Don't you think it means the number is probably fake?

Before the release and subsequent independent testing the trust in any exceptional results should be very low.

But those independent tests are inevitable and probably right at or right after launch. Does AMD stand to gain anything by falsifying test results that are (relatively) easy to fact check independently?

I mean, no one should lose their minds over it right now or anything, but it seems impressive. I certainly don't see an upside to giving bogus stats right now.

It's not AMD giving these stats. It is some random website on the Internet. They might simply be seeking attention.

Geekbench has been around for a while and is considered reputable.

Geekbench does not do the testing themselves, they only publish your score that you run on your machine.

I trust Geekbench, but the article is not theirs either.

I'd be more likely to believe Geekbench is just a terrible, broken benchmark than anything else.

An Epyc 7501 (32c/64t) apparently only gets 17k multicore score on geekbench under windows: https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2141

Which is hilariously wrong. And if you think that's some quirk of Epyc, well, same CPU gets 65k when run under Linux: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/10782563 So clearly there's a software issue in play. Maybe this is related to the new Windows scheduler change. Maybe geekbench just has some pathologically bad behavior. Who knows.

So yes we should wait for release & independent testing before getting too excited, even if that's just so we get numbers from something other than geekbench.

Geekbench exposes some strange behaviour around the memory allocator under Windows. On systems with more than 8 cores Geekbench spends a significant chunk of time in the memory allocator due to contention. This issue (at least to this degree) isn't present on Linux, so that's why Epyc scores are much higher on Linux than Windows.

There is a windows scheduler bug that affects epyc cpus.

https://m.hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/126440-amd-working-microso...

The memory path for current/prior Threadripper is a pretty well known issue, and likely the cause of the disparity. It may or may not have been an issue in other types of workloads. The new memory path is more consistent, slightly slower than best case for prior gen, but huge leap forward for Zen 2 considering the better handling for higher clocks on RAM.

AMD have the benefit of process shrink, architecture improvements, and no NUMA this time.

I find myself drawn to these new chips and news, but you're absolutely right - we need to be skeptical here. But I really want to believe. Either way, I wont be ordering until I see a lot of real 3rd party benchmarks.

The old Threadripper 2950X can get up to 46908 with a little bit of memory overclocking, here it is with DDR4 at 1600 Mhz, a modest +9% over stock at 1466 Mhz: http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13400527

This Ryzen 9 3950X scores so high because the memory is heavily overclocked by +29%, see my other post in this thread.