Originally Posted by superstition222
I've heard that it's a better measure of FX performance than Cinebench because it's not so singularly focused on FP performance. I just don't know how much of a margin of error it has between runs.
That's one of the reasons I like Passmark, personally, even if it is synthetic. Gives you a measure of everything, then a final 'consolidated' score.
I can run the CPU-Z bench if you'd like. I have the program, just didn't know they had a benchmark now since I never went looking for one since they'd never had one.
I'll just edit the score into here.
Edit: That benchmark went faster then I thought.
Pretty good amount above the stock i7-6700K Haswell in multi. Which is weird still I think since the 9590 is just below the it supposedly.
Just below the stock i3-4130 Haswell in single. Also with the 9590 being way down the list there below the i5-3350.
I'm seriously scratching my head of why I'm getting such better scores then baseline 9590s.
Really just isn't making sense to me right now.
Edit 2: I reran it a few times. Single thread seems to have an error of about .005% between runs. Multi thread is an error of about .01% between runs.Edited by BulletBait - 10/7/16 at 2:38pm