Personal computing discussed
DancinJack wrote:chuckula wrote:derFunkenstein wrote:Amusingly (based on the thread title), or perhaps not, my Ryzen 5 2400G system is faster than the entry level 2017 MacBook Pro 15" with the Core i7-7700HQ. The AMD system scored 1740 and the MacBook rang in at 1685. I expected it to be kind of close but I figured the Mac would win. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Was that running Windows on the Mac?
No. I'd be VERY surprised if anyone got a 2400G running on macOS.
mikewinddale wrote:I just ran Cinebench R20 on my Ryzen 2700X at stock speeds.
MP: 3913 cb
SP: 425 cb
Seems legit to me. I'm happy with my Ryzen. Plus, it supports ECC.
thecoldanddarkone wrote:What are the clock speeds with stock, in your case? (like what is the average all core speed) Stock these days are kind of annoying.
chuckula wrote:derFunkenstein wrote:Amusingly (based on the thread title), or perhaps not, my Ryzen 5 2400G system is faster than the entry level 2017 MacBook Pro 15" with the Core i7-7700HQ. The AMD system scored 1740 and the MacBook rang in at 1685. I expected it to be kind of close but I figured the Mac would win. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Was that running Windows on the Mac?
DancinJack wrote:chuckula wrote:derFunkenstein wrote:Amusingly (based on the thread title), or perhaps not, my Ryzen 5 2400G system is faster than the entry level 2017 MacBook Pro 15" with the Core i7-7700HQ. The AMD system scored 1740 and the MacBook rang in at 1685. I expected it to be kind of close but I figured the Mac would win. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Was that running Windows on the Mac?
No. I'd be VERY surprised if anyone got a 2400G running on macOS.
derFunkenstein wrote::lol: Kentucky basketball gettin the better of DancinJack tonight. He did say "on the Mac", meaning on the MBP, or so I presume.
derFunkenstein wrote:Dang it I shoulda known that. I saw KU and assumed Kentucky despite your flagrant Kansas fandom.
Glorious wrote:oh thank god I needed some High-Test Chuckula to get me through the rest of this day.
OP delivers!
derFunkenstein wrote:Amusingly (based on the thread title), or perhaps not, my Ryzen 5 2400G system is faster than the entry level 2017 MacBook Pro 15" with the Core i7-7700HQ. The AMD system scored 1740 and the MacBook rang in at 1685. I expected it to be kind of close but I figured the Mac would win. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
mikewinddale wrote:thecoldanddarkone wrote:What are the clock speeds with stock, in your case? (like what is the average all core speed) Stock these days are kind of annoying.
4,349.0 MHz single core (turbo), and 3,949.1 MHz all-core.
Maximum CPU temperature (while running Cinebench R20) is 68.5C (Tdie, without the +10C offset), with a be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4.
just brew it! wrote:derFunkenstein wrote:Amusingly (based on the thread title), or perhaps not, my Ryzen 5 2400G system is faster than the entry level 2017 MacBook Pro 15" with the Core i7-7700HQ. The AMD system scored 1740 and the MacBook rang in at 1685. I expected it to be kind of close but I figured the Mac would win. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
MBP's probably experiencing thermal throttling.
(And off-topic, but GAWD I hate the new MBP keyboards...)
Khali wrote:Just tried Cinebench R20 on my new system.
i9-9900K Stock at 3.6 GHz
CPU - 4715 CB
CPU (single core) - 479 CB
MP Ratio - 9.84x
synthtel2 wrote:just brew it! wrote:synthtel2 wrote:(I usually run SMT-less now because apparently Windows' scheduler is hot garbage,
It's not just the fault of the scheduler; SMT is really hard to schedule for optimally. Blaming the scheduler when SMT performs poorly on certain workloads is, in a sense. blaming the messenger.
It's nothing inherent to SMT, it's the thing where Windows wants to make my threads share cores even when there are plenty of actually free cores to go around. Doing better would literally be as simple as not assigning work to any even-numbered logical cores unless all odd-numbered logical cores are already in use. I can also blame Windows because I dual-boot and Windows very clearly has a problem with this that Linux doesn't.
derFunkenstein wrote:Amusingly (based on the thread title), or perhaps not, my Ryzen 5 2400G system is faster than the entry level 2017 MacBook Pro 15" with the Core i7-7700HQ. The AMD system scored 1740 and the MacBook rang in at 1685. I expected it to be kind of close but I figured the Mac would win. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Waco wrote:Windows Store only? Ugh. WHY.
anotherengineer wrote:HA
Called it.
Read the title. Guessed the author, guessed right.
No point reading this thread.
derFunkenstein wrote:Amusingly (based on the thread title), or perhaps not, my Ryzen 5 2400G system is faster than the entry level 2017 MacBook Pro 15" with the Core i7-7700HQ. The AMD system scored 1740 and the MacBook rang in at 1685. I expected it to be kind of close but I figured the Mac would win. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Waco wrote:Windows Store only? Ugh. WHY.
1-click install, 1-click uninstall, and centralized updates are pretty compelling reasons.
End User wrote:derFunkenstein wrote:Amusingly (based on the thread title), or perhaps not, my Ryzen 5 2400G system is faster than the entry level 2017 MacBook Pro 15" with the Core i7-7700HQ. The AMD system scored 1740 and the MacBook rang in at 1685. I expected it to be kind of close but I figured the Mac would win. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Why are you comparing a 2018 65W TDP desktop CPU to a 2017 45W TDP laptop CPU?
techguy wrote:The program has a few examples from such systems.Anyone with a multi-socket system or a higher core count Threadripper care to run this benchmark? Would love to see the scaling across multiple dies/sockets/NUMA domains.