[SOLVED] i5 6600 non-k vs ryzen5 1500x cinebench scores

valrog

Honorable
Dec 27, 2012
183
0
10,680
0
I have 2 set ups one with i5 6600 non k(oc'd to 4.45ghz) scoring 710cb on cinebench.
while the ryzen 5 1500x on stock scores 830 on cinebench. Not unless the gpu plays into a factor into the cpu scoring in cinebench. I don't get this score. is the ryzen that much better than the i5 6600? from my understanding both are basically equal in performance.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
How do you have a locked CPU overclocked, at all, much less to 4.45Ghz?

Cinebench gives much weight to multithreaded scores, and the 1500x has four cores with a total of 8 threads while the 6600 has only four cores with no hyperthreading, so it is not unrealistic to see that score better.

Other hardware can play a role as well. How clean the operating system is on each system, what kind of drives are being used, how fast the drives are, how much memory and how fast the memory for each system is. These all play a role and it would be really hard to do a direct comparison yourself without a clean OS with nothing else installed, identical graphics adapters, identical drives and motherboards that are as close to the same tier as possible for different chipsets.
 

valrog

Honorable
Dec 27, 2012
183
0
10,680
0
@darkbreeze I did some research on how to oc non k skylake. I got the right bios and flashed my z170 board and I was able to change the bclk on it that way.

question for both = whats the advantages of the i5 6600 then? with it having a higher price point than the ryzen5 1500x im assuming it better than it on something? im not really an expert or know much about this but from what you both have told me. the ryzen sounds better in all aspects.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
I thought, and was pretty sure, that Intel had forced all of the motherboard manufacturers to remove those older BCLK enabled bios versions. I guess you must have found that through a shadier source, which is fine I guess.

The difference is, Intel is proud of their hardware and has been for a long time. They have been king of the hill for so long that at the time the Skylake CPUs came out they were not in a position to feel the need for more cores or not ready to implement architectures utilizing them.

Prices rarely have much to do with performance and everything to do with the impression of performance OR with consumer confidence in a given product because of the company track record. At the time that CPU was released to the market, the Ryzen CPUs were barely even being designed much less brought to market, so there WAS no competition at the time because AMD's only existing product lines were the A series and FX series processors, and neither of those could compete in any meaningful way, at all.

Now that AMD is beginning to push the envelope and offer some serious competition, at least in multithreaded performance, Intel is being forced to quickly get higher core count CPUs on the market so they can push back in that area. Single core performance is not as all encompassing as it used to be because more and more games and applications are being optimized to take advantage of those additional threads, and it is showing up in performance and benchmarking reviews AND in real world performance.

Also, the Ryzen CPUs are much newer than that Skylake CPU, so honestly, aside from those games or applications that rely heavily on strong single core performance, there really IS no advantage to that three generation old Intel architecture.
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS