News CPU-Z Isn't Good For Benchmarking CPUs According To New Study

[Admin]

CPU-Z's built-in benchmark was scrutinized in a report that claims it's not suitable for evaluating CPU performance.

CPU-Z Isn't Good For Benchmarking CPUs According To New Study : Read more

 

[punkncat]

I like CPU-Z for the information it offers. I tend to take the benchmark with a grain of salt, but is still pretty decent to check stability and temps. In my own case it is something I do with new builds to be sure the cooler is working and properly seated.

 

[Rokinamerica]

Like Punkncat, I use it for the info.

 

[Makaveli]

I like CPU-Z for the information it offers. I tend to take the benchmark with a grain of salt, but is still pretty decent to check stability and temps. In my own case it is something I do with new builds to be sure the cooler is working and properly seated.

same i'm not someone that is big on synthetic benchmarks in general.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

It IS good, however, for a quick and dirty "is it stable" test when overclocking, as if it can't make it past there there's no reason to move onto Cinebench. It's really not that great at looking at the information, especially on AMD Zen 1-3 platforms (and Zen 4 too?) because of the way AMD reports voltage incorrectly (even reporting to Ryzen Master incorrectly).

It's also good to generate a quick report to show it's working when you go to sell it on eBay.

 

[azalea_k]

I didn't even know it had a benchmark; also, there's a good reason review sites use multiple benches when testing.

 

[bit_user]

also, there's a good reason review sites use multiple benches when testing.

True, but a low-quality benchmark that doesn't either qualify as a micro-benchmark or match any real-world workload will only serve to add more noise to the review & aggregate results.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

But then it serves as an easy test to see if it's a site you should pay any attention to.

 

[bit_user]

But then it serves as an easy test to see if it's a site you should pay any attention to.

Not sure about that, since who out there is profiling the benchmarks they run, like Chips & Cheese just did? Seriously, name one benchmarking & reviews site who's done that.

Heck, Toms is better than some in even separating out their application benchmarks into single-threaded & multi-threaded, when computing aggregate scores.

Ideally, this revelation would lead to greater transparency, for benchmarks that aren't measuring real end-user applications. Furthermore, I'd like to see someone try to validate suites like PCMark by testing how they correspond to direct tests of end user apps.

I do make a special exception for what are termed "micro-benchmarks", like cache & memory tests. That's because these have no pretense of directly predicting application performance, but instead give some insight into various aspects of the system that can potentially help explain the results of application-level benchmarks.