- Joined
- Jan 12, 2001
- Location
- Kansas, USA
I got it from Tiger Direct last November when they first released it with a big price drop. I remember the 10980XE was almost vaporware then and probably now too.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
FEATURED Post your Cinebench R20 scores here!
- Thread starter Johan45
- Start date
I haven't seen it anywhere at a reasonable price.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2020
- Location
- Caprona
Dr_Emmett_Brown
Intel i9-9900KS @ 5.023 GHz
Corsair H150i stock triple radiator
Score = 5041
5 other systems/configs to test, stay tuned
Run on this machine...
Intel i9-9900KS @ 5.023 GHz
Corsair H150i stock triple radiator
Score = 5041
5 other systems/configs to test, stay tuned
Run on this machine...
Last edited:
Photosbykev
New Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2020
- Location
- UK
Photosbykev / i9-9900k / H2O / 5092
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2020
- Location
- Caprona
Dr Emmett Brown / i9-9900KS @ 5.023 GHz / CORSAIR H150i / 5041
Dr Emmett Brown / i9-9900KF @ 5.288 GHz / 2-stage vapor phase change thermosyphon / 5322
Dr Emmett Brown / Threadripper 3990X / Compound Chiller + Heat Exchanger / 33179
Last edited:
OP
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2012
- Thread Starter
- #130
Not that I doubt you Dr. but we need the screenshot as well with the CPUz tabs
I'm updating the first post with your scores but we'd still like to see the SS
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2020
- Location
- Caprona
But of course.
Will rerun. Those were client builds. Did not want to connect to the internet on their machines.
EDIT: But I did post the 5300 score didn't I? I thought I uploaded the video of it? Will recheck.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Aleslammer / Rysen 7 3800X / Chiller / 5621
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Aleslammer / Rysen 9 3900X / Chiller / 8213
Redraider33
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2020
So Dr. Brown I noticed that you have also posted some very impressive scores with the Intel i9-9900KS scored 5041 & i9-9900 KF chip 5322. Being they have only 8 cores each and your Threadripper 3990X scored 33179 and has 64 cores that equates to 518.4 per core. The i9-9900KS 630.12 per core and KF scored 665.25 per core.
So if you ran 8 i9-9900 KS your score would be 40,328 and if you ran 8 i9-9900KF that score would be a score of a whopping 42,576
- - - Auto-Merged Double Post - - -
So Dr. Brown I noticed that you have also posted some very impressive scores with the Intel i9-9900KS scored 5041 & i9-9900 KF chip 5322. Being they have only 8 cores each and your Threadripper 3990X scored 33179 and has 64 cores that equates to 518.4 per core. The i9-9900KS 630.12 per core and KF scored 665.25 per core.
So if you ran 8 i9-9900 KS your score would be 40,328 and if you ran 8 i9-9900KF that score would be a score of a whopping 42,576
So if you ran 8 i9-9900 KS your score would be 40,328 and if you ran 8 i9-9900KF that score would be a score of a whopping 42,576
- - - Auto-Merged Double Post - - -
So Dr. Brown I noticed that you have also posted some very impressive scores with the Intel i9-9900KS scored 5041 & i9-9900 KF chip 5322. Being they have only 8 cores each and your Threadripper 3990X scored 33179 and has 64 cores that equates to 518.4 per core. The i9-9900KS 630.12 per core and KF scored 665.25 per core.
So if you ran 8 i9-9900 KS your score would be 40,328 and if you ran 8 i9-9900KF that score would be a score of a whopping 42,576
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2012
Performance isn't that linear and comparing different platforms adds another disparity level, for example they have different ipc.
Also, if he tests those 9900k*, at the same clocks, in single core he would never get even close to 600 points in r20.
BTW we are yet to see those screenshots.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2020
- Location
- Caprona
Hmmm.
I'm not over-explaining. Let me double check.
I have no idea how the CinebenchR20 scoring mechanism works, other than it heavily favors more cores.
You might want to play around with GHz x cores and use that as a denominator with the score as the numerator.
See if that shows a correlation of any kind.
I can say this: Bigger score = better massively parallel performance.
Hello everyone, I have an issue with Cinebench after the last windows Update 2004. with my I9-9900k clocked at 5.05 ghz I was able to score up to 5315points with minimum of 5277points,after the update and messing with some services and HPET I lost up to 100 points less now scoring max 5242point with minimum of 5165,why this? Do you have any idea what affect the score so much in windows? I tried everything, reenabling services, reactivate HPET, uninstall and reinstall drivers, reinstall cinebench, nothing worked, this is driving me crazy, any help please?
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
Not an Intel user but will take a shot. Are you overclocked or running stock. If your running stock with the warmer temps your CPU is probably not boosting as high. If your overclocked some part of the latest update could be messing with your OC. Also in the latest update there could be some new security update which caused a hit in performance again.
That's just a shot in the dark someone else might have more input later.
Edit I see now your OC ..... I would think something in the update is messing with you either a security update or with your OC or heat + OC have you just a tad unstable.
That's just a shot in the dark someone else might have more input later.
Edit I see now your OC ..... I would think something in the update is messing with you either a security update or with your OC or heat + OC have you just a tad unstable.
Similar threads
![(G{in}[AK)TION]](/forums/data/avatars/s/116/116613.jpg?1469679448){kind=avatar}