07-06-2018, 07:47 PM
#10
Tried again with task manager open to check the core speeds and turned off every startup program. It was running at 5.2 Ghz during the whole run and this time the score was about 100 points higher, 3800. It’s still quite a gap from the 4100-4200 others achieved with the 9700K at 5.2 Ghz... I did the math and thought something might be wrong with one of the CPU cores. If you check the picture I posted in my first post, the single-core score is 534 and multi-core is 3723. Multiplying 534 by 8 gives 4272, which matches the score I got. It seems only 7 out of 8 cores are working properly, given that multiplying my single-core score by 7 gives a multi-core result close to what I observed. Also, my MP Ratio is 6.98x, but it should be closer to 8x if all 8 cores were functioning well. With other people’s results, their MP Ratios are around 7.62x, while @jstudrawa has 7.68x. It looks like one of my cores might not be working correctly, though that seems unlikely.**
X
X_Impossible_X
07-06-2018, 07:47 PM #10

Tried again with task manager open to check the core speeds and turned off every startup program. It was running at 5.2 Ghz during the whole run and this time the score was about 100 points higher, 3800. It’s still quite a gap from the 4100-4200 others achieved with the 9700K at 5.2 Ghz... I did the math and thought something might be wrong with one of the CPU cores. If you check the picture I posted in my first post, the single-core score is 534 and multi-core is 3723. Multiplying 534 by 8 gives 4272, which matches the score I got. It seems only 7 out of 8 cores are working properly, given that multiplying my single-core score by 7 gives a multi-core result close to what I observed. Also, my MP Ratio is 6.98x, but it should be closer to 8x if all 8 cores were functioning well. With other people’s results, their MP Ratios are around 7.62x, while @jstudrawa has 7.68x. It looks like one of my cores might not be working correctly, though that seems unlikely.**

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next