tl;dr / BOMBSHELL UPDATE: I upgraded from 2500K to 2600K, everything else the same, 2600K benchmark (AC Origins) significantly less than expected and notably lower than 2500K! Changed back to 2500K and tested, 2500K benchmark's now far worse than it was before taking it out for the 2600K! During / after putting in the 2600K, something has decimated CPU performance. Update of update: With a different crappy board, less RAM and slightly lower speed, the 2600K is performing way better and as expected... in Origins... CPU-Z and Cinebench r15 and 20 are similar... whatever... ============================== Playing the CPU-intensive AC Origins on a 2500K @ 4.6GHz and the benchmark score was 6634 with an average FPS of 57. Now I have a 2600K, but the results are worse. For the same overclock as the 2500K, the FPS is 51 or 52. Is it just the game being crap or is this a sign something's wrong? To top it off, there's a 2018 video of someone with same CPU, GPU and graphics settings getting 69 FPS / 8063 score. BIOS is up to date and already cleared CMOS. Update #1: Turning off hyperthreading saw an improvement in 2600K to 62 FPS and 7361 score. Update #2: It's not Spectre / Meltdown (benchmarks identical).
Turn off HT, how much of a diffeence does it make? Could be spectre and meltdown patches mssing with it?
Older core i-somethings with hyper-threading were already a bit iffy with some games, add in Spectre / Meltdown patches and it'll probably be even worse.
Turning it off makes up half the difference, so now it's 62 FPS and 7361 score. (Though now it's back to having the faceless NPC level-of-detail pop-in problem that the extra threads seemed to fix, that's a whole other issue...)
Yeah I think its Spectre and Meltdown patches doing you in I'm afraid. If you google around you'll be about to find ways of undoing it
Everyone since those security flaws were patched, yes. All Intel, and some AMD, CPU were affected all the way upto the 9 series, 10 series is mean to have fixed it.
I just Googled it and the 2500K was also affected, so shouldn't I still expect the 2600K today to perform better than my 2500K yesterday? What (free) can I use to properly benchmark and compare it so I have a better idea of if it's faulty or not? I'm trying to find something, there has to be something.
Not sure if I misread but what speed is the 2600k running at? Adding 'extra cores' at a problem that only uses 2 isn't going to improve things, and HT can result in reduced performance if you can't take advantage of the cores anyway. Also even if it's CPU heavy GPU will make a huge difference (with regards to the other score from 2018) so if they have a different GPU you can't really compare. On hwbot.org you can see lots of benchmarks to compare performance, anything multithreaded will show the 2600k is better than the 2500k, cinebench, geekbench, wprime, gpupi, physics scores from something like Fire Strike or Time Spy.
2600K is same speed at 4.6GHz. The GPU, CPU, overclock and graphics settings were exactly the same. Either there's something wrong with the video, my CPU or they really messed up with patches since then! Thanks for the list. I'm already downloading the demo for Shadow of the Tomb Raider as there's a vid for that too. I've just tried 3DMark's demo and looked up other scores in my CPU/GPU combo for the same test, and there are others with the same CPU score at the same overclock, but results seem to vary quite a bit so hard to tell.
So I was comparing Shadow of the Tomb Raider benchmarks. The vid on YouTube is probably using a 144Hz monitor, I'm just using 60, so naturally I'm gonna get a lower score. But if someone on a 144Hz monitor always stays above 60 FPS, shouldn't I always be at 60 FPS with no dips? Mine stayed at around 62 FPS, but a couple of times it dipped it was 10 FPS lower than his, but his was always above 60 FPS. EDIT - With CPU-Z's bench, on stock without boost I got 324.1 for single thread, reference for 2600k is 345. For multi-thread I got 1607.8, ref is 1686. With turbo to 3.8GHz it beats it decently.
I guess I have no choice but to but to test a few benchmarks, put the 2500k back in and do the same tests. Maybe buy another one to see if it's similar. One solution online is apparently clean reinstalling Windows... I don't wanna worry about that, especially if that doesn't work... QUOTE="BeauchN, post: 4802671, member: 85610"]Mobo, RAM and storage specs could all have an impact too[/QUOTE] The main concern is that an upgrade is performing worse. Same speed, more threads, but less FPS. Videos showing better benchmarks seems a bad sign.
Run cinebench r15 for example and you'll clearly see an improvement as that's something which can use multiple cores. Things that can't use many cores won't really benefit from extra cores.
Cinebench R20 ok? Any other good ones? So far I'm using Cinebench R20, 3DMark's Time Spy, CPU-Z, and the games AC Origins and Shadow of the Tomb Raider.
R20 would work as well, you can easily see on hwbot.org scores for your cpu at various speeds so you can get a rough idea if things are working as expected.
When comparing the 2500K with 2600K, should I do it at stock? Should I be setting the 2500K at 3.4GHz to match 2600K's stock, and should I give it a healthy silly voltage like 1.4v just to be sure? Or is it fine testing them both at, say, 4.5GHz? I can't get my head around that site. It appears to just be showing 'world records'. I can't simply search the CPU and then find what overclock, what score for which test etc. is considered normal
You just search for what you want in the search bar top right, and then select a benchmark, then scroll through results, e.g: https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cineben...=processor_2277&cores=4#start=100#interval=50 You may as well test them at the speeds you'll be running them at.
They are essentially the same chip when overclocking to same speed I would expect to see no difference outside of multithread loads. Some games will see a bump with HT disabled, same for Ryzen but on the whole it is best left on or setting on a per game basis if you really need to eek out the extra. AC Origins is an odd one on my threadripper also, it is the one game that doesn't like game mode.
