Check the so called threadripper cinebench score…
1,147… something must have been seriously wrong with their machine to get a score like that, even an r5 1600 blows past that.
Also Geekbench multithread scores are WAY off what threadripper usually scores.
Don’t know if it’s bias or incompetence but will be avoiding that website from now on.
Reddit was losing its collective mind.
And yeah, it’s pretty awful. No one who knows that Cinebench exists should be expecting such a miserable score from any 16-core CPU without realizing something is way wrong.
I should have known this would already be all over reddit
As I said though, either from bias or incompetence their name is now mud
From the comments on the /r/amd thread about this
Compared to TechRadars i9 results for the same at:
They fucked up hard somehwere.
Without even diving into the obviously wrongly performed tests, what the fuck is this testing sweet.
“Yeah okay so time to do threadripper v i9 testing, what tests should we do?”
“What about 6 tests relating to games, and 2 synthetic performance tests?”
“Yep sounds like a good test sweet for two workstation chips.”
Like fucking hell, how retarded do you have to be to think that THAT is an appropriate test sweet for those two processors? Threadripper and HCC I9 are more workstation chips masquerading as “gaming parts”, than they are the “best of the best” gaming parts. This is like comparing a Quadro against a FirePro in games, and using the gaming results to determine which is the better video card. Obviously, those are the wrong parts for that use-case, and the testing proves nothing as to which is better at doing what they are really geared to do.
My Geekbench 4 score is 4623 single-core, 25493 multi-core, 1700X at 3.95GHz.
So my little 8-core is within pitching distance of the i9? 
Even I don’t believe that… how’d they screw this up so badly?
They also are claiming that the i9 is cooler and uses less power because it has a lower TDP.
This is seriously a joke.
No wonder comments are disabled
They were probably messing around in the BIOS or Ryzen Master and accidentally disabled half the cores or something.
It’s pretty clear they have no idea what they are doing lol
Oh yes, this is incredibly clear. Plus I would guess that Geekbench doesn’t scale very well. My score is really close to the TR results from Reddit too. Might as well run Skydiver while I’m at it.
Cinebench R15 just pulled a 1740.
Geekbench doesn’t scale very well at all. It’s a pretty poor benchmark tbh. Not sure why people even use it
Sky Diver:
Graphics score - 77098
Physics score - 18492
Combined score - 30378
So the TR physics could be right on, but since they give no details about which score they used when they should have provided all three or at least a clarification…
I had a read through this on the way to work… apparently techradar disabled comments.
Again you could read a lot into that, e.g
either
“oh its a tonne of abuse from amdtards, salty over the ‘tie’ score, disable comments”
e.g just blatant disregard
to journalist realising he done goofed and trying to do damage limitation before his editor finds out
to the worst one… techradar is aware of everything and is just letting it stand for whatever reason.
really not happy about that article as tech journalists have a lot of power when it comes to influencing purchases
They’ve changed the numbers now, but they’re still crappified.
Hah
Whole thing stinks.
… I honestly don’t know why that article annoys me so much, although I am a fan of amd I am not what I would consider a screaming fanatic.
I think what bugs me deep down is even when you do everything right and release an awesome product you can still get torpedoed by muppets like this, and whether or not its malicious or stupidity it doesn’t matter… the damage is done.
Peope who read the article initially arent going to go back and re-read that article to see if the numbers changed… their perception of this product has already been set.
Also his text at the end needs amending
e.g the
at-best 50% performance increase worth a 70% price premium?
More like 5% to 10% more
They are still pretty far off even basic user testing figures where the user was running other stuff at the same time and still scored higher.
So their figures are still all messed up, but now they are claiming no fault and that it is accurate while they talk to AMD about it.
The entire article needs to be scrapped, retested and rewritten, correctly this time. Maybe they should contract out testing to people that actually know what they are doing.
I was losing my mind to see a 6-Core CPU match the 16-Core CPU of the same architecture when it’s obvious which one is going to win in multi-threading.
The really dumb part is that they claim AMD runs hotter and uses more power when Threadripper is by far more efficient than Kaby Lake X, and Kaby Lake X in terms of efficiency is actually a regression from Broadwell-E, it’s like when AMD went from the Phenom X6 to Bulldozer.
I mean I’ve been avoiding TR for years ever since NV paid them off to say the 480 was a good card. The only reason I know why that card was shit is because a friends machine actually caught fire.
Hmm yeah those numbers look kinda weird.
But i guess that there will be more sources available soon.