BANANA Benchmark Results Comparison

I'm very curious to see how would an overclocked Ryzen 7 1800x perform on bananabench

Looking at the results of the Ryzen 5 above, i believe Ryzen 7 1800x would be able to reach the 6950X's 355MBeams/s, while costing 1/4 the price

 

Done on my laptop, a Toughbook CF-31 Mk3 with a GTX 1050 eGPU running at x1 Opt 2.0

 

That might be a bit unrealistic, the Ryzen 7 1800X should be compared to the 5960X, because both are 8C/16T.

Even if the cores themself might be a bit faster, there would be a significant drop every 8 vehicles (the moment when the first core starts to calculate 2 cars) and a even worse drop at 16 vehicles (the moment theres no seperate threads left for cars).
On the 6950X those drops only happen every 10/20 cars, because of the 2C/4T more. In the end this would lead to the 1800X may being faster at the start, but decreasing way faster than the 6950X.

And also looking at the raw power of those CPUs the 1800X is fast, but a step behind still. I know raw performance does not say much across companies generally, but in this case per clock and per core performance is only a bit faster on side of the 1800X. And with both CPUs running 4Ghz, it again only comes down to the 2C/4T more on side of the 6950X.

Also a little note: the 6950X has more room while overclocking compared to the 1800X, so when comparing max OC benchs, the 6950X will make the clear win.

Edit: Also looking at price where im at it would be 1/2 to 1/3, not 1/4

 

When you forget powerplan settings are 1% cpu speed

 

24/7 Clocks

 

1600X on my 24/7 OC

 

R5 1600 here. How many times did you try out the bench ? I noticed, that when doing it couple times in a row, you can squeeze out more performance and keep the processor running in the top levels. I did the test like 10 times in a row and managed to break the 200 JBeam/s barrier. 3.8 Ghz speed, 2933 RAM speed with 15-15-15-35 latencies.

 

I ran it just the once. I can OC to 4.2 on the CPU and 3200 on the RAM and I got around 220, but my cooling seriously caused thermal throttling and it dropped to below 150. So that was my stock 24/7 OC... until I get my water cooling fitted anyway.

 

So you went over that throttling limit of 75 C, that's the information I got about that, correct ? And interesting to see, that you managed to get over 3000 with RAM speed, that also brings significant difference to these CPU's.

 

I've had my 1700 3.7ghz at 90c on the stock cooler :/ no throttling got hyper 212 LED turbo now 60c

 

Ouch, that's pretty critical. I read somewhere, that is near the shutdown/breaking point of 95 C and the unstability begins at 75 C. My R5 1600 goes up to 60-65 C in gaming, but Prime95 tests shoots it up to 75 C. So the stock cooler is not capable enough on the highest stress, especially the smaller one.

 

That's far too high and scary. I'm using my very old AM3 cooler and when it hits 75C it immediately throttles. I'm assuming your early BIOS and voltage caused that? Was going to say, there was a 20C issue that AMD implemented to prevent thermal throttling, but afaik, that was on the early X series CPU's. Roll on Vega though, once I have that, I'm going full custom water loop.

 

1.25v :/ any bios still tried to cook itself almost convinced my 1700 has the 20c offset
also don't bother with a full loop just get a air cooler overclocking is not really these chips forte

 

1.25? Mine is set to 1.3V (95W) but using Ryzen Master and CPUZ shows it at 1.375, but that's the BIOS trying to avoid crashing. But yeah, I can get 4.2 I recon, I just need to cool it better, so a water cooling solution is needed. I already own it all anyway, just don't have a GPU to put in the loop yet, and I want to do it all in one go.

 

Late 2016 MacBook Pro running BootCamp

 

@4.2 GHz

EDIT: Better photo.

 

BeamNG.drive version 0.10.0
CPU: i5 6600k @ 4.5GHz
RAM: 16GB 3100MHz CL15

SAME PC:
0.9 - 149 Mbeams/s
0.10 - 126.5Mbeam/s

I'm interested what exactly has been changed so that performance went down for ~15% - IMO crashes looks better in .10 than in .9 + added volumetric pressure to wheels, improved aero = better handling, also sounds calculations, but 15% is a quite big loss.

 

Well not really a big loss considering most PCs are allready fast enough to still do 6+ vehicles and that the last update was a 15% plus

 

Decided to test 0.10 here also...

Same PC:
0.9 - 161.8Mbeams/s
0.10 - 149.8MBeams/s

So my performance went down for ~7%, not 15% like in your system