I'm not one to tin foil either but with the power and influence Intel has in the tech community and a record of playing dirty when pushed into a corner, Things like this bother me. Kind of like yesterday when all those firms came out bullish against AMD stock. Not saying anything is off just that Intel is a global juggernaut with their fingers in many a pie both political and financial.

AMD would have been all over this special case of processing a specific algorithm, which is quite possibly useless in the real world, or is at least not proven to be useful.

We have this one person's claim that it's useless. On the other hand developing an entirely new CPU takes years and costs who knows how many millions. You think it's an accident it processes this efficiently? Don't you feel that would be looking down too much on AMD (soon 50 years in the semiconductor business) and the well-known Jim Keller?

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.

No, I don't. I remember them making a big stink about using Async=OFF switch in order not to tank Maxwell. I do remember Oxide acting less like a developer and more like an AMD mouthpiece. I also remember Oxide being clueless about Maxwell's capabilities, while doing their best to optimize for Radeons. And I remember Nvidia releasing DX11 driver which reached AMDs Mantle's performance in Star Swarm. Made Oxide look like bunch of amateurs 😀 Conspiracies follow AMD like flies follow ****. But when there is a clear case of their own little dirty play, their kook brigade goes nananana we cant see anything, we cant hear anything

I don't really understand the fuzz about this. Ryzen performs very well, offers great performance for the money. Who cares about such a single benchmark that hardly is relevant for most people, not even when buying either an Intel or AMD platform...

Because Intel, like any monopoly with tons of cash plays dirty. The tech media still influences enthusiasts and financial analysts (though after the Ryzen, 1080p and even 720p debacle tech media is losing influence I believe). 1080p benchmarks threw massive shade on Ryzen's release, though it's overcoming it and gaining market share. A company as small as AMD is vulnerable to the tech media and the benchmarks they use negatively affecting confidence in them. They don't have the cash to withstand this time of assault with Intel in the background pulling strings. Of course they are. Do you really think they're just going to give up market and shareholder profits to AMD without playing dirty as they always have done. Do you think a dev like the one who makes CPU-Z is beyond Intel influence? I'm not a tin foil guy, and not a zealot of any company. I've never owned an AMD processor, I always saw them and inferior to Intel. But now, they clearly have the upside and I like where they're taking the desktop. But I'm an adult and realist. And there's no way this is all just coincidence. Also, given AMDs current high risk situation, this could be this devs opportunity for 15-minutes of fame jumping on the anti-AMD bandwagon as they're stock plummeted in the past 48-hours (not that this actually directly affects AMD). Purely from a scientific standpoint, this is an unprofessional thing to do. CPU-Z can't be taken seriously IMO. They have lost all credibility with this move. There is a right and a wrong way to do things. This is BS. Not that they had any credibility anyway. When this is all said and done, AMD will have changed the CPU and GPU landscape for the benefit of all consumers. And looking back, these homegrown benchmarks and a huge portion of tech media will have lost ALL credibility and will not be taken seriously.

Single threaded CPU-z looked inflated on Ryzen from the very begging. It still does. If you think that outside of few very special cases, the single threaded performance on your 1800X is on par with i7-7700k, there is something wrong with you 😉

How shady is this? I noticed this about a week ago but forgot to post about it. So Ryzen was "too efficient" at a particular instruction/set of instructions in the benchmark, so they felt the need to change it. This is the kind of stuff that happens when you challenge a company like Intel. Sadly, this is the type of shady, monopolizing behavior you support when you buy strictly Intel. They are well known for strong-arming hardware vendors and software companies in the past. Pretty crappy move on CPU-IDs part...

Tisk tisk Intel- How many boxes of i7 6950x did you send this guy in order to persuade this move? Haha.I still want a Ryzen could care less about this stupid benchmark.

benchmark itself is a program while CPU maker always tried to make their CPU more efficient so when a benchmark saying its wrong for cpu/gpu maker to optimize with benchmark for faking with "better" score... its kinda funny now if cpu-z benchmark relevan with other benchmark in meaning that on previous version only on cpu-z benchmark showing high score, while rest of benchmark is not and then new benchmark score similar to other benchmark score then i personally think its relevan enough but if other benchmark similar with old version cpu-z benchmark score and new version score been drastically different, then i doubt the new cpu-z benchmark relevan the good things there are many benchmark nowdays even maybe its not really same one to another

Because Intel, like any monopoly with tons of cash plays dirty. The tech media still influences enthusiasts and financial analysts (though after the Ryzen, 1080p and even 720p debacle tech media is losing influence I believe). 1080p benchmarks threw massive shade on Ryzen's release, though it's overcoming it and gaining market share. A company as small as AMD is vulnerable to the tech media and the benchmarks they use negatively affecting confidence in them. They don't have the cash to withstand this time of assault with Intel in the background pulling strings. Of course they are. Do you really think they're just going to give up market and shareholder profits to AMD without playing dirty as they always have done. Do you think a dev like the one who makes CPU-Z is beyond Intel influence? I'm not a tin foil guy, and not a zealot of any company. I've never owned an AMD processor, I always saw them and inferior to Intel. But now, they clearly have the upside and I like where they're taking the desktop. But I'm an adult and realist. And there's no way this is all just coincidence. Also, given AMDs current high risk situation, this could be this devs opportunity for 15-minutes of fame jumping on the anti-AMD bandwagon as they're stock plummeted in the past 48-hours (not that this actually directly affects AMD). Purely from a scientific standpoint, this is an unprofessional thing to do. CPU-Z can't be taken seriously IMO. They have lost all credibility with this move. There is a right and a wrong way to do things. This is BS. Not that they had any credibility anyway. When this is all said and done, AMD will have changed the CPU and GPU landscape for the benefit of all consumers. And looking back, these homegrown benchmarks and a huge portion of tech media will have lost ALL credibility and will not be taken seriously.

To be honest, the longer this goes on the more I think AMD and their community loses credibility. It's getting really tiring reading about how everything is a giant conspiracy against AMD. Especially when multiple times, the issues you are describing that "tech reviewers" do, also come from AMD or the community itself, yet no one ever acknowledges that. You have Project Cars ****show: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/367qav/mark_my_word_if_we_dont_stop_the_nvidia_gameworks/ Not only was this post technically wrong (PhysX doesn't run on any GPU in Project Cars). But it was actually AMD that dropped the ball:

"We’ve provided AMD with 20 keys for game testing as they work on the driver side," said Slighty Mad Studios' Ian Bell. "But you only have to look at the lesser hardware in the consoles to see how optimised we are on AMD based chips. We’re reaching out to AMD with all of our efforts. We’ve provided them 20 keys as I say. They were invited to work with us for years, looking through company mails the last I can see [AMD] talked to us was October of last year. Categorically, Nvidia have not paid us a penny. They have though been very forthcoming with support and co-marketing work at their instigation."

And yet I still see people here bringing it up. Then you have Richard Huddy lying about Hairworks coming in at the last moment in Witcher 3, crippling their performance.

"We've been working with CD Projeckt Red from the beginning," said Huddy. "We've been giving them detailed feedback all the way through. Around two months before release, or thereabouts, the GameWorks code arrived with HairWorks, and it completely sabotaged our performance as far as we're concerned. We were running well before that... it's wrecked our performance, almost as if it was put in to achieve that goal."

Yet it was demonstrated in the game a year before it's release: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i8K5M98eME Further they said lack of source was the reason why the performance was crippling - but HairWorks is source is available now, yet I don't see any drivers with massive gains in it. Their fix was to simply lower tessellation - which is fine - but they did that after making a big public stink about it being Nvidia's fault not simply their geometry performance being awful. As for the tessellation slider itself - I constantly see people saying "it's overkill" and yet here is Crysis 2 with AMD's optimized setting vs the default setting: http://abload.de/img/fulltessellation2jrki.jpg - Default Level http://i.imgur.com/ejmXF.jpg - AMD Optimized Level Clearly it has an impact on visual quality despite what various people here say. With Godrays it impact's dense areas, like fences. With Hairworks it affects the simulation quality. Obviously these all differ and in some games you can get away with lowering it without much of a visual impact. But it does affect it. Speaking of Crysis 2, the underwater tessellation thing constantly gets mentioned here, despite both the developers of Cryengine and Cryengine modders explaining that turning wireframe on turns off the geometry culling. The Async thing got completely blown out of proportion. So much so that people are just saying Nvidia emulates DX12 now - literally see a post about it once a day. When in reality, Anandtech, explained that Nvidia doesn't get impacted as much by Async Compute, because the performance advantage mainly comes from filling idle gaps in the pipeline - which Nvidia doesn't have to the same degree as AMD. Or better yet, that Nvidia's GPU's aren't "DX12 compatible" or Nvidia's GPUs are "not multithreaded". Both companies implement things differently - there are design trade offs. AMD gets an advantage in some stuff, Nvidia gets it in others. Like even with the stock drop yesterday, the entire AMD subreddit was looking to blame Goldman Sachs, or "stupid investors", etc. When in reality it was a simple correction to an overvalued stock. I can go on and on. It never ends. Literally everyday there is another "conspiracy" or "issue". Today it's CPU-Z, who is probably just balancing their benchmark so it more accurately reflects reality, tomorrow it will be some other thing - maybe Microsoft again - because despite them using AMD for their Xbox/basis of DX12/etc, they obviously refused to update their scheduler because they are against AMD too. The blame game is starting to get old. The overreaction to every news story is starting to get old. The "AMD woe is me" posts like yours are starting to get old. I can only sympathize so much before I'm over it and I think with this I'm over it. Unless there is some real evidence that CPU-Z took money from Intel to actively damage AMD's reputation - it's all just crying wolf. And like yeah, I get it - a decade ago Intel made some anti-competitive moves - I'm sure to some degree they are still doing it... but now with Ryzen it's like literally every single negative thing about it "must be Intel paying the world off" "Intel paying reviewers" "Intel paying Microsoft" "Intel paying CPU-Z" "Intel paying every youtuber"..

http://i.imgur.com/pSkKiHm.jpg

Intel scores good. The benchmark is valid. AMD scores good. We had to change the benchmark so that AMD cpus score worst. Anyway, CPUz was already a stupid benchmark. A good info program, but completelly stupid when comparing different processors. Unfortunately it's going to become even worst than stupid. Maybe they hope that with Intel's support, CPUz will become part of benchmark suites used by know tech sites.

not sure for the desktop user it matters at all ? at the end of the day are you happy with your cpu does it really matter if it's AMD or Intel, as long as it's doing what you bought it for, what home user really gives a sh!t what any benchmark tool let alone cpu-z says? to many people care more about benchmark scores than enjoying what they bought their PC's for lol im over it all these days couldn't careless, as long as it does what i need and the price is cheap lol just enjoy your PC in real life use rather than care what CPU-Z reports or do people just buy PC's to worry about benchmark score cred these days?

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.

My xeon/core2quad scores 339st 1351mt @3.8ghz Cpu-z is now more broken than before

intel i5 2500k@4.5 ghz also shows different results... Single thread ver 1.7.8: 1703 points Single thread ver 1.7.9: 454 points Multithread ver 1.7.8: 6600 points Multithread ver 1.7.9: 1795 points Why do we speak only about AMD ?

The new benchmark computes a 2-dimensional noise function, that could typically be used in a game to generate a procedural map. The code is written in C++, and compiled with Visual C++ 2008. No special instruction set is used, but the x64 version uses scalar SSE/SSE2 instructions to achieve floating point operations, whereas the 32-bit version keeps using the legacy x87 instructions, resulting in almost half of the x64 performance.

I think that here lies problem of lower Ryzen scores. Probably I am wrong but still... :3eyes:

benchmark itself is a program while CPU maker always tried to make their CPU more efficient so when a benchmark saying its wrong for cpu/gpu maker to optimize with benchmark for faking with "better" score... its kinda funny

Totally agree. IHVs are absolutely free to optimize the hell out of benchmark. But so are benchmark makers. Certain hw running through the rooftop based on some unrepresentative case-scenario which does not get replicated in real-world applications is a borderline bug, and firmly falls under the category of "not working as intended". So then why are benchmark-makers frown upon when optimizing their benchmark to be more representative of real-world performance? Short of provoking the usual grumpy crowd. Yall do realize that CPU-Z makers could run Ryzen aground effortlessly? With zero explanation. Like what Oxide did when Nvidia DX11 caught up with Mantle performance. But guess what, Ryzen lost few %, yet single threaded CPU-z still hugely favors Ryzen! Cry me a river would ya :wanker:

I always preferred Cinebench for benchmarks and probably will be my CPU benchmark of choice for a long time.

Ryzen cheats itself to the top by performing certain ALU workload faster than the competition... that's just unfair. I would ban Ryzen from the market alltogether. http://www.wdwinfo.com/images/smilies/lmao.gif Conclusion: Benchmarks are subjective.

Ryzen cheats itself to the top by performing certain ALU workload faster than the competition... that's just unfair. I would ban Ryzen from the market alltogether. http://www.wdwinfo.com/images/smilies/lmao.gif

I bet it's the infinity fabric...such an evil name has to have something to do with it :banana:

The blame game is starting to get old. The overreaction to every news story is starting to get old. The "AMD woe is me" posts like yours are starting to get old. I can only sympathize so much before I'm over it and I think with this I'm over it. Unless there is some real evidence that CPU-Z took money from Intel to actively damage AMD's reputation - it's all just crying wolf. And like yeah, I get it - a decade ago Intel made some anti-competitive moves - I'm sure to some degree they are still doing it... but now with Ryzen it's like literally every single negative thing about it "must be Intel paying the world off" "Intel paying reviewers" "Intel paying Microsoft" "Intel paying CPU-Z" "Intel paying every youtuber"..

I doubt Intel paid them anything, nor sent them any 1600 dollars CPUs. This CPU-Z benchmark is rather new and obscure. Like Hilbert has said, Intel doesn't give a damn about lots of things anymore, not even sending CPUs for reviewing. So, why would they care about CPU-Z? I reckon the deeper problem is that this CPU-Z developer genuinely felt it's wrong that Ryzen is doing so fine, so he had to find a way to make it do less fine. Apparently that makes the benchmark more believable and relevant in his opinion. This is an unfortunately prevalent opinion among the masses as well, of course largely due to AMD's own disastrous previous architecture that satisfied nobody, but its roots lie also in Intel's actions in the more distant past when it infamously defamed AMD. The end result is the atmosphere where AMD appearing excellent means something is wrong.