[Benchmark results lower than expected]

OK.

Thats new "territory" for me. (Dual Xeons), so I didn't think of that kind of situations.

I was expecting my system to be faster than a lower Xeon in every possible situation.

But as I see now, thats not true.

 

Anyway thanks for your time.

[Benchmark results lower than expected]

In ZLib Hash Julia Mandel and SinJulia I am faster

 

So that means that these benchmarks are more Core friendly, right?

[Benchmark results lower than expected]

Hmmm. Strange

So I had bad luck that chose 2690 over 2680 (10 cores)?

 

Very weird.

 

Because I know that I get the maximum MHz boost per core for my CPU (3100MHz)

Thats why I believe that the 1st case is not possible to be the answer.

[Benchmark results lower than expected]

I did the change to 20 cores.

In Queen I went higher in score 155764

but in PhotoWorxx I went lower 49783

In VP8 I went higher as well 7667

 

I want to add that in PhotoWorxx that the score when I have 24 cores (the normal ones) is between  50160 - 50400 and I dont why I wrote 56419 yesterday.

So the change to 20 cores pushed the score a little downwards.

[Benchmark results lower than expected]

My PCs spec is the following:

 

Dual Xeon 2690 V3 (2600MHz)

64GB RAM (8x8GB) (2133MHz)

ASUS Z10PE-D8 WS

Corsair 1200W

Quadro K4200 (Primary)

Titan X

 

 

As I expected my scores should have been higher than the Dual Xeon 2660 V3.

 

But of course are lower in some benchmarks

 

                                              MINE (Dual Xeon 2690)             Dual Xeon 2660

in CPU Queen                                  120220                                  147245                                

in CPU PhotWorxx                              56419                                    62186

in FPU VP8                                          6045                                      6650

 

 

I have tried many installation of Win 8.1 and Win 10

 

I have even changed the motherboard to a SuperMicro DAi and I got almost identical results + 1-2% faster due to less lag in memory and plus 1MHz more in Bus

Thats it.

 

Why is that?

2 Different motherboards many installations of Windows 8.1 or 10 and still behind the 2660???

[AIDA64 detects Dual memory channel instead of Quad]

My PC spec is

Dual Xeon E5 2690 V3

Asus Z10PE-D8 WS

8x8GB Kingston

Corsair 1200Watt

Gigabyte Titan X

 

Today I install another 4 memory dims (till yesterday I only had 4x8GB RAM)

 

These would make my system run on Quad memory channel.

 

CPU-z correctly detects Quad Channel (till yesterday detected Dual)

 

But in AIDA while I have better scores in the memory benchmarks (almost double score) still says Dual Channel

 

Is this a bug or what?