Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom\u2019s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards. ","collapsible":{"enabled":true,"maxHeight":250,"readMoreText":"Read more","readLessText":"Read less"}}), "https://slice.vanilla.futurecdn.net/13-4-19/js/authorBio.js"); } else { console.error('%c FTE ','background: #9306F9; color: #ffffff','no lazy slice hydration function available'); } Aaron Klotz Social Links Navigation Contributing Writer Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.
Notton Alternate title: Geekbench 6 is a worthless benchmarking tool and no one should use it or listen to what they say Reply
Neilbob Notton said: Alternate title: Geekbench 6 is a worthless benchmarking tool and no one should use it or listen to what they say But what else are people going to use to define wildly unrealistic performance narratives? What other tool are certain large corporations WILDLY invested in? Reply
usertests Notton said: Alternate title: Geekbench 6 is a worthless benchmarking tool and no one should use it or listen to what they say I always prefer other benchmarks, particularly PassMark as a quick synthetic comparison, and actual games to show the benefits of bigger L3 cache. However, it's not great that Intel's very short list of iBOT-enhanceable games/apps includes a benchmark that people expect to measure the CPU's performance. Maybe it's not really benchmark cheating to use iBOT, but if it works with 0.01% of games/apps instead of say, 80%, it's creating false expectations. On the other hand, if Intel is going to diligently update iBOT to work with new and CPU demanding games in the coming years, they are giving their users access to free performance and efficiency. So let them cook. Reply
Geef Easy way to resolve the problem when you benchmark. As long as it doesn't take much time to convert the EXE file, just make two copies of the benchmark and then tag the Excel data sheet with a check box that says iBOT. The amount of time it took to write their article was probably enough to get all of the above setup. Unless… maybe if they were never trained in Excel and don't know how to insert another column… 😮 The horror! Reply
ejolson A useful benchmark should produce a verifiable result that can be checked to verify the expected calculation was performed in the measured time. I actually thought that's what Geekbench did and would be surprised if it didn't. In other news, since IBM introduced the System/360 in the 1960's processors have not executed the instructions generated by the programmers and the compilers. A micro-op instruction cache, branch prediction, register renaming and speculative execution can also increase performance. Reply
cknobman If iBOT optimizations have to be implemented by Intel for there to be any benefit then when looking a processor performance compared to competitors IT IS USELESS. And it would be disingenuous for Intel to optimize for iBot in Geekbench specifically and claim those scores are valid. Right now iBOT seems like a neat marketing pitch and has potential. But the reality is without Intel making optimizations for the applications it will be worthless. See the issue with that? Reply
TerryLaze cknobman said: If iBOT optimizations have to be implemented by Intel for there to be any benefit then when looking a processor performance compared to competitors IT IS USELESS. And it would be disingenuous for Intel to optimize for iBot in Geekbench specifically and claim those scores are valid. Right now iBOT seems like a neat marketing pitch and has potential. But the reality is without Intel making optimizations for the applications it will be worthless. See the issue with that? They don't need to make optimizations, the CPU does that by itself, they have to make sure though that what the CPU does isn't complete nonsense that will get your system bricked and kill all your data…see the issue with that?! That's why they only allow the titles they have tested enough to be sure about (and still give you an off/on button just in case) . Reply
usertests cknobman said: If iBOT optimizations have to be implemented by Intel for there to be any benefit then when looking a processor performance compared to competitors IT IS USELESS. I honestly don't think it's useless if they optimized, for example, 10-20 more CPU-intensive or popular titles every year. A small percentage of games are getting a majority of the play time. But if that's what they're forced to do, I don't trust that they will keep it up for a long time. They should also enable it by default for these titles if possible. If it's considered cheating for reviews, reviewers could consider turning it off or picking more obscure games to test. Reply
Key considerations
- Investor positioning can change fast
- Volatility remains possible near catalysts
- Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows
Reference reading
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/SPONSORED_LINK_URL
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/geekbench-6-warns-about-inconsistent-benchmarking-performance-from-new-core-ultra-200s-plus-chips-says-intels-ipc-boosting-binary-optimization-tool-modifies-scores-in-unclear-fashion#main
- https://www.tomshardware.com/subscription
- Start your AM5 build off right with an incredible deal on a Ryzen 9 9900X processor — get $185 off and walk away with the centerpiece of your new or upgraded PC
- Air Liquide opens Taiwan factory as helium shortage tightens around chip makers — 200 specialized helium containers stranded near the Strait of Hormuz
- Class action alleges Nvidia hid more than $1B crypto-GPU income within its gaming revenues — investor lawsuit concerns business spanning 2017 and 2018
- Into the Omniverse: NVIDIA GTC Showcases Virtual Worlds Powering the Physical AI Era
- CanisterWorm malware wipes Iranian machines for no apparent reason — sophisticated attack spreads through npm packages and uses ICP canister as control surface
Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.