To give you an idea, my 2.26Ghz 4,1 Mac Pro (8-core) scores better in multi-core CPU benchmarks than a 2013 Retina Pro with an i7. However, each individual core isn't as powerful.
Which benchmark? Please don't say Geekbench.To give you an idea, my 2.26Ghz 4,1 Mac Pro (8-core) scores better in multi-core CPU benchmarks than a 2013 Retina Pro with an i7. However, each individual core isn't as powerful.
Which benchmark? Please don't say Geekbench.
Its just a benchmark. It doesn't represent real world use when people only mention multicore scores. But we all know that by now, it's just we live in this society obsessed with big numbers.Why not say Geekbench? Is that a bit too cliche?
[
Its just a benchmark. It doesn't represent real world use when people only mention multicore scores. But we all know that by now, it's just we live in this society obsessed with big numbers.
[
Its just a benchmark. It doesn't represent real world use when people only mention multicore scores. But we all know that by now, it's just we live in this society obsessed with big numbers.
I'm actually not obsessed with big numbers... do you think I'm one of those 'elite' gamers who thinks that a 6Ghz AMD chip is faster than a 3.5Ghz i7? If you want to test raw power, you use a benchmark. Does it simulate real-world tests? No... it doesn't; and that wasn't what I was implying.
So what your saying is a 2699 v3 might be faster than dual x5690's? Not the case.
The multicore score gives you a relatively good idea where you stand. Not definitive any any way but a guide.
As dual x5690's and a 2697v2 score quite close and actually render in vray a fraction apart.
A OC 6700k renders quite close to a 1650v2, Guess what there only separated by a small margin.
Nothing beats real world though.
I understand where your coming from but numbers speak and geekbench and vray also do.