I don't belong to the tin-foil hat brigade, but this sounds quite weird. Why would the Ryzen architecture process something efficiently if it was meaningless? I'm quite sure there are things the Intel core architecture is also good at. In fact, many current game engines prove that, making the core architecture still the best for gamers today. This is the same as saying that since a Porsche engine allows faster acceleration than a Ford engine, the acceleration factor must be disregarded if those two cars are ever compared. Sorry, CPU-Z developer, but I won't buy this explanation, which sounds totally random.

Overall AMD CPU's scores are lowered, not only Ryzen. Some user already posted this : [spoiler]http://kephost.com/images/2017/05/02/cpuz_intel_powered.png[/spoiler]

Sorry, CPU-Z developer, but I won't buy this explanation, which sounds totally random.

There's no point having a benchmark that shows off what one processor arc can do in a 1 in a trillion situation against others that can't.

I just checked a recent validation from an x1800 @3.8Ghz, i guess the 6700k is running at stock. It still looks fine to me, nothing to worry about: [spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/Vv5XSwr.png[/spoiler]

The benchmark seems very different compared to the previous version, the scores are way lower than the ones I had in the past. Right now my cpu is working at 3.5 GHz base clock with a 4.6 GHz turbo and I got 207 ST and 1348 MT. When Ryzen was released my cpu was working at 3.6/4.0 GHz and I had this result: 1050 ST and 6680 MT (in multithreading uses only the base clock when turbo is enabled). This is BS. Now I want to see how things changed for the Intel cpus.

I just checked a recent validation from an x1800 @3.8Ghz, i guess the 6700k is running at stock. It still looks fine to me, nothing to worry about: http://i.imgur.com/Vv5XSwr.png

Having unbiased real world benchmark examples is important. No one uses their computer to calculate Pi or something like that. PS: looking at those numbers again, something is wrong: AMD dropped more than Intel...wth?

There's no point having a benchmark that shows off what one processor arc can do in a 1 in a trillion situation against others that can't.

I hope the CPU-Z developer has bought a few lottery tickets if he has a unique 1 in a trillion luck. A more plausible explanation is that there's real value in processing it faster and thus the architecture does it. The CPU-Z developer simply didn't like it for his own reasons, so he used his natural privilege as the tool developer to change it to something else, to serve his own ends. It's his right, so it's okay, but he would be more respectable by not trying to invent fancy excuses for doing it.

I hope the CPU-Z developer has bought a few lottery tickets if he has a unique 1 in a trillion luck. A more plausible explanation is that there's real value in processing it faster and thus the architecture does it. The CPU-Z developer simply didn't like it for his own reasons, so he used his natural privilege as the tool developer to change it to something else, to serve his own ends. It's his right, so it's okay, but he would be more respectable by not trying to invent fancy excuses for doing it.

Why are the scores much lower than the previous version, and can they be compared ? At the time the first benchmark was released in 2015, only a few parts included 8 cores (like the 5960X). In the meantime, Ryzen was introduced, and therefore 6 and 8-cores processors will become more and more prevalent. As a result, more models with 10, 12 and 16 cores are soon to be released. More cores mean higher multi-threaded scores, and a lower scale makes the comparisons easier. The new benchmark uses a new algorithm, and its scores can not be compared with the previous version.

Why do the Ryzen performance decrease in comparison to the Intel processors with the new benchmark ? When the 1st version of the benchmark was released in 2015, it was tested on all existing architectures to check the relevancy of the scores. Almsot two years later, Ryzen was introduced, and scored - core for core and clock for clock - almost 30% higher than Intel Skylake. After a deep investigation, we found out that the code of the benchmark felt into a special case on Ryzen microarchitecture because of an unexpected sequence of integer instructions. These operations added a noticeable but similar delay in all existing microarchitectures at the time the previous benchmark was developed. When Ryzen was released, we found out that their ALUs executed this unexpected sequence in a much more efficient way, leading to results that mismatch the average performance of that new architecture. We reviewed many software and synthetics benchmarks without being able to find a single case where such a performance boost occurs. We're now convinced that this special case is very unlikely to happen in real-world applications. Our new algorithm described below does not exhibit this behaviour.

LoL. Remember when Nvidia called Oxide ? It was like: We're not good at async compute so async compute is totally irrelevant and disable it in your benchmarks please.