• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Does this look right?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Evilsizer

Senior Forum Spammer
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
cpu was free and did not cost much to finish out, cooling is TR AXP-90. I am not sure if the temps are high for just be a 4C/8T or if this series just runs hot period. If the numbers are right, then this is a pretty be jump in performance. Turbo was active the entire time, it was at 4289mhz, fsb was below 100mhz?
 

Attachments

  • R20_stock_2x16gb_DDR4_3600cas18.jpg
    R20_stock_2x16gb_DDR4_3600cas18.jpg
    523.5 KB · Views: 14
  • R23_stock_2x16gb_DDR4_3600cas18.jpg
    R23_stock_2x16gb_DDR4_3600cas18.jpg
    506.3 KB · Views: 14
i am not sure what your looking for that is blocked by cinebench. it was only there so i could see cpu fan speed. all the other pertinent info is there from the other programs. are you looking to see the highest recorded cpu speed? 43x99.76=4289mhz
 
Google-fu says "30-50°C when idle and can reach up to 80°C or even briefly spike into the 90s during heavy workloads or gaming" assuming stock/crappy cooler, you got better, you're fine (y)
 
Temps are fine, especially for the used cooling.

Google-fu says "30-50°C when idle and can reach up to 80°C or even briefly spike into the 90s during heavy workloads or gaming" assuming stock/crappy cooler, you got better, you're fine (y)

yea besides the temps, i was looking for feed back if the performance is inline. It caught me off guard seeing this basically bottom of the barrel 4c/8t cpu out doing a 7700k and those 12c/24t xeons. Only tweaking i did was set ram to XMP and for a higher TDP in bios to were the cpu stayed pegged at 4.28ghz.

I did also seem to inherit "not being able to get into bios", it was definitely weird to have happen. Installing and setting it up the first time was about the same. Get a few settings in there, then after the customer just rebooting from windows updates. i wanted to check something else in the bios and nothing. Watch the num lock flash twice, go to hit it and nothing. looked around online, people said use the app in windows. Did that same thing, reboot and just hangs/sits there. reboot it and get into windows no problem, go from USB keyboard back to the PS2 keyboard same thing. turned it off unplugged the drive, put a new bios on a USB stick to update it. Get the bios setup again and after a few reboots, no more getting into the bios. this seems to be a hit or miss if people get this fixed and it seems mostly on AMD boards. It should not be happening but i have no idea how to even go about fixing it. I guess i could just reset the cmos again, leave the cpu settings along and just set the ram XMP settings. I spent hours trying to figure out how to fix/resolve this. maybe its because i got one of their cheapest mATX boards? some of the responses AsRock has on their forums is crazy to me. "we used the same parts are your setup and were not able to replicate the issue" I did not see them ask a word on the full details, no asking bios version, keyboard, mouse, and they only used cpu/mobo/ram "as the same". I guess thats ok, i got a monitor doesn't work on my 3 different laptops but works just find on my desktops!?!? using the same HDMI cable and does not matter which HDMI port i use.
 
That xeon is 12+ years old and the 7700k is 8.
now your going to make me boot up my 4690k setup and lock the cpu speed to 4.2/4.3ghz to see if it really is that big of a difference. :O
granted i just now realized it is packing 1.25mb of L2 per core, my 9600k is only packing 256kb L2 per core. Did someone at intel finally go back and pay attention to the Core 2 gains with increased L2. I think back then it was a pooled L2 not per core like now, L2 offered nice gains back then till about 1mb-2mb. I would run my 9th gen but its acting all funky lately.
 
I decided to benchmark my 9600k, even with it being all funky. as you see even for being 8th gen refresh it is still way behind were the 13100F is. I personally think it has more to do with higher L2 cache per core then more a generational improvements. IF it was the case then the 9th gen should be higher then the X5650 which is a first gen i7 cpu but just labeled for Xeon. I did have a X5650 in a X58 along time ago setup running at 4ghz. I really wish i had the chance to compare it to my 9600k. I would be willing to bet the X5650 would destroy the 9600k.
 

Attachments

  • 9600k_4ghz_r23.jpg
    9600k_4ghz_r23.jpg
    401.4 KB · Views: 4
I would be willing to bet the X5650 would destroy the 9600k.
Maybe. Again you're dealing with 15 vs 7 years old processors. One has HT, the other doesn't. Not like items. I'd bet they will be close though as 8 years is a lot of IPC improvements.
 
Even moving from Zen 2 to Zen 3 was a big improvement for me.

Pi32M from 11m to 5..
yea with AMD that is hugh but intel is more small steps. I get what yall are saying, but i still think if that 13th gen didn't have 1.25mb of L2 per core. That it would not be as big a difference as it is..
Post magically merged:

That looks low, shouldn't the 9600k be higher than the 7700k?

EDIT:
yea but i not reinstalled windows on that pc after first getting it together. I imagine there is a alot of bloat now from everything, extra strings in the registry ect.
 
yea with AMD that is hugh but intel is more small steps. I get what yall are saying, but i still think if that 13th gen didn't have 1.25mb of L2 per core. That it would not be as big a difference as it is..
It has been so long since I have run a modern Intel system, Z77 was the last for me. I moooved into AM4 Christmas of 2020. I would still be using one now.. but FOMO got the better of me.
 
Back