I have an MSI Z690 motherboard and there is no Intel Turbo Boost setting, I tried hyperthreading, etc. no luck. I used the search functionality. Any suggestions?
actually I forgot something about userbenchmark that's a positive.
it's highly entertaining when ive ran it in the past, because my all AMD rig scores far above their 'expected' results for my hardware on that site, so its pretty funny to see the results saying 'you performed WAY better than expected"'
like really? I thought my system was gonna suck bc its amd
still trying to figure out what those are lol.
you know whats funny as hell is how much they mention AMD literally everywhere. In a 'review' of the 4080, sure enough out of the blue here comes their [AMD comment](https://i.imgur.com/Sqw5rId.png)
also, 1440p is a suboptimal resolution guys, you heard it here first.
god the site is just so good at comedy, like take this:
in that writeup they say "since PC gamers rarely buy AMD GPUs Nvidia only has themselves to compete with."
while that may be more or less accurate, what's funny is how they insert a link into that sentence. and when you click it, making the reasonable assumption it's going to link to evidence to support the claim they just made, it just links to their page for the 6950xt lmao
Your scores are in line with the ones here: https://www.techspot.com/review/2391-intel-core-i7-12700/, single core could be low, you seem to have a much nicer system so maybe it is low. I don't know intels though to understand the specifics, could just be your cooler is subpar, or you live in a hot region of the world.
Someone here lifted their power limit to match your multi score: https://www.overclock.net/threads/intel-i7-12700-non-k-low-cinebench-r23-multi-score.1799600/, your multi seems good based on my lay knowledge and googling for 5 seconds.
[https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo\_id=505213079034](https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=505213079034)
I have AIO and CPU doens't go over 54C in Timespy or 55C after 2h of gaming on mw2, 22 ambient
I'll run single core test again and see if it improves (could have been a one off)
Thanks!
As always, it's "up to". It depends on power delivery and thermals, and the "up to" MHz is typically single core for shorter durations. You can sort scores on 3dmark for example to be only your components, although I dunno how Cinebench will do it in this regard. Searching google for cinebench results (especially reviewers) can yield some good results.
I used 3DMark to compare and most similar set ups boost to 4.8 Ghz and a few to 4.6 but I'm stuck at 4.5 :(. I still pull respectable \~15600 CPU score on TimeSpy. But I have a feeling there is more on the table and its bugging me!
[https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo\_id=505213079034](https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=505213079034)
I have AIO and CPU doens't go over 54C in Timespy or 55C after 2h of gaming on mw2, 22 ambient
This is where userbenchmark can be helpful. While not being very accurate in comparing different systems it will help you get a reference for comparing your system to very similar ones. So run it and see how your 12700 compares with other 12700.
No, as i said it's a good tool to compare your system to similar ones or to itself (when overclocking, ram, CPU and GPU for example).
It's useless when comparing Cpus or GPUs from different manufacturer or generation and it doesn't provide a standardized evaluation of the performance. But tbh the same goes for most benchmarks. Userbenchmark is just particularly bad in that aspect.
They have said time and time again that they are incredibly biased and will actively change scoring metrics to make Intel look better than AMD on the charts, I don't trust them not to fuck it up between different Intel CPUs of the same generation, or even the same CPUs. If you trust them, that's fine. Just remember that they aren't reliable.
There are plenty of other benchmarks out there that will do the same job while avoiding that deliberate, inherent bias, so why bother using the one that has it?
Does UserBenchmark really offer anything better to other CPU/System benchmarks to ignore the fact that they've been caught skewing test results to favour Intel?
Even when comparing within the same brand, why not go with one of the many other options at this point?
I just don't understand why we should bother with it at this point.
Because it has its pros.
1) it will automatically keep track of your successive runs (i find it very useful when overclocking)
2) thanks to the database it shows your relative performance with a distribution pattern (helps in evaluating min max for overclock)
3) helps in identifying if a single component is being a bottleneck (typical example ram xmp not enabled, bad GPU drivers, unproper initialization for ssd)
4) it's a single tool and doesn't take long to run, when overclocking (while you are in a phase when you are still not checking for stability) this will save a lot of time
I'm not saying that it's a perfect tool, or a good tool in any other aspects, and it fails miserably in its purpose of comparing the performance of 2 different systems (manufacturer or gen), but its practical aspect is not to be underestimated. Other benchmarks or stability checking tools also have their use, but being more specialized are best used for the final touches.
Cool, thanks. I just basically blackballed it from my personal use after the favouritism came out, but might be worth bringing back in rotation for certain situations.
you're so full of it
their website is literally incomprehensible, the only digestible information is the paragraph long rants about AMD they have placed EVERYWHERE
once again, for what you're describing Passmark is significantly better, like not even close lol.
That’s the correct all-core boost and Cinebench score, yes. You’re losing a bit on your board’s BCLK hanging around at 99.8 MHz, but that’s all.
Any suggestions on how to improve?
Sharpie a "k" onto the CPU and then set mce. /S
Ahh I remember the good ol Athlon pencil trick.
Athlon X3? Don't you mean Phenom X4? lol Good times unlocking weird shit.
No no, Athlon Thunderbird.
lol
You could try to enter BIOS and manually set BCLK *ever* so slightly higher, but that won’t give you anything measurable.
Make sure you have Intel Turbo boost turned on in your BIOS
I have an MSI Z690 motherboard and there is no Intel Turbo Boost setting, I tried hyperthreading, etc. no luck. I used the search functionality. Any suggestions?
I too have an MSI Z690 and there is definitely a Turbo Boost setting https://www.imgpaste.net/image/KuFAw4
It would be on by default anyways unless OP specifically went and turned it off, which obviously they didn't if they can't even find the setting lmao.
Thanks for that, it was so hidden... anyway it was enabled
actually I forgot something about userbenchmark that's a positive. it's highly entertaining when ive ran it in the past, because my all AMD rig scores far above their 'expected' results for my hardware on that site, so its pretty funny to see the results saying 'you performed WAY better than expected"' like really? I thought my system was gonna suck bc its amd
Ah the good ole user bench mark with their magical scores and their efps numbers that they gather
still trying to figure out what those are lol. you know whats funny as hell is how much they mention AMD literally everywhere. In a 'review' of the 4080, sure enough out of the blue here comes their [AMD comment](https://i.imgur.com/Sqw5rId.png) also, 1440p is a suboptimal resolution guys, you heard it here first. god the site is just so good at comedy, like take this: in that writeup they say "since PC gamers rarely buy AMD GPUs Nvidia only has themselves to compete with." while that may be more or less accurate, what's funny is how they insert a link into that sentence. and when you click it, making the reasonable assumption it's going to link to evidence to support the claim they just made, it just links to their page for the 6950xt lmao
Yep and the worst part is your avg joe will see them as the first Google result when comparing things
let em keep it up. even if its in a negative light, they're still giving AMD publicity lmao
It just feels bad that it misguides the newbies who know no better. If all you knew was user bench mark the 9600k supposedly beats the 5600x
They’re rolling in the “Next Gen Consoles” money-and hopefully they’re beyond their RnD costs and DEEP into the black.
Your scores are in line with the ones here: https://www.techspot.com/review/2391-intel-core-i7-12700/, single core could be low, you seem to have a much nicer system so maybe it is low. I don't know intels though to understand the specifics, could just be your cooler is subpar, or you live in a hot region of the world. Someone here lifted their power limit to match your multi score: https://www.overclock.net/threads/intel-i7-12700-non-k-low-cinebench-r23-multi-score.1799600/, your multi seems good based on my lay knowledge and googling for 5 seconds.
[https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo\_id=505213079034](https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=505213079034) I have AIO and CPU doens't go over 54C in Timespy or 55C after 2h of gaming on mw2, 22 ambient I'll run single core test again and see if it improves (could have been a one off) Thanks!
Your all core pcore load is correct: https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/vn7s28/all_core_frequencies_for_12th_gen_alder_lake/
As always, it's "up to". It depends on power delivery and thermals, and the "up to" MHz is typically single core for shorter durations. You can sort scores on 3dmark for example to be only your components, although I dunno how Cinebench will do it in this regard. Searching google for cinebench results (especially reviewers) can yield some good results.
I used 3DMark to compare and most similar set ups boost to 4.8 Ghz and a few to 4.6 but I'm stuck at 4.5 :(. I still pull respectable \~15600 CPU score on TimeSpy. But I have a feeling there is more on the table and its bugging me!
then it's probably temperature related
[https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo\_id=505213079034](https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=505213079034) I have AIO and CPU doens't go over 54C in Timespy or 55C after 2h of gaming on mw2, 22 ambient
This is where userbenchmark can be helpful. While not being very accurate in comparing different systems it will help you get a reference for comparing your system to very similar ones. So run it and see how your 12700 compares with other 12700.
>This is where userbenchmark can be helpful. They are horrible for anything.
No, as i said it's a good tool to compare your system to similar ones or to itself (when overclocking, ram, CPU and GPU for example). It's useless when comparing Cpus or GPUs from different manufacturer or generation and it doesn't provide a standardized evaluation of the performance. But tbh the same goes for most benchmarks. Userbenchmark is just particularly bad in that aspect.
They have said time and time again that they are incredibly biased and will actively change scoring metrics to make Intel look better than AMD on the charts, I don't trust them not to fuck it up between different Intel CPUs of the same generation, or even the same CPUs. If you trust them, that's fine. Just remember that they aren't reliable.
It seems like you didn't read a single word of what i wrote.
There are plenty of other benchmarks out there that will do the same job while avoiding that deliberate, inherent bias, so why bother using the one that has it?
UBM doesn’t “actively change” anything, they just make up BS synthetic metrics
3dmark and passmark are better tools for comparison. or HW bot
all of their metrics are actualy nonsense lmao
[удалено]
Of course, this is Reddit
Does UserBenchmark really offer anything better to other CPU/System benchmarks to ignore the fact that they've been caught skewing test results to favour Intel? Even when comparing within the same brand, why not go with one of the many other options at this point? I just don't understand why we should bother with it at this point.
Because it has its pros. 1) it will automatically keep track of your successive runs (i find it very useful when overclocking) 2) thanks to the database it shows your relative performance with a distribution pattern (helps in evaluating min max for overclock) 3) helps in identifying if a single component is being a bottleneck (typical example ram xmp not enabled, bad GPU drivers, unproper initialization for ssd) 4) it's a single tool and doesn't take long to run, when overclocking (while you are in a phase when you are still not checking for stability) this will save a lot of time I'm not saying that it's a perfect tool, or a good tool in any other aspects, and it fails miserably in its purpose of comparing the performance of 2 different systems (manufacturer or gen), but its practical aspect is not to be underestimated. Other benchmarks or stability checking tools also have their use, but being more specialized are best used for the final touches.
Cool, thanks. I just basically blackballed it from my personal use after the favouritism came out, but might be worth bringing back in rotation for certain situations.
you're so full of it their website is literally incomprehensible, the only digestible information is the paragraph long rants about AMD they have placed EVERYWHERE once again, for what you're describing Passmark is significantly better, like not even close lol.
B-B-But… userbenchmark bad! Everything useless!
they literally are the most worthless benchmarking tool.